[slijin]

A long post justifies a long response.

Originally Posted by alex334

Firstly, the ranking system. This year's seemed to particularly wonky. At a regional as large as NYC, eight matches per team simply don't cut it. How can a robot's abilities be assessed fairly in comparison with the rest when it mathematically does not have the chance to play with/against every other team. A lot of luck seemed to be involved.

Luck will always be involved. Time will always be a constraint. Unless a better, viable alternative emerges, this is how things will work.

Originally Posted by alex334

I would propose a larger implementation of the district model. That seems to work a lot better and attract smaller amounts of teams.

The district model also requires a more expansive program, even more experienced and efficient volunteers, and stronger outreach than NYC offers. The unfortunate reality is that despite efforts to do so, we haven't been able to introduce NYC to the district model precisely because we don't have the resources to make the district model viable here.

Originally Posted by alex334

The large amount of penalties (I saw 120+ points scored on just penalties) also seemed to skew the rankings, especially when fouls were counted as goal/climb points. Let's face it, not everyone reads the rules. Why punish teams that do by dragging them down? Why not find a better way to rank based on individual performance.

Because teams shouldn't be ranked just by individual performance, but how they contribute to an alliance. That match you mention? We were on the receiving end of those penalty points; we won that match 10-165 because of those penalty points. Our very next match, we were partnered with the team that incurred those penalties, coached them so that they wouldn't do so, and went on to win that match as well.

Moreover, individual performance isn't exactly something you can judge quantitatively - e.g. how do you compare offense with defense? 3137 played fantastic defense throughout eliminations and were critical to our wins, but they didn't earn our alliance any actual points.

Originally Posted by alex334

Secondly, rules. In general, I liked the rules a lot. The ones that bothered me were those regarding penalties (this is going to be a common theme in this post). "Obstructing the flow of the game." What's that all about? It just sounds like defense to me, not to mention that it's extremely subjective. When does a good defense begin to obstruct the game?

IMO, its intent is to encourage scoring over blockading - that is, to encourage active gameplay and discourage anything that inhibits active gameplay. Maybe it's not a "fair" rule, persay; certainly, it is very subjective precisely because of its ambiguity, and makes defense harder, but it's part of the game. And when the game itself prevents you from executing a certain strategy, you work around it.

Originally Posted by alex334

Instead of creating rules like this, why not just create a game in which this is not possible? Instead of placing two obnoxiously large pyramids in the middle of the field, with either side being easily blocked, why not create a climbing wall and leave a wide open field? Maybe place a different, smaller element there instead.

It's not exactly a new rule:

Originally Posted by 2012 Competition Manual

[G23]
Robots on the same Alliance may not work together to blockade the Court in an attempt to stop the flow of the Match.
This rule has no effect on individual Robot-to-Robot defense.
Violation: Technical-Foul

Originally Posted by 2011 Competition Manual

<G48-C> ALLIANCE ROBOTS may not work together to blockade the FIELD in an attempt to stop the
flow of the MATCH. This rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-to-ROBOT defense.

Originally Posted by alex334

Which brings me to my final complaint. This exact bias in ruling occurred during the elimination matches of the NYC regional this year. (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29860861). Not only do I find this unfair, but it all of the refs seemed to disagree on what the large penalty was for.

This is an inevitable problem that will arise when making judgments with respect to ambiguous rules - that is why there's a head ref, so that there can be someone to bring a close to the discussion.

Originally Posted by alex334

I asked him to consider watching videos of previous matches in which I would gladly point out more extreme scenarios only a few matches prior which were not penalized.

You aren't the first, nor you will you be the last person to argue with this policy, which FIRST explicitly lays out in the manual:

Originally Posted by 2013 Competition Manual

5.5.3 Referee Interaction
The Head Referee has the ultimate authority in the ARENA during the event, but may receive input from additional sources, e.g. Game Designers, FIRST personnel, and technical staff. The Head Referee rulings are final. The Head Referee will not review recorded replays under any circumstances.

Originally Posted by alex334

If you could prove your point using the footage available, should that not count?

If the footage you use to prove your point offers a misleading perspective of the situation, should it count?

This isn't something our Head Referee decided on the spot. This is an enduring FRC-wide policy precisely, because as Sam explained:

Originally Posted by IndySam

There is no way that FIRST can allow video reviews of matches. The NFL spends millions of dollars on equipment and gives the head refs many different angles to review a call and they still don;t always get it right. There is just no way for FIRST to implement a fair replay system, period.

Originally Posted by alex334

He refused and told me to relax, because "it's just a game" and the refs are "just volunteers." Well, needless to say, the majority of us are just volunteers. I personally spent two weeks of my college vacation helping my team and countless hours on the bus to see the regional. He told me that we still accomplished the mission of FIRST, since we learned a lot. He then walked away.

I am completely disappointed with this attitude. It is unprofessional. It is disrespectful to everyone doing FIRST and their efforts. I'm still pondering what the lesson learned was for my team. That life isn't fair? Is that such a great message? I personally don't care about winning. I'm done with FIRST. I just want others to get the experience that I got without having such great hopes shattered.

Originally Posted by 2013 Competition Manual

T13
If a TEAM needs clarification on a ruling or score, one (1) pre-college student from that TEAM should address the Head Referee after the ARENA reset signal (i.e. PLAYER STATION LED strings turn green). A TEAM member signals their desire to speak with the Head Referee by standing in the Red or Blue Question Box, which are located on the floor at each end of the scoring table. Depending on timing, the Head Referee may postpone any requested discussion until the end of the subsequent MATCH.

That he even listened to you instead of turning you away, as he easily could have done, is gracious in itself.

And you're wondering what the lesson learned for your team was? The lesson was your build season. You guys pulled yourself together, harnessed your resources, and put together an amazing robot. During both a strategy meeting yesterday and a celebratory dinner tonight, the consensus was that you guys had the most competitive robot there. There wasn't a single person at New York that wasn't impressed by your performance. The way you got there - the little things you did, the changes you went through, the experience you gained - that's what you come away with.

We consider our Lunacy robot, Michael1, to be the best robot we've ever built, even though it didn't go to CMP (which was partly because of abstruse FMS issues specific to our programming that caused us to lose matches) - and the lessons we've gained from Michael's season have driven our success as a team. Virtually everything about how our team operates today - our build criteria and process, the importance we place on driver practice, the effort we put into scouting - is driven by the lessons we learned from Michael's year. And as the cliché goes, those lessons we learned that year - about the importance of simplicity, of implementation, of efficiency - extend not just to FRC but life in general.

That's the kind of thing you walk away with.