Go to Post This is an Internet forum- if you want to relax, sit next to a pool and sun bathe. However, the rest of us will have a mature discussions and debates on the CD forums. - MikeDubreuil [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Regional Competitions
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
View Poll Results: What should have been the call at the Cleveland Regional semis??
Replay the second match (what happened) 27 40.91%
No Replay, alliance #6 wins 30 45.45%
Replay both matches 7 10.61%
flip a coin 2 3.03%
Voters: 66. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 12:20
Nicolas Nicolas is offline
Registered User
#0274 (Maniacs)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 2
Nicolas is an unknown quantity at this point
Question Did the refs make a good call in the semi-finals of the Cleveland Regional

This is what happened:

Seed #2 (835 - 378 - 85) had won the first elimination match by a fairly large margin (~60 EP pts). In the second elimination round it was up to seed #6 (902 - 494 - 226) to make up the margin which is very hard to do this year because as stated elsewhere, if you are losing in the second round but won the first it should be your goal to stay off the ramp and eliminate any stacks that could be doubled for your opponents score.

What appears to have happened is that #85 didn't want to have autonomous code run (most likely in an effort to stay on the opponents side of the field and take out any stacks), but one of the FIRST event staff either accidentally or purposely stepped on the pressure mat for that team and activated the #85 robot. The match continued the martians defended a stack and made it to the top of the ramp and seed 6 had won by enough of a margin to advance. At this point seed #2 went to the judges to inform them what had happened, as they should have. The score was posted showing seed #6 as the winner but then it was announced of a replay of just match #2. It was VERY clear that the staff was unsure of how to handle this and be fair to both alliances involved. Match 2 was replayed and this time seed #6 won but not by enough margin to advance due to some quick thinking by seed 2 to stay off the ramp at the last second.

My question is this, if something like this comes up again on the second of 2 matches, would it be better to play both matches again or similar to what FIRST did and play only the second. I would argue that both matches should have been replayed to be fair to all involved. It is over now, while I was somewhat upset when we left, I do understand that it wasn't seed #2's fault either. After seeing the state of confusion that the event staff was in I would like to see at least something on an update if it happens again.

(from Matt Reiland's Post)

Was this the right call??? I think seed #2 should have got the refs attention right away (via the human player) by the ref doing this, it gave an unfair advantage to seed #2 because seed #2 would not have said anything if they advanced anyway.
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 12:32
Gadget470's Avatar
Gadget470 Gadget470 is offline
A Fire Outside
AKA: Brandon Joerges
no team (Alpha Omega)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 1,000
Gadget470 is a jewel in the roughGadget470 is a jewel in the roughGadget470 is a jewel in the roughGadget470 is a jewel in the rough
Send a message via ICQ to Gadget470 Send a message via AIM to Gadget470
I voted No. I also voted before I read through your post assuming I knew what happened.

I thought it was 85's error to have stepped on the pad, not FIRST staff. If it was FIRST staff, then 85 should have grabbed the attention of the ref, and not waited to see results.

Because they let the match play out, lost, then talked to ref's, I think they shouldn't have replayed. Would they have asked for a replay if they won? I highly doubt it. Would their opponent ask for a replay if they lost? I highly doubt that too.

Through the string of circumstances, I don't think it was all too bad that it was replayed, and would expect it to happen again (replay again), but I don't think it was a fair decision. But hey, Life's not fair.
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 13:13
DougHogg DougHogg is offline
Robot-A-Holic
FRC #0980 (The ThunderBots)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: S. California
Posts: 324
DougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud of
I would vote for replaying both matches.

My second choice would be no replay.
__________________
FIRST Team 980, The ThunderBots
2002: S. California Rookie All Stars
2004: S. California: Regional Champion,
Championship Event: Galileo 2nd seed,
IRI: Competition Winner, Cal Games: Competition Winner
2005: Arizona: 1st seed
Silicon Valley: Regional Champion (Thanks Teams 254 and 22)
S. California: Regional Runners Up (Thanks Teams 22 and 968)
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 13:32
eko7385
 
Posts: n/a
I'm on 226, and our team is upset with the ref call, but once the match played out there's nothing that could be done to be fair to both sides. I was thinking that one fair way to handle it would be to give both alliances qualifying points for nationals. Anyone else have thoughts on that.

[Edit] I talked with another student on my team who watched the video and he said it was the student that stepped on the mat. I'll have to go find a video and watch it myself.
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 13:37
meaubry meaubry is offline
volunteer helper
FRC #6099 (Knights)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Shelby Twp, Mi
Posts: 784
meaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond repute
I commend the staff at the event for doing what I thought was thr right thing to do. I'm assuming that the string of events was correctly communicated and that the human player from the team DID NOT step on the mat. I think in all fairness - the match should have been stopped as soon as it was discovered that an error by a non-team member had occurred (preferrably before the end of the match and before an outcome was determined). This was a tough call either way - I would have expected the same courtesy if a team was clearly ON the mat, and their autonomuos program wasn't turned on. I know that didn't happen - but it just helps me clear up how I feel about what did happen. All in all, I would like to commend the teams that eventually lost for not making a bad situation even worse. And I hope evryone learned something about the game, and the importance of getting the referees attention RIGHT AWAY. Like I said, too bad it couldn't have been stopped before the match was over.
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 14:07
Jim Giacchi's Avatar
Jim Giacchi Jim Giacchi is offline
Registered User
FRC #0041 (Robo-Warriors)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Warren, NJ
Posts: 178
Jim Giacchi will become famous soon enoughJim Giacchi will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to Jim Giacchi
If they wanted there robot to not do the autonomous code why didn't they just hit the emergency stop button?
__________________
Build first ask questions later.
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 14:11
Koko Ed's Avatar
Koko Ed Koko Ed is offline
Serial Volunteer
AKA: Ed Patterson
FRC #0191 (X-Cats)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Rochester,NY
Posts: 22,954
Koko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond repute
I thought 226, 902 and 494 got absolutely screwed.
__________________
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 14:12
MattB703 MattB703 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Matt
None #0703 (Team Pheonix)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Saginaw, MI
Posts: 233
MattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud of
Quote:
Originally posted by meaubry
...All in all, I would like to commend the teams that eventually lost for not making a bad situation even worse....
Thank you.
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 14:16
Koko Ed's Avatar
Koko Ed Koko Ed is offline
Serial Volunteer
AKA: Ed Patterson
FRC #0191 (X-Cats)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Rochester,NY
Posts: 22,954
Koko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally posted by MattB703
Thank you.
Yes.
I must commend you guys at showing true gracious professonalism in light of a very unfortunate situation. You guys truly showed what FIRST is about.
__________________
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 14:44
The Lucas's Avatar
The Lucas The Lucas is offline
CaMOElot, it is a silly place
AKA: My First Name is really "The" (or Brian)
FRC #0365 (The Miracle Workerz); FRC#1495 (AGR); FRC#4342 (Demon)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Dela-Where?
Posts: 1,564
The Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to The Lucas
Do nothing Automaticallly

If a team doesnt want to execute autonomous programing, they should have a switch to select an autonomous program that does nothing. This would eliminate any need for the human player to be on or off of the pressure mat. I dont trust that sensor anyway, cause I think it will malfunction at least once during competition. Day One I realized the need for multiple auto modes, for different routines, left and right and a do nothing routine. The selector switches for Geroni-MOE are on the Operator Interface and are stored into a variable each loop so when autonomous mode turns on, it reads the variable to choose the program. Plan ahead and a problem like this will not happen. The only reason not to step on the mat is if it is a last second decision based on human player box placement or something.
__________________
Electrical & Programming Mentor ---Team #365 "The Miracle Workerz"
Programming Mentor ---Team #4342 "Demon Robotics"
Founding Mentor --- Team #1495 Avon Grove High School
2007 CMP Chairman's Award - Thanks to all MOE members (and others) past and present who made it a reality.
Robot Inspector
"I don't think I'm ever more ''aware'' than I am right after I burn my thumb with a soldering iron"

Last edited by The Lucas : 09-03-2003 at 14:48.
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 15:26
Scott Duhaime's Avatar
Scott Duhaime Scott Duhaime is offline
Registered User
FRC #0226 (Hammerheads)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: troy,mi
Posts: 25
Scott Duhaime is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Scott Duhaime
First I would like to bring up the rules. In section 9.2 General Match Rules GM3 starts "ABSOLUTELY NO REMATCHES WILL BE AWARDED. FIRST reserves the right to re-play a match due to obvious catastrophic failure of FIRST-provided field materials or human error." The human error brings the point here. I don't think that there is no human error if the FIRST personal trigger the mat, but was it a catastrophic failure? I don't think so, it would be like a sports team asking for a rematch because they scored too many times. Definitely some thing was not right however the party that was negatively affected (in this case 902 - 494 - 226) should have the say as to a rematch. In football (one example ) if their is a pentaly on a play but the negatively affected team still gets a touchdown they have the option of taking the points or accepting the pentaly, it should be the same here. As for who step on the mat the way I saw it team 85's human player step on the mat when the FIRST personal came to close the gate and activated their own auto mode.

It should also be noted that 378 did not engage their auto mode in the first match but did in the second. This being different should not have allowed to happen since 494 auto modes did not work correctly and they were not allowed to fix it. the replay of the auto mode should have been identicle except that 85 was not engaged.

The rematch had no way of being fair after the first score was annouced. There was no way for 494 and 902 to be excited and perform their best after earning their way into the finals and having it ripped away from them, but 378 and 85 were give a second chance and most certianly were "pumped up" for the match.

Good job 494 and 902 I know we would of gone far.
__________________
It's hammer time
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 15:28
Scott Duhaime's Avatar
Scott Duhaime Scott Duhaime is offline
Registered User
FRC #0226 (Hammerheads)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: troy,mi
Posts: 25
Scott Duhaime is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Scott Duhaime
one more thing

if any one wish to review the matches in question their are on the web at http://robotics.nasa.gov/events/webcasts/buckeye.htm so go take a look and decide for yourself
__________________
It's hammer time
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 16:08
SharkBite
 
Posts: n/a
i have to say i think the judges did the right thing

the team did the right thing by playing out the match anyway and waiting until the end because there was always the chance that they would not be granted a rematch.... they definitly deserved a rematch though.... if thier autonomous mode was not meant to be activated and through the fault of FIRST it was and it affected the match then they deserved a rematch... it is true that quite often teams deserve rematches and they are not granted so they had no choice but to stay and play it out just in case

the way i see it, the first match was fair and square, so why replay that one? the second one obviously wasnt so they replaced it with a fair match... two fair matches, nobody should be complaining

i understand its dissapointing to the non advancing seed, but trust me it would have been much harder for the other team if they hadnt advanced due to something they knew was unfair..... and its takes a lot of the sweetness out of winning if your opponent aquired a handicap in the match (unless you induced it)...... i think anyone who has ever beat a team because they lost power or control or something along those lines will agree
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 16:19
eko7385
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by SharkBite
if thier autonomous mode was not meant to be activated and through the fault of FIRST it was and it affected the match then they deserved a rematch
There are two stories. One is the ref stepped on the pad and the other is the ref told the human player to and they did. Watch the video. I think the latter is true.

When their auton was activated they knocked nearly the entire pyramid onto their side, giving them the advantage. If they had won they would not have asked for a rematch.
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-03-2003, 16:43
eko7385
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Gadget470


I thought it was 85's error to have stepped on the pad, not FIRST staff. If it was FIRST staff, then 85 should have grabbed the attention of the ref, and not waited to see results.

If you go watch the tape it looks like it was 85's error
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:06.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi