Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

Good Evening-

While we were impacted one one of these this became a discussion with several other teams- and clarification, while final for the event, did not sit well.

Thus:

1) If a human player illegally retrieves an empty cell from the playing field by breaking the plane (-10 points) why is the cell not confiscated? Said player can still exchange the cell for a super cell- and thus is rewarded by +5 points should the cell be scored.

2) If a robot is DQ'd from a match at the conclusion for an illegal starting position or starting outside of the bounds, why are the points that the team scored not subtracted? (I understand the logistics of this one).

3) We watched a field reset because all 6 teams started throwing balls into the court at '3-2-1- GO' instead of the tone. No penalties were assessed (should have been -20 or -30 per side). Earlier in the day we watched 3 teams pick up 10 point penalties for getting a ball into the court at '3-2-1-GO'. Perhaps, in the future, this should be set up similar to a drag race- No announcer, just a tone.

4) Teams (forgive here) 145/1450/1405 (pick two) were playing on the same alliance. Team A was told they were being bypassed and could not touch their control station for some reason. Team B, having similar numbers, was the intended target of this statement by the field personnel and blithely tried to get their robot to go- while it just sat there. Thus two robots on the same alliance sat through the whole match. Instead of terminating the match immediately an offer of 10 points for the 'error' to the score of the next match was made... which was negotiated into a complete rematch. The other alliance still won... but this sort of case is not covered *anywhere* in the rules when a field communication error results in a non-play event.

5) Ahh- Battery Voltage. Our team was told that Control could not read our battery voltage and we would be 'bypassed' if it happened again- and we would not be allowed back on the floor to power cycle the robot nor would any of the refs undertake said action. After strong urging of the students to immediately open up a negotiation with the referees (we did not have a spare module) they offered to allow us to pass if the voltage was displayed on our DS. In all cases the voltage was displayed to the user- and in all cases the robot functioned correctly in all modes of the competition. There was never a repeat issue with the voltage. I re-read the cRio notes (lost the link just now) but 3.1.8? in the manual stated that there is a known issue with the communication just dropping out. Now, call me old fashioned, but when there is a known bug in this manner... shouldn't there be a bit more flexibility here?

This was an awesome game out there- I could not believe how the pits exploded to accommodate the extra 16 teams- it was great to have all of you here in Rochester. We really must do a home-exchange to help attract more teams... hotels are expensive!

Jason

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

How many of these are actual changes to rules mid-event (as the topic says) and how many are you thinking the rules should be different? I think there is a big difference between the two.

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

Because that's not how the game was designed. There's a lot of ways to violate the rules at some point in the empty cell collection process (throwing over the outpost wall, possessing multiple cells, breaking the plane of the airlock) and still come out ahead point-wise. The GDC are a bunch of smart folks, so I can only assume that they decided this strategy was acceptable, rather than that they're bad at math. (I'd speculate that they assumed the risk of not scoring the super cell would be enough of a deterrent.)
If a robot is in an illegal starting position, the match shouldn't start until the robot is correctly positioned. Are you sure that's why the team was DQed? In any case, it seems that you've answered your own question from a practicality standpoint. Another good reason is because the GDC made no provisions in the rules for removing points from DQed teams.
Yes, that should have been a penalty in both cases. Yes, the current system is a little confusing to players and referees alike, and mistakes will be made. Contacting FIRST directly to make a suggestion for improvement can't hurt.
Nobody should be offering anybody any points. That's a field fault, and the match should be terminated immediately and replayed. This has been standard operating procedure since forever, and is the only fair and reasonable approach. It's probably not in the rule book because it's not something teams should have to worry about... it's at the discretion of the head ref, based on input from the FTA and others.
I'm with you on this, maybe. If something field-side is malfunctioning, the match shouldn't be started until it's corrected. That being said, if your analog breakout is broken, then your robot no longer conforms to the rules, it needs to be corrected on your own time, and nobody has to wait for you.

In any case, I agree with John that this thread is more about rules you disagree with and bad experiences you had, rather than anything changing mid-event.

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

I think this was answered above, but the rules are designed that sometimes there are "loopholes" or choices you can make in order to benefit your alliance. Many teams may not agree that taking a penalty to go up a few points is really "GP", but if the rules dont disallow it, it is allowed. In this case, if your human player is a really good thrower, it might be worth the 10 point penalty to grab something just outside your box.

DQ and disable are two completely different things. Just because a student got excited and forgot to look at the tape on the floor, it shouldnt cost the entire alliance the points in all cases. Sometimes it does, but the rules are the rules, and they are judged a certain way.

If this is the match I am remembering, this is not actually the case. The match was replayed because the field failed at 1 second remaining, and the referees and scorers were waiting to hear the tone and didnt see the clock, so they couldnt tell when the clock stopped to tell which of the human player balls should/should not have counted. There was no fair way to just guess at it, so they had to replay it. If its not the same match, again the refs are human, what you observed may not be what they observed and they do the best they can. We have all had things "missed", or called differently than we would have. Its just a game at the end of the day.

In all my years in FIRST, field failures ALWAYS result in a replay of the match. And with the first part of this, again the volunteers are human, they are all dealing with an insanely new system, and FLR (as many regionals) had no way to have enough technical staff to support all of the issues. Our field ran INCREDIBLY smoothly given that the field crew was troubleshooting an entirely new system with NO help from NI or any of the other creaters of the system for most of the event. I happen to have heard about the majority of the relatively few field errors, and that one was a human mistake, so they replayed it. Its not a rule change.

My husband ended up playing tech support for a lot of the regional, and there were a LOT of code issues with teams. This is an entirely new system, both for the robot controls and the field controls. There were a lot of issues that were technically the fault of the teams (faulty code), but without a lot of controls or programming background, many of the teams might not have seen them. I know our programming team spent A LOT of time running around trying to help other teams troubleshoot and get things like this fixed as our programmers had spent an excessive amount of time pouring over the new system and working with the Beta setup & info. But speaking from running events, and having played "field tech support" myself, its hard to hold up an entire event to help one team troubleshoot an issue, sometimes you have to do the best you can and just move on. If its truly the team's fault, its not fair to let them reset, when all the other teams have setup correctly.

Maybe this is just because I know a lot of the people that were running the show and have a bunch of the inside scoop... but I think this regional was run very very well. The crew had some tough things to deal with, but they did everything they could to make the fair and correct calls. As much as I can tell rules were followed well and the field ran smoothly thanks to a lot of hard work. There are always a few hiccups, but thats normal. And it seemed like a lot of the teams were very very patient and understanding. Everyone knows the troubles we have all faced with the new control system and in my mind everyone was incredibly gracious in working with the volunteers and staff to help the event run well.

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

Ya we had a match where us and an alliance member would not move but there was no effort to redo the match :( But it seemed like once this started happening repeatedly to the same two positions, they started redoing matches

but at the same time...

"There were a lot of issues that were technically the fault of the teams (faulty code), but without a lot of controls or programming background, many of the teams might not have seen them." that is true also, esp, where we were, with watch dog, one second it would be fine the next it would be going psycho...

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

Regarding DQ for a robot not in the correct starting position.

It is the responsibility of the HEAD REFEREE to assure that all game elements and robots are in the proper starting position before the beginning of the match. The match will not begin unless all robots are properly aligned/positioned. It is impossible from the rules to be DQ'd for not having the robot in the proper starting position.

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

Hi Kim! (And others!)

I'm sorry- I didn't mean to imply the regional *wasn't* run correctly- I believe it was run with an excellent vision towards speed and efficiency in a trying set of circumstances.

As I said the only 'impact' (to us) was the cRio battery voltage issue- and it didn't result in a DQ or bypass. The tone of the conversation was that it was up to the students to prove their hardware was functioning properly- but they would not be allowed to do so by asking the ref to verify the voltage on the DS, nor would they be allowed any access to the tools to do so since they would not be allowed back out onto the floor once the crater was set. In fact the only way to test that the field couldn't read the voltage was to go out on the field- which was attempted at lunch but denied. That leaves the DS as the only indicator that voltage is being relayed correctly... but that the field was at fault. You can see the set of contradicting situations here I hope.

John-

I believe the field varied their reports on my points #3, #4. Just because the announcer was significantly early on GO with all teams offending is no reason not to assess the penalties. Touching the ball before the tone is a penalty (although I would argue that touching is not possession as referenced in G40A)
As for #4 there was 'hope there would be time for a re-match' as the official word. That was translated as "We're putting the schedule (<T16>) ahead of what is right". A mistake was made and until the very last match of the day there was still no idea whether or not a rematch would be performed. That acknowledgment of a field fault occurred yet the match replay was not a foregone conclusion.

Joey-
I'll admit your logic is superb here- but given the voluminous rules that detail nearly every situation- I'm surprised this isn't spelled out as acceptable. From what I heard of other conversations with the refs there was going to be a QA determination after the regional to decide if this was a legal activity. My point, albeit slightly rambling, was that in every other rule the teams are directly prevented from profiting from an illegal activity- with (this one) exception. You're right- it sounds like a loop hole.

Kim-
Wrong match. This one occurred during autonomous within seconds of 'go'- I think you are referring to one of the elimination bracket rounds... ?

I loved being there and thought everyone was incredibly accommodating in an ever widening set of problems. Inspectors caught problems and provided help with solutions. Volunteers found answers to tough problems. In the end even the most contentious point I had was played as a rematch.

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

I've already posted my thoughts here:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=154

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

I had a similar question about the official start of the match after DC. We also had a false start match. I asked around and it turned out in DC they were actually syncing Blair's (MC) "3-2-1-GO" with the start of the match. Thus Blair's "3-2-1-GO" was the de facto official start of the match.

Actually tone is not really "official" or synced either. Remember in previous years drivers had to go by the clock not the tone when stepping forward after auto. Since you have to wait a second to figure out if the clock is running it is a very poor indicator. Probably the best indicator (and most fair to the robots and auto programmers) is the lights on the alliance station wall. They go solid when the robots are enabled at the start of of the match. Of course blinking vs. solid is not a very clear indicator to humans.

Anyways, as long as they pick an indicator and are consistent about it is not a problem.

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

Teams and spectators at the Oregon Regional were certainly well-versed in field faults by the end of the competition. On the first day, we did not get anywhere near finishing the practice matches because it took anywhere from 10-20 minutes to get the field in proper communication with the robots between matches. On the second day, there were multiple replays as a result of field faults. One match (#24) was played at least 6 times by my count before an official result was decided. They eventually had to stop at match #40 and add 10 qualifications to Saturday to make up for the huge amounts of wasted time. On Saturday, everything seemed to be running smoothly through the qualifications, but when the elims came around, it field faults came back in full force. My team wasn't selected for an alliance (we are hoping to remedy that with a redesign by the time Seattle rolls along), but I believe that at least 3 of the quarterfinals were replayed, with one of the matches being replayed multiple times. I eventually left at about 4:00 because there was literally nothing going on for huge periods of time, and I don't think think that the quarters were even over by that time.

Sorry for going off on a little tangent there, but the replay was definitely the right thing to do in the case of a field fault. I don't want to start another thread or get yelled at for hijacking this one, but did anyone have experiences as ridiculous as the ones that went on in Portland in terms of the FMS and field errors described in that fourth point?

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

The false start in DC had nothing to do with any announcing. There was a field fault with one of the driver station e-stops that we thought we had cleared before starting, but quickly realized that he had not, so we killed the match and had teams reset.

I've always told teams to watch the clock for the end of autonomous and to not depend on audio cues.

Wetzel

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

I know it was a field fault not any fault of announcing. That false start was what brought up the question in the first place since many Moon rocks were thrown into disabled robots and no penalties were issued. Both teams and refs were going on the MC it makes sense that no penalties were issued. The Field at DC was the best I've seen this year, that was the only fault I remember. Great job Wetzel and the rest of the crew

Re: Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional
 

I agree that overall that FLR went very smoothly. However, I would like to add another one to the mix here.

6. During a match, we were on the blue alliance. One referee on the red alliance's side of the field waved a red flag about a minute into the match and pointed to the red human player within the red alliance station. The waving of the red flag and pointing to red human player were very clear. This same event happened again about twenty seconds later, indicating a second penalty on the same person. No blue flags waved for the match to indicate penalties on the blue alliance. The final score of the match was 60-60 before penalties. The blue alliance members were all fairly certain that the worst case scenario was that these red penalties were overturned and it would be a tie. However, not only were those penalties overturned to give the red alliance zero points in penalties, but the blue alliance was given 40 points in penalties. After the match, the explanation was simple. The referee who made the call against the red alliance "did not know the rule" regarding whatever he had given a penalty for. That's fine. Everyone is human. Live and learn. The 40 points in penalties assessed to blue, however, were all for the same thing. Our human player apparently reached his hand over the alliance station wall. He does not jump when he shoots. Human players out there know how truly tough it would be to stick their hand over the wall without becoming airborne because of the airlock right in front of them. Not only were these points given, any logic of "he cannot reach that far" was not looked into. We were told that because no other referee could overturn the call, it would stand. That's right... 4 penalties for the same thing without a flag being waved for something that was physically impossible for our human player. Some people also saw video evidence later in the day where it apparently "was not even close to a penalty". The worst part was that a referee was then standing right there the rest of the day to watch our human player. I don't care who you are, it is harder to perform well when someone is watching you the entire time. So I thought I would share that as personal venting for the regional.

Also, we were one of the teams which won the match you talked about in point 4. The teams were all very gracious and when you look at it from their point of view, it really is the only fair call. I am glad that it was replayed because that would be a horrible way for them to have lost a match.