[RyanMcE]

Dang. I was having so much fun, and then someone levelheaded like zzyzx comes along reminding me that I really shouldn't be flaming people even its its fun for a little while. I'd like to thank him for his valiant efforts to defend me. But I already spent the time to reply with this ludicrous message, so I thoughtI would post it anyway, after makng a few changes to take out the purely inflamitory parts.

Once again, people, realize that this is just writing. It won't bite you or change the way you have to think. On the other hand, I hope it changes the way you think anyway, becuase I have a legitimate point here even if some people fail or refuse to see it. And in case you don't like reading between the lines, the point is that FIRST, seems to foster a culture where inconvinient rules are ignored by teams and referees. I provided multiple real-life examples, the most brazen of which is the 2002 tether issue, but this 2004 bully issue I think is another form of the same fundamental problem.

In the mean time, I have put my repuation on the line by being inflamitory from the get-go (just read the first post and see how many replies there are to it in under a day). But it seems that this was a pretty good tool to get people to provide real responses to the issue instead of some goofed-up edited-for-content don't-offend-anyone replies. It was also instrumental in helping me get over the pent-up emotion from the loss (I tend to carry this stuff inside). So I'd like to thank those of you who put up with it, and ask those of you who can't see past a little bit of biting commentary to take a chill pill.

All I ask (as you continue to degrade my reputation for posting this) is that you don't hold this against my team (zzyzx is a much better example of what our team is like than I am) and to hold everything I say or do solely against me. If you can't do that, then a little bit of introspection might be a good idea.

And finally to team 469, its drivers, coach, and mentors: I'm sorry that I felt the need to say such things about you, but that doesn't change the fact that I felt the need, and it doesn't change the fact that I will remain outspoken when I think I see a need for improvement. You guys had what was clearly an excellent game plan, as evidenced by how far you got in the finals. But that doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion, your team and other teams like yours used FIRST's reluctance to enforce inconvient rules to your unfair advantage. While many teams like ours took off us took off sharp spikes, and took pains to avoid damaging other robots, you guys consistently vigorously interacted with other robots. In fact, you bent our arm in the match we played against you. This is fine and dandy. But when your agressive play leads to something like entanglement, I think the rules should be enforced. When the rules are not enforced, or are enforced inconsistently, the entire legitimacy of the rules are called into question, which I feel is not a good thing for FIRST in general.

Now, on to the post which I was replying to:

Originally Posted by JVN

First off,
I do NOT appreciate having PRIVATE comments I have made, posted publicly.

Then don't leave the comment while degrading my very public reputation. Everyone can see that, so why shouldn't they also see your reasons for marking me down?

Originally Posted by JVN

Secondly,
I'm not ignoring the problem.
I watched the matches you specified, and I feel the same way as Chris Hibner. If we saw it that way, there is a dang good chance that is how the refs saw it. So that is how they called it.

I agree, if the refs had seen it another way, they would have made the correct call. But that doesn't make the way you and Chris saw things is more legitimate than the way I and others saw things.
In fact, I believe that your continual refusal to acknoledge that inconsistent enforcement and total unenforcement of rules throughout several years is ignoring the problem.

Originally Posted by JVN

Remember, ref calls and interpretation are FINAL.
You have now attacked 469. You went as far as saying they didn't deserve to be in the finals. Now you're whining about some negative rep?

I remember. What I said about 469 is more or less that, in my opinion, their play was malicious. Its quite possible that I am wrong, I am not a mind reader and 469 vehemently denies any wrongdoing of this sort. But their pleas of innocence bring to my mind a driver of a tank who crushes a pedestrian trying to cross a road and then claims he was merely trying to stop the pedestrian from getting to the other side. So what if you didn't mean to entangle? Nobody means to entangle, because it results in disqualification. Just as noone tries to do out of bounds, because that too results in disqualification. But what 469 did do very purposefully was put its claw into a place that caused what was clearly entanglement. What I am saying, and what no amount of calls for me to retrat my statements will do, is that if I had been a referee, I would have called this as entanglement on 469. And the failure of the referees to do this is what I consider to be a bad call. Clearly there are differing opinions on this, so why much you call for me to retract a very valid statement?
And I'm atually excited that this post is getting so much attention, even if it casts a negative light on me, because some people at least are realizing that there is a problem, and that is more important than some clicks on a check mark.

Originally Posted by JVN

I've gotta say, I saw a lot of difficult calls being made, and overall I was VERY happy with the officiating this weekend. I thought the refs were absolutely AWESOME.

I'm happy for you. As for myself, I didn't have any problems all the way through qualifications with anything I saw, including our match against 469. But to say that because the problem isn't universal it isn't really a problem is just another way of ignoring the problem.

Originally Posted by JVN

I was also very impressed with 469, and the quality of their drivers and strategy. I think they earned every W they got.

Then clearly you don't agree with the math of 35+50-10=75. But yes, they built quite a fine robot. In the words of one of our drivers, it did everything that out robot did, but better....
UPDATE! According to a new post by someone more knowledgeable than I, the decision to deduct 10 points was reversed, so the final score was indeed 85-80 with our alliance on the lower end. Of course I guess this means referee decisions aren't really final, unless its convinient for them to be final. Which is another indication of the root problem. FIRST seems to encourage the selective enforcement of convient rules. Since this is the case, why not drop the pretenses of having those rules in the first place and let all teams compete on equal grounds instead of having some teams back off for fear of a reprisal that will never come, while other teams, well aware that an inconvient call won't be made, goes ahead with a strategy that is against the spirit of FIRST.

Originally Posted by JVN

I watched the video of the matches you speak of.

So did I.

Originally Posted by JVN

Based on these things I've gotta say... you're WAY off base in your post. You should consider immediately appologizing to team 469, and the Galileo Referee crew.

I appreciate the volunteers that make FIRST happen, including the referees. But once again, you are fishing for additional ways to ignore the problem. A bad call is a bad call if it is made by a veteran professional basketball referee or a first-time volunteeer FIRST referee. I don't hold any gruge or ill-will towards those that made the call. What I am looking for is a change to the system that encourages referees to look the other way when it is convinient, like in 2002 with tethers, and this year with tipping and, apparently, entanglement. I will not apoligize for saying things the way I see them, an I would not expect you to apoligize for calling me "WAY off base" either, since that is your very legitmate (if wrong) position.

Originally Posted by JVN

John

~Ryan

P.S. - Since you requested it:

In another couple unabashed lowerings of y very public reputation, JVN wrote: "Feel free to post this publicly: I do NOT appreciate my private messages being made public, and will negative rep anyone who does. Have a nice day."
And in a similar incident, 2000vfr800 commented "Post this..."
Finally, Mike Soukup summed it up well by saying "posting private messages in a public form = no class, shame on you". For future reference, Mike, that comma should be a semicolon.