[dtk]

Ok, first of all just so everyone knows the position I am speaking from. I was the on field coach for Team 469, but more than that I have been mentoring this team since 2001 after helping to start the team 2000. I have had a large part in determining the team philosophies and interpretations of gracious professionalism. While many people agreed prior to the matches about strategy we would implement the ultimate responsibility lies with myself. It is because of these things that I can’t help but feel as though any accusations of unfair play are directed at me personally. I will, however, attempt to leave those feelings out of my following statements.

There are, as I see it, two issues in question here. The first being what was the intention of our actions, and the second were the referees decisions correct given the situation? While I can only speculate on what led to the final referee decisions I can with certainty address our intentions. I also think only semifinal 1.2 is legitimately worth discussing, and that any negative perceptions about the first match have only surfaced based on the results of the second match.

It was, as many have pointed out, our strategy to cover the basket with the arm of our robot and a big ball. After we failed to get the big ball the decision was made to attempt to block the drop with our arm alone. We wanted to pull up square to the front of 93’s bot and use the arm to fold up the front flap and cover the remaining opening while at the same time getting our robot under the drop as well. Due to the visibility and time issues we didn’t get into our planed position and attempted to cover the basket from where we were. The intention here was one-dimensional; block the basket.

After the drop we attempted to lift the arm and back away. Only the arm was stuck and didn’t raise. Once we realized that the robots were stuck together we proceeded to “jiggle” both the base and the arm of the robot in order to get free. During this period of the match we were aware of 93’s precarious position and consciously avoided tipping them over. The intent during this phase of the match was again one-dimensional; get free.

It is my opinion that our intentions were at all times within the spirit of the rules, FIRST and of competition in general. I guess this is obvious but I would never endorse any actions that I did not feel were within the scope of acceptable play.

The question left is the referee decisions. A referee approached me twice during the semifinal match against the 93, 492, and 157 alliance. The first statement was in the first match regarding the damage caused to the mobile goal. I was told that we were initially penalized for damaging the goal, but that that decision was reversed because we were pushed (tipped over) into it.

The second was during the second match when the ref stepped into our driver area. He told me to back off, and take it easy. This was I think in reference to the appearance that we were intentionally holding onto team 93. I told him we were stuck and already trying to do everything we could to get free. Just a side note here, I’m fairly certain we were stuck on the flow control fitting on the pneumatic cylinder.

I wont speculate or question the referee’s final choice. All I can say here is that I respect the referee’s decision and the difficult choice they had to make, and that none of us wanted to win in such a way. I also want to thank the numerous posters who have respectfully discussed this issue and hope this helps to explain our point of view.

Daniel Kimura