View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-05-2012, 19:22
Craig Roys's Avatar
Craig Roys Craig Roys is offline
Coach - Team 1718
FRC #1718 (The Fighting Pi)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Armada, MI
Posts: 244
Craig Roys has a reputation beyond reputeCraig Roys has a reputation beyond reputeCraig Roys has a reputation beyond reputeCraig Roys has a reputation beyond reputeCraig Roys has a reputation beyond reputeCraig Roys has a reputation beyond reputeCraig Roys has a reputation beyond reputeCraig Roys has a reputation beyond reputeCraig Roys has a reputation beyond reputeCraig Roys has a reputation beyond reputeCraig Roys has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendanB View Post
The Q&A did but the game manual did not. As of right now (as far as I know) head refs follow the Game Manual NOT the Q&A. I'm saying that FIRST needs to establish that the Q&A should be followed as rules.
There was a slightly larger problem, and I believe it originated from the head field reset person (not sure what the official name is) and backed up by the head ref. After playing 3 matches on Thursday and 1 Friday morning with the balls being placed on the coop bridge where we expected (the same place they where they were being placed for the other 3 fields and the same place they were for all of the 3 other competitions we attended plus the couple competitions I went to to watch), the field reset crew and head ref decided they needed to switch it up. We have a hybrid mode that goes to the bridge to grab one of the 2 balls, then go back to the key to shoot 3 balls at the basket. After we set up, the balls were moved on the coop bridge to make it near impossible for us to get one of them; when we tried to realign our robot we were told we couldn't and that the balls were supposed to be "randomly" placed after the robots were set up. Nowhere in the rules does it state this. I also did not believe that they were randomly placed - it appeared they were purposely placed where we would not be able to get one. After the match we found the q&a questions and responses to show to the head ref - he refused to acknowledge them choosing to keep his interpretation. I continued to watch set up of the field for other matches. If no robot on the field had an obvious hybrid mode that went to the bridge first, the balls were placed in the same two center spots we became accustomed to. Whenever a team with a bridge autonomous such as ourselves or a couple of other teams were on the field, the balls were purposely (not randomly) placed in locations where the robot would not be able to get one of them. It was as if we were being punished for working hard to develop an auton that goes to the bridge to get a ball. We played 3 matches like this before the head ref was told from above that he needs to have the balls placed on the coop bridge the same as the other 3 fields. This is unfortunate considering we missed 2nd seed by 1 QP - granted, other teams were affected by it as well so it's hard to say if anything would be different. I find it appalling that this could happen at the FIRST Championship - there was, for whatever reason, a bias against teams with a bridge hybrid mode.

Okay, done ranting now...we had a great time at the competition, that part of it was just a bit frustrating.
__________________
2016 Waterford District - Semifinalists and Entrepreneurship Award Winner!
2016 Troy District - District Winner and Chairman's Award Winner!
2016 MI State Championship - State Champs with 27, 67, and 6086 and Entrepreneurship Award Winner!
2016 FIRST Championship - Carson Field Quarterfinalists


Reply With Quote