View Single Post
  #175   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-03-2008, 09:11
waialua359's Avatar
waialua359 waialua359 is offline
Mentor
AKA: Glenn
FRC #0359 (Hawaiian Kids)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Waialua, HI
Posts: 3,324
waialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy View Post
For crying out loud... I turn my back on FIRST to go live my life outside of it for one weekend, and another blatant miscarriage of the rules happens at yet another regional.

I'm really beginning to wonder if this "training course" has actually had a NEGATIVE effect on the refereeing. In all my years of FIRST [since 2003], I have NEVER seen bad refereeing to this extreme.

The first really bad one I noticed was week 2 in the early part of Friday at NASA/VCU. They were not awarding hybrid points for line crossings other than the alliances finish line. Blatantly flat out wrong, as defined in the rules. No interpretation issues, no nothing, just plain wrong.

Interspersed is varying amounts of griping about G22, which while I think the rule sucks and needs to be changed, at least they're calling it properly.

Also, there's the Week 1 1519 incident with Speed Racer/Fezzik being deemed two ROBOTS, with no one ever defining the difference between a ROBOT and a MECHANISM. To me, the ROBOT Controller makes the ROBOT. Of course, theres an available counter-argument that its a robot CONTROLLER, and is thus attached to the ROBOT itself. This infuriated me, not because it in any way affected my team's outcome, but because this type of design was what I had always envisioned as the epitome of the intent of the 'interchangeable mechanisms, but must be within weight' rule, but never built anything like it because we have enough trouble making weight as it is.

Theres ALSO the Week 1 MWR incident with 16's BLATANT blocking autonomous against 1024 and 1114. It wasn't called, and it should have been, much less giving 1114 a yellow card for ramming. The fact that I disagree with the GDC basically outlawing any defensive anti-scoring tactics is irrelevant to the bad reffing regarding it. I think that "no defense" rules, specifically in autonomous where I would argue a large percentage of games are won and lost for powerhouse teams like 1114 and 1024, generate a very unbalanced game for experienced teams with a good autonomous mode.

Now week 3, SVR, blatantly wrong calls on trackball endgame scoring. The situation in question (red robot partially supporting blue ball) is EXPLICITLY set out in the rules, with a direct and plain ruling that the ball SCORES.

Now I'm likely to take some negative rep for this, but I don't care. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. When teams spend at least $4,000 to attend this event, pour 6 weeks of heart and soul, blood, sweat, and tears and whatever else into their robot, its not right/fair/just/whatever to arrive at a competition with sub-par officiating, much less be stripped of a regional win because of a blatant miscarriage of the rules. Being a volunteer is 100% NOT a valid excuse for producing shoddy work. Period. Lots of people say I'm being unfair to the referees, and that I should cut them some slack since they're just volunteers. News Flash: All the mentors of FIRST teams are volunteers too, and they need to know the rules as good or BETTER than the referees, since they are assisting in DESIGNING the robots to play the game. So don't give me that load of malarkey.

Go ahead, let the negative rep fly, and accuse me of being un-GP. I'm not afraid to stand up for what is RIGHT. Gracious Professionalism is a complex theory, but its right there in the name. Professionalism. Miscarriages of the rules, thats UNPROFESSIONAL. Unlike alot of CD-ers, I'm not afraid to make a statement that might be controversial. Just don't associate MY PERSONAL VIEWS as expressed in this post, and hold them negatively against the team I happen to be associated with. I can assure you all that my views would be the same no matter what team I happen to be a part of.

To the blue alliance I sincerely hope that FIRST ponies up an extra set of trophies, banners, and seats in Atlanta and awards ALL SIX teams the regional win, as its not fair to strip red of their victory because they made a mistake.
Well, I will be the first to say that your frustrations have validity.
At NASA/VCU where we attended, we indeed saw instances of what you are talking about. That is a an enormous error that affects matches. But overall, it was pretty fair referee calling.
Your point about our own teams has volunteers also is right on. When your mentor(s) help in designing a robot, we are expected to follow the rules 100%. Inspectors dont care about excuses. You get them fixed/modified or you dont play. Those are the consequences that the "volunteers" on our team must follow and prepare for.
The same must be said of referees. They must make sure they know the rules also. As humans, I can understand a missed call due to human error of not seeing it. But, to hurdle according to the rules done by two bots on one ball, or pass 3/4 lane dividers and get only 4 points, that's just outright a lack of understanding of how points are scored (my personal examples).

For those that feel that referees should be given slack with no gracious suggestions for improvement, what if the reverse comment was said?
"Why dont we just let robots play who dont pass inspection?" The excuse: Our mentors who help the students build robots are just volunteers. Give them a break.
__________________

2016 Hawaii Regional #1 seed, IDesign, Safety Award
2016 NY Tech Valley Regional Champions, #1 seed, Innovation in Controls Award
2016 Lake Superior Regional Champions, #1 seed, Quality Award, Dean's List
2015 FRC Worlds-Carver Division Champions
2015 Hawaii Regional Champions, #1 seed.
2015 Australia Regional Champions, #2 seed, Engineering Excellence Award
2015 Inland Empire Regional Champions, #1 seed, Industrial Design Award
2014 OZARK Mountain Brawl Champions, #1 seed.
2014 Hawaii Regional Champions, #1 seed, UL Safety Award
2014 Dallas Regional Champions, #1 seed, Engineering Excellence Award
2014 Northern Lights Regional Champions, #1 seed, Entrepreneurship Award
2013 Championship Dean's List Winner
2013 Utah Regional Champion, #1 seed, KP&B Award, Deans List
2013 Boilermaker Regional Champion, #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award
2012 Lone Star Regional Champion, #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award
2012 Hawaii Regional Champions #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award