San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals

[Squillo]

I saw the last (second) finals match in the SD regional. The blue alliance won that match, and hence the regional (having already won F-1), because the red alliance got a tech foul that was announced as something like "human player deflecting opponent's ball with their ball". Could someone please explain? I thought a deflection was not a possession, so the human player didn't possess the opponent's ball. I didn't see what happened, so I can't judge it for myself.

Which rule was violated? Anyone know anything more about this 'game changing' foul?

If this happened the way I imagine, then it is clear that when a HP sees an opponent's ball headed for them, they'd better do anything possible to avoid touching it (with a hand or their own ball). But not step out of the box. Seems that could be difficult, but I intend to warn our HPs!

[EricH]

Please look at G32--that was called out on the webcast. The announcer also stated that the red ball was used by the human player to deflect the blue ball--which would indicate a definite violation of G32.

This is entirely separate from a robot Possessing a ball--Possession, in that sense, is a property that only Robots can have.

[David8696]

Originally Posted by EricH

Please look at G32--that was called out on the webcast. The announcer also stated that the red ball was used by the human player to deflect the blue ball--which would indicate a definite violation of G32.

This is entirely separate from a robot Possessing a ball--Possession, in that sense, is a property that only Robots can have.

As a lead member of the strategy team of Team 2485, I can tell you exactly what transpired (or at least what we could gather from the video and a number of eyewitness accounts):

Our human player was attempting to inbound the ball to 987. When he threw the ball to the robot, it bounced away, and ended up effectively "trapping" the Blue Alliance's ball. This was ruled as in violation of G32—"Strategies employing TEAM member actions to deflect opponents’ BALLS are not allowed"—incurring a technical foul on our human player. Similar events had occurred earlier in the tournament, and had been uncalled.

Suffice it to say that we were exceedingly upset by this ruling; but at the same time, we recognize that once the refs determine something to be the case, that's kind of the way it goes. It's a tough, tough pill to swallow, and one we're definitely not convinced was necessary, but at least we'll get another chance in Vegas. We just wish the final outcome didn't have to be decided either way by a controversial call.

EDIT: Just to clarify, there was no intentional—and certainly no "strategic"—deflection, possession, or contact of any kind by our human player with the blue alliance's ball.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Originally Posted by David8696

As a lead member of the strategy team of Team 2485, I can tell you exactly what transpired (or at least what we could gather from the video and a number of eyewitness accounts):

Our human player was attempting to inbound the ball to 987. When he threw the ball to the robot, it bounced out, effectively "trapping" the Blue Alliance's ball. This was ruled as in violation of G32—"Strategies employing TEAM member actions to deflect opponents’ BALLS are not allowed"—incurring a technical foul on our human player. Similar events had occurred earlier in the tournament, and had been uncalled.

Suffice it to say that we were exceedingly upset by this ruling; but at the same time, we recognize that once the refs determine something to be the case, that's kind of the way it goes. It's a tough, tough pill to swallow, and one we're definitely not convinced was necessary, but at least we'll get another chance in Vegas. We just wish the final outcome didn't have to be decided either way by a controversial call.

EDIT: Just to clarify, there was no intentional—and certainly no "strategic"—deflection, possession, or contact of any kind by our human player with the blue alliance's ball.

I hate seeing events end like this. I'd personally hate the ruling whether I was on the winning or losing side. I'd rather see the call made right, even if it made me lose. Glad to see your team being incredibly professional about a tough loss.

[David8696]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell

I hate seeing events end like this. I'd personally hate the ruling whether I was on the winning or losing side. I'd rather see the call made right, even if it made me lose. Glad to see your team being incredibly professional about a tough loss.

The W.A.R. Lords appreciate your sympathy. Again, while we're certainly extremely upset with the result of the call, we're almost more concerned with the fact that the scenario arose in the first place: that is, that a match, particularly one as crucial as the final, was decided either way by a controversial refereeing call. It seems ironic to me that a robotics competition would come down to human error, which is precisely what the field of robotics attempts to prevent...

[Hayes92107]

All who read this,

While the foul calling is somewhat subjective, this is a VERY difficult game to ref and yes, when you watch it knowing what is happening, your view is swayed by previous perceptions. Have someone impartial watch it after being explained the rules, and they would likely have come up with the same call 50% of the time.

Teams will learn from these lessons and apply them to future actions, just as pro athletes do every game.
Keep in mind these are not NFL refs who spend there lives getting to know their respective rules.

Sometimes the call goes your way, and sometimes it's against you. Just remember, winning is a minute goal of first, otherwise we would have high-paid refs as any professional sport, it's the journey that counts.

John Hayes
Mentor for the WARLords Team 2485

P.S. Based on my GoPro video, the ball was being inbounded to 2485 when 330 tried to pass our robot to get into scoring position and the ball bounced off the blue ball that was within the passing robot (incidental contact, ie bad luck)

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by Hayes92107

Have someone impartial watch it after being explained the rules, and they would likely have come up with the same call 50% of the time.

Just saying, so will a coin flip.

I think the problem with this game isn't quite so much that it's difficult to ref (although it is), but that a refs mistakes can be so costly to the teams on the he field. Almost no teams can make up a 50 point deficit, especially against a good alliance. If a ref makes a mistake or what some would consider a bad call, it's essentially game over for any alliance which wasn't going to blow out the other alliance anyway.

Fouls exist to get people to play the game fairly. The current fouls seem to punish teams for stuff which may or may not be within their control. Imagine if tech fouls were 500 points. People wouldn't be any less likely to commit them. There's just no good reason for the fouls, especially tech fouls, to be this high.

[Hayes92107]

Like I said, bad luck.

Let this be a warning that when throwing in from HP, you better be going no where near the opposing alliance, just to be safe.

[Squillo]

OK, sorry about using the wrong terminology (re: possession) - you're right, that is for robots.

I guess what I was confused about was I didn't see, or hear any reference to, any "strategy" or "intentional" action, so I didn't think about G32 (which I thought required deliberate action). Since I didn't see any deliberate action (nor did I remember the ref using the word "strategy" or "intentionally" or '"deliberately" or anything similar), and didn't happen to hear the actual rule number (if it was called out), I thought the ref was referring to an accidental deflection (like the blue ball accidentally bounced off a red ball the HP was holding, getting ready to inbound). I guess that was what it was, but it happened AFTER the HP let go of the ball - not while s/he was holding it, getting ready to inbound. To me that seems even MORE off base, unless the HP deliberately threw the red ball toward the blue ball in an apparent attempt to move it. It is so hard to watch everything at once, but I didn't think I'd seen anything like that (or heard it called out during the match).

Anyway, having gotten it into my head (for the robots) that one team's ball accidentally bouncing off another's was OK, I was confused by the call. Now I see that it was apparently just a bad call. Bummer.

[pigpenguin]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Almost no teams can make up a 50 point deficit, especially against a good alliance. If a ref makes a mistake or what some would consider a bad call, it's essentially game over for any alliance which wasn't going to blow out the other alliance anyway.

Fouls exist to get people to play the game fairly. The current fouls seem to punish teams for stuff which may or may not be within their control. Imagine if tech fouls were 500 points. People wouldn't be any less likely to commit them. There's just no good reason for the fouls, especially tech fouls, to be this high.

I think this is the problem at the moment. The technical fouls are punishing teams way too much especially for what are, in most cases, accidents. However on the flip side if they are too small teams won't try to avoid them as much and possibly (although I know of no such teams) abuse these fouls... At the end of the day it sucks that this happens but game design is tricky and stuff happens. Although I would have loved to see one more round those final matches were intense.

[DanielleSisk]

Here is the logic I can see behind the foul being called:

It looks as though the human player is attempting to throw the ball to 2485 when it hits 330. BUT then 2485 never goes to retrieve the ball, they appear to play defense against 330 (as per the second video). 3250 actually ends picking up the ball in the last few seconds (as shown in the first video). This could lead the ref to believe that the ball was intentionally thrown at 330s robot and not intended for the following 2485 to inbound.

[mathking]

I watched both posted videos a bunch of times and it seems clear that the human player is trying to get his alliance the ball and should not have been a foul. But I will be honest when I watched the first posted one the first time (and mind you I could not see the human player) it looked like the ball was thrown at 330. So I understand how a referee could make the call. And not reverse it because they can't look at video. As quite a few posters have said, the high point value for inadvertent fouls is a problem. I think smaller point values would make for a better game. If you are really concerned with keeping play clean perhaps the point values ratchet up for multiple instances of the same infraction in the same match. One thing I think that would dramatically improve the game would be to have six scorekeepers, whose only job is to watch one team for possessions and scores. Then the referees could look just for fouls and not have a divided responsibility.

[Karthik]

Let me preface this by saying what an incredibly difficult job the referees have this season. They have too much to watch, and are working with sub-optimal input system. It would be difficult to find fault with any referee call this season, just because of the terrible position they've been put in by the written rules and Q&A.

Even if this was an intentional move, the fact that something so inconsequential was worth 50 points is mind boggling to me. From my vantage point, this seems completely accidental, and definitely not warranting a foul. I feel bad for both alliances here, the red alliance for having to lose due to a ridiculous penalty value, and the blue alliance for having their well earned victory being drawn into question. I also feel for the referees, who are in for a long season of being the focal point of match results. These overwhelming penalties for inconsequential actions are definitely marring Aerial Assist.

[wlaroche]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Let me preface this by saying what an incredibly difficult job the referees have this season. They have too much to watch, and are working with sub-optimal input system. It would be difficult to find fault with any referee call this season, just because of the terrible position they've been put in by the written rules and Q&A.

Even if this was an intentional move, the fact that something so inconsequential was worth 50 points is mind boggling to me. From my vantage point, this seems completely accidental, and definitely not warranting a foul. I feel bad for both alliances here, the red alliance for having to lose due to a ridiculous penalty value, and the blue alliance for having their well earned victory being drawn into question. I also feel for the referees, who are in for a long season of being the focal point of match results. These overwhelming penalties for inconsequential actions are definitely marring Aerial Assist.

Glad to hear that others see what kind of job the referees have this year. It takes all of Thursday just to learn the tablets while having to learn how the game is going to be played. There are two different screens that can take a couple of seconds to navigate between just to enter fouls, then a couple of seconds to navigate back so the can enter the points accumulated. While navigating the screens your eyes are off the field and things happen. When we look up situations can look like penalties and they get called. But we all would do our best to help each other out to make sure the points were added though, the radios are well used during the match for this and for penalties.

This is the first time in my history with first that game was designed to be this rough. When standing 4 feet from a demo derby of robots beating each other up situations can look like a foul. Please be kind to your referees all the crashing and hard hitting can make intent and who initiates the contact really hard to figure out.

Not knowing how your regional was played by the human players, it looked like the ball was thrown with some force wether to their alliance robot or at the blue ball. In our regional the balls were barely making it on the field because they were thrown in so passively all weekend (they did not want the technical for passing the plane). So looking at how the ball was thrown and the the fact that the red robot playing strong defense for so long before the ball was thrown, and little to no actions to go and pick the ball up after the blue ball was thrown towards the goal, I could see why the referees said the red robot was not playing the ball thus throwing the ball at the blue robot. It looks like the red robot was coming in to intercept the blue robot and pin them against the wall to stop there movement while the ball was thrown in the direction of the the scuffle, I say this from a referees perspective who was standing 4 feet from a demo derby all weekend.

[davidfv]

[quote=David8696;1355606]As a lead member of the strategy team of Team 2485, I can tell you exactly what transpired (or at least what we could gather from the video and a number of eyewitness accounts):

Is there video posted yet of this match?