[FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do

[MikeE]

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...ht-Thing-to-Do

The Right Thing to Do

Blog Date:
Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - 13:25
Last weekend, at the San Diego Regional, during the finals, red card violations of G18, that likely should have been called, were not. As I’ve noted before in this blog, I believe it’s the responsibility of FIRST HQ to ensure our volunteers are properly trained, and I also believe it’s the responsibility of FIRST HQ to ensure the rules are clear enough so that both our volunteers and our teams can easily understand them.

In the case of G18, we provided added clarity in Q223 in the Q&A in January, but did not reflect that added clarity back in the manual itself. I now believe we should have. For that, I apologize. I think the Head Referee would have been more likely to make the call had the rule been more clear. I also think the team that violated the rule would have been less likely to do so in the first place had they understood clearly they were risking a red card.

The red card situation happened in both final matches. If the red card had been called in the first match, it obviously would have changed the outcome of that match. I also think it’s likely the teams’ behavior would have changed in the second match in an attempt to avoid that situation again, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to attempt to absolutely predict what the final outcome of the best 2 out of 3 series would have been.

The following teams were involved in those final matches:

399, Eagle Robotics, from Lancaster, California, USA
3255, SuperNURDs, from Escondido, California, USA
2339, Robolopes, from Lancaster, California, USA
1538, The Holy Cows, from San Diego, California, USA
3476, Code Orange, from Irvine, California, USA
4486, Blue Prints, from Vista, California, USA
I apologize to these teams for this mistake. I can only try to imagine how hard this was to deal with. All teams have already qualified for the FIRST Championship, otherwise I likely would have offered Wild Card slots to the teams that had not yet been invited.

In yesterday’s Team Update, we added clarification, including an updated illustration, to G18, to help prevent this from happening again. Head Referees are being made aware of this update, and are being encourage to cover this in the drivers’ meetings.

I think it’s helpful to tell you what the Head Referee did at the event after he realized he had made a mistake. While it was too late to reverse the call or replay matches, after being shown the relevant Q&A and realizing his error, the Head Referee went to the teams involved after closing ceremonies, admitted he made a mistake, and apologized. This was “The Right Thing to Do”, and, I think, speaks to his character, in his willingness to take responsibility for his actions. I received an email from a mentor on one of the teams pointing this out, and indicating she saw this incident as an important life lesson for her team. The teams were still hurting after the apology, I’m sure, but I would bet this was a more positive outcome than it would have been if that conversation had not taken place.

I personally find asking myself “What’s the right thing to do?”, when presented with difficult challenges, remarkably clarifying. For me, it somehow cuts through the nonsense. The focus is on ‘right’ rather than ‘easiest’ or ‘justifiable’, and in many cases, the answer becomes more obvious, even if the execution remains a challenge. But, the salient point about the right thing to do is that it’s the right thing to do, no matter how hard it is.

Frank

[Anupam Goli]

Can someone please link to or give a recap of what happened at the San Diego Regional finals, for context? I thought the new team update's clarifications were in response to something, and I guess an incident at San Diego was the cause for the rule clarification.

[PayneTrain]

I think it's time to have a discussion about paying head referees and other key event personnel, at least at the regional and CMP levels.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I think it's time to have a discussion about paying head referees and other key event personnel, at least at the regional and CMP levels.

Why? Do you expect to create a professional referee crew in the hopes that are both more accountable and better trained? What do they do for their living the other 9 months of the year?

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Why? Do you expect to create a professional referee crew in the hopes that are both more accountable and better trained? What do they do for their living the other 9 months of the year?

I don't know what the conclusion would be, that's why there would be a discussion about it.

I have a lot of thoughts on the issue and a lot of issues in FRC but this may not be the thread or the right time in the FRC season to have a good discussion about it. I would hope that all key event personnel, already paid or serial volunteers hold themselves and each other accountable and are trained well, but multiple issues both publicly made known and behind the scenes would suggest that is not the case.

Also, FWIW, one of the best referees in professional sports,Ed Hoculi, has been a practicing attorney and an NFL Official for a quarter of a century.

[DCA Fan]

Basically, in the finals, there was a tug-of-war over the cans during autonomous. At the end of the autonomous, one alliance continued to attempt to get the can by reaching for the can over the step, but making contact with the portion of the can over the back of the step (and inside the opposing alliance zone). This was judged at the time to be within the rules as the can was in contact with the step, but this clarification now makes it clear that if the team attempts to contact the object beyond the range of the step, that would be a penalty.

That aside, the head ref for San Diego is someone I have known for years, and is an extremely dedicated volunteer for FIRST. He has always acted in the best interest of the teams, and in this instance, made a mistake due to vagueness in the official rule - I don't believe that paying him or training him more would have made a difference in this outcome. As an aside, he's also an attorney.

[George Nishimura]

Video of the San Diego Regional:

http://livestream.com/accounts/12224997/events/3935043

To see the finals video, scroll to the bottom for the "San Diego Playoffs and Awards" video. The two finals happen at approx 2:55 and 3:10.

[Jon Stratis]

Based on the other key volunteers here in MN... I don't think paying us would make any difference (not that I'd turn it down - one event is about 40 hours of effort for me!). Most of the key volunteers here do two regionals, states, and 1-2 off season events as it is - all extremely dedicated volunteers.

Mistakes happen. With a rulebook and game that goes through drastic changes every year, you're going to get some mistakes. With 400+ Q&A responses, you're going to miss something. That's the advantage sports like football have - the rulebook seldom changes, and when it does it's a relatively small change. So someone who has been reffing for years has a ton of experience with that game - here, many of our refs are seeing the game play out for the very first time while trying to ref it.

IMO, if we want to decrease mistakes, then we just need to get everyone more experience before the actual event. Something like formalizing the week-0 event schedule and getting key volunteers to those week-0 events to start calling stuff and getting experience.

[IndySam]

NFL, NBA and NHL refs get paid in the 6 figures, they make mistakes.

[Jon Jack]

Here's video of both finals matches so everyone can follow along at home:

Finals 1
Finals 2

As George said during both finals matches there was a tug of war between 4486 and 399. During Finals 1 they got locked up in a tug of war. This was strategic on our part, with the hope that even if 4486 didn't get possession of 1-2 of the cans, they would at least tie up 399 for a period of time, with 399's alliance losing one of their key robots while we lose our lowest scoring robot. During Finals 1 there was a can resting with the top half fully contained inside our landfill and the bottom half still over the step. After a battle for the can, 399 reached over the step and grabbed the can, through the hole at the top, and pulled it off the step. This can was later scored.

After Finals 1, there was no red card issued to the red alliance. We sent our driver to the question box to ask why there was no red card called. The head referee said "the can wasn't fully on our side of the step and it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the match". At this point one of our mentors, Rene Haro began going through the rule book while myself and Kiet Chau worked with our pit crew to get our second can grabber back on the robot (it broke in SF6, so in F1 we only had 1 can grabber). The rule as written in the manual was very ambiguous for this type of a situation. For example, prior to yesterday the diagram used to describe G18 did not have situation F and G. By some, this could certainly be interpreted as the object had to be completely on one side of the step for G18 to apply.

Between matches Rene Haro, a former mentor for and alumnus of 399 went to speak to 399's drive coach Dave Vorceck. Rene explained that he thought what they were doing was illegal and that he should go ask the head ref for clarification. Dave went and spoke to the head ref, who gave the same explanation as he gave to our driver.

During Finals 2 the same situation happened. 4486 and 399 got locked up in a tug of war, a can came to rest with the top half on our side of the step and the bottom half on the step itself. 399, now playing off the head ref's interpretation of the rule, grabbed the can from the top and pulled it over to their side and proceeded to score it. Again, no red card was called. Our driver again, went to the question box and asked for clarification and was given the same response he was after Finals 2.

At this point Rene began pulling up the Q&A and found the Q&A ruling posted by FRC364 back on January 21st which covered the situation we were seeing. However, by this point the step had already been pulled up and the totes cleared from the field. Rene took the Q&A ruling to the Regional Director who in turn showed it to the head ref. It was at this point that the head ref admitted he was wrong and that in both situations 399 should have received a red card.

This was obviously very disappointing to hear. As Frank mentioned in his post, the head ref apologized immediately after closing ceremonies. In fact, he was waiting for us in our pit right after closing ceremonies. Admitting your wrong in any situation is tough and something that most people struggle with, so I give him credit for this.

Does it hurt? Yes. Does it feel good? No. However, there is no one to blame in this situation. The head ref was making an interpretation off of a rule that was vague and not maintained over the last couple months. We've played with and against 399 many times over the years and I firmly believe that they were just playing inside the head ref's interpretation of the rule. Something most of us would have probably done.

When I wrote Frank about the situation a couple of days ago, I made it clear that we weren't trying to change the results of the event (not that that would ever happen), but rather trying to prevent this from deciding a district championship, a division or the world championship. It's unfortunately that we were on the wrong end of this, but at least it did lead to yesterday's update and hopefully this doesn't happen later on.

[BethMo]

It looked to me like 4486 should have gotten a red card in the autonomous period of that first match -- and yes, 971 in F1 at SVR the same thing. Both based on Q&A #29 and #226:

Q. If the actions of one alliance cause the other to violate G18, which alliance will be penalized? For example, if one robot from each alliance has a grasp on a container on the step and the blue alliance robot is pulled over the step by the red alliance robot while pulling on the container.
A. We can't answer your question as there are many different scenarios that could be in play. If the violation is momentary (i.e. the ROBOT is only momentarily in contact with that RECYCLING CONTAINER that is now on the opposite side of the STEP, but lets go quickly and retreats), then there's no violation and neither ALLIANCE is penalized. If, however, the contact is extended, the ALLIANCE with the ROBOT violating G18 will be penalized.

Q.In reference to Q29 and Q221 for two robots grabbing the recycling bin from the STEP: What happens if neither robot can be controlled by their drivers, in a situation like the Autonomous period? Would it be the same scenario as Q29, where the robot that is violating G18 would be
assigned a foul?
A.Yes, unless explicitly stated (e.g. a Rule is posted in Section 3.2.4 AUTO Rules), violations apply whether the MATCH is in AUTO or TELEOP.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by BethMo

It looked to me like 4486 should have gotten a red card in the autonomous period of that first match -- and yes, 971 in F1 at SVR the same thing. Both based on Q&A #29 and #226:

Q. If the actions of one alliance cause the other to violate G18, which alliance will be penalized? For example, if one robot from each alliance has a grasp on a container on the step and the blue alliance robot is pulled over the step by the red alliance robot while pulling on the container.
A. We can't answer your question as there are many different scenarios that could be in play. If the violation is momentary (i.e. the ROBOT is only momentarily in contact with that RECYCLING CONTAINER that is now on the opposite side of the STEP, but lets go quickly and retreats), then there's no violation and neither ALLIANCE is penalized. If, however, the contact is extended, the ALLIANCE with the ROBOT violating G18 will be penalized.

Q.In reference to Q29 and Q221 for two robots grabbing the recycling bin from the STEP: What happens if neither robot can be controlled by their drivers, in a situation like the Autonomous period? Would it be the same scenario as Q29, where the robot that is violating G18 would be
assigned a foul?
A.Yes, unless explicitly stated (e.g. a Rule is posted in Section 3.2.4 AUTO Rules), violations apply whether the MATCH is in AUTO or TELEOP.

This is going to pose a serious issue if there are can wars in auto, which have a strong possibility. At what point can a team design a breakaway mechanism that separates just as the can reaches a certain point on the field, while still having a strong enough mechanism to pull the can off the step in some type of tug of war?

And even in teleop, a grabber can easily become entangled when another team pulls a can. It's a bit late to require teams to redesign to fit this added requirement. (Remember these are HS students...)

[waialua359]

Oh no here we go again.
The rules need to be clarified further and clear.
Although this situation is different from the Hawaii Finals matches, the same rules were being read by both alliances as far as what was considered legal/not-legal.
As exciting as it was for both 359-610 in the finals, I can see it potentially getting ugly at Championships, if the rule(s) arent black and white. They are subjective at best, IMO on how a red card is issued.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by DCA Fan

Basically, in the finals, there was a tug-of-war over the cans during autonomous. At the end of the autonomous, one alliance continued to attempt to get the can by reaching for the can over the step, but making contact with the portion of the can over the back of the step (and inside the opposing alliance zone). This was judged at the time to be within the rules as the can was in contact with the step, but this clarification now makes it clear that if the team attempts to contact the object beyond the range of the step, that would be a penalty.

That aside, the head ref for San Diego is someone I have known for years, and is an extremely dedicated volunteer for FIRST. He has always acted in the best interest of the teams, and in this instance, made a mistake due to vagueness in the official rule - I don't believe that paying him or training him more would have made a difference in this outcome. As an aside, he's also an attorney.

Does this mean 971 should have gotten a red card in F1 of SVR?

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2015casj_f1m1

-Mike

[MrTechCenter]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Does this mean 971 should have gotten a red card in F1 of SVR?

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2015casj_f1m1

-Mike

I don't think so. They were already hooked onto the RC from autonomous and their arm looked like it was pulled across by 5027 rather than 971 reaching across to grab it.