[moderated] 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

[RyanMcE]

We never had the chance to go up against 494 and have our wires cut, but we did have to face 469 three times throughout the championship event, including twice in the Galileo semifinals.

Please take a look at this video. My question is, if this isn't purposeful entanglement, what is? Clearly, 469 took their hook into 93's basket and got it stuck. Even the announcer noticed the clear entanglement and talked about it. Yet no call was made. I noticed that on Galileo at least, very few calls were ever made.

I do not mind agressive play - I think it makes the game much more exciting. But those that play agressively have to accept the onsequences of their actions as well. Pushing is fine, but when you get entangled, your robot should be disqualified. If FIRST wants its referees to be respected, the referees need to respect the rules:

"<G32> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. Accidental tipping over of a robot is not considered damaging and may be allowed at the discretion of the referees. Intentional stabbing, cutting, etc., is illegal. If a breach of this rule occurs, the team will be disqualified for that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team being disqualified from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event."

Admittedly, I am bitter, and my views are biased - so let me know if you think 469 should have been disqualified in this situation.

Now for the next case study: Galileo Semifinal 1.1. Once again, going up against 469, and one again their agressive play takes out one of our robots. I didn't actaully see it happen (and the video fails to show exactly what happened), but I think it was a legitimate takedown (ie, unplanned, if not unintentional).

However, after the match (which ended with our alliance loosing by 5 points), I asked the referees if our oponents had any penalties, and was told that the oposing alliance had a 10 point penalty deducted. I was then amazed by the score, because that meant that they had scored nine (9!) balls, which was more than I thought they had. Well, after reviewing the video, the oposing alliance looks like they have only seven (7!) balls, plus the hanger, minus the 10 point penalty. This comes to 75 points to our 80. But instead, the reported score was 85 points to our 80. The penalty WAS NOT ASSESSED and the result of the match changed.

Furthermore, in that match, 469 destroyed one of the poles of a mobile goal. Please refer to rule <G25>: "If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal or damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal, that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified."

The question is, does the word intentional apply to both clauses or only the first? Depending on how you read the rule, 469 should ahve been disabled for breaking the mobile goal, and perhaps even disqualified for their continuous agressive behavior. But once again, no call was made.

Now, I am in general a laissez-faire person. I don't mind refs letting the game go on. On the other hand, when rules are blatantly ignored and penalties are completely missed, then the referees are not doing thier jobs, volunteers or not. I have learned over the last three years of FIRST (with the notable exception of 2001, where the problem was non-existant due to the highly innovative game) that despite all the talk of gracious professionalism, teams that ignore the rules and/or beat up other robots are highly rewarded due to inconsistent rule enforcement and spineless referees.

In 2002, an explictly disallowed type of tether was used to edge out a victory against us in the PNW regional finals. In 2003, when an adult mentor on the oposing alliance touched the controls in the PNW regional finals, the match was replayed instead of the team being disqualified. And in 2004, overagressive play and clearly purposeful entanglement ruled the day.

Here is another post that shows the problem. And just to show that the problem is widespread, one more story from the 2004 PNW regional in Portland Oregon. For the third time in as many years in the PNW regional, 492 was in the finals. This time, however, luck was on our side and team 753's robot broke down, allowing us to clinch the victory. (Before they broke, we tied, lost, and had three false starts).

At the time, I felt bad for winning that way. Then I reviewed videos and realized the 753 got what was coming for them. Throughout the competition, they had been - as far as I can tell intentionally - pushing over other robots. When we went up against the basket bot in the PNW regional, we made sure to push them out from under the ball release, then we went on our merry way. 753 went one step further: faced with the basket bot, 753 hapily pushed them over without any pretense of trying to do otherwise. Now, they built a fine robot (until it broke, I guess) but where in the worlde is the enforcement of <G32>? Again, for your perusal: "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed."

In the finals, I found that I didn't mind when 469 lost, becasue I thought they had illigetimately made their way there in the first place.

Let the flamewar begin...

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

Please take a look at this video. My question is, if this isn't purposeful entanglement, what is? Clearly, 469 took their hook into 93's basket and got it stuck. Even the announcer noticed the clear entanglement and talked about it. Yet no call was made. I noticed that on Galileo at least, very few calls were ever made.

I do not mind agressive play - I think it makes the game much more exciting. But those that play agressively have to accept the onsequences of their actions as well. Pushing is fine, but when you get entangled, your robot should be disqualified. If FIRST wants its referees to be respected, the referees need to respect the rules:

"<G32> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. Accidental tipping over of a robot is not considered damaging and may be allowed at the discretion of the referees. Intentional stabbing, cutting, etc., is illegal. If a breach of this rule occurs, the team will be disqualified for that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team being disqualified from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event."

Admittedly, I am bitter, and my views are biased - so let me know if you think 469 should have been disqualified in this situation. ...

I just watched the match. I guess you clearly saw a different match than I did. 469 put their ball grabber in 93's basket in an attempt to block all of the balls from falling into it. This was OBVIOUS. Yes, they became tangled, but it clearly wasn't intentional. In fact, I thought 469 did a very gracious thing: in the fight to become untangled, 93 flipped in its side. All 469 had to do was take their hands off their controls and they would have won the match (because 93 could not do anything). Instead, 469 drove forward, righting 93 and putting them on their feet again.

Their strategy was clearly not to intentionally damage, entangle, or tip 93. If you were at the Great Lakes Regional and saw when 67 put a ball in 1241's hopper before the balls fell, you would have clearly recognized the strategy. 469 didn't have a ball to put in 93's hopper, so they used their big claw instead. It's unfortunate that it got tangled. (As a note, in past year's 93 could have been subjet to a DQ since netting was considered an entaglement hazard, so you can argue on either side.)

Now for the next case study: Galileo Semifinal 1.1. Once again, going up against 469, and one again their agressive play takes out one of our robots. I didn't actaully see it happen (and the video fails to show exactly what happened), but I think it was a legitimate takedown (ie, unplanned, if not unintentional). ...

Wow... talk about seeing the world thought filtered lenses. It appeared to me that 93 was the aggressor on this play. 469 was trying to hold the moveable goal under the ball dump and 93 was trying to push them out of the way. It simply looks like they flipped over during the battle for position under to ball dump. Anyway, it seemed clear to me that 469 was there first and that 93 initiated the contact. Furthermore, BOTH robots flipped over (not just 93). 469 was just able to re-right themselves.

...Furthermore, in that match, 469 destroyed one of the poles of a mobile goal. Please refer to rule <G25>: "If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal or damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal, that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified." ...

Once again, the lenses are filtering pretty heavy. Did you notice during the video that when 93 flipped, 469 flipped as well? Also, did you notice that 469 flipped INTO to movable goal? It seems that flipping into the movable broke the pole. Do you really think that they flipped INTENTIONALLY into the goal so they could break a pole?

However, after the match (which ended with our alliance loosing by 5 points), I asked the referees if our oponents had any penalties, and was told that the oposing alliance had a 10 point penalty deducted. I was then amazed by the score, because that meant that they had scored nine (9!) balls, which was more than I thought they had. Well, after reviewing the video, the oposing alliance looks like they have only seven (7!) balls, plus the hanger, minus the 10 point penalty. This comes to 75 points to our 80. But instead, the reported score was 85 points to our 80. The penalty WAS NOT ASSESSED and the result of the match changed. ...

This is legitimate gripe. However, you should have asked the refs this before leaving the playing field. Perhaps the one referee you talked to was not informed correctly. Either way, complaining about it here isn't the right thing to do. You have recourse within the rules, but once you leave the playing field, the results are final. If you did not pursure your recourse within the structure of the rules, that is your team's fault - don't complain about it here.

Depending on how you read the rule, 469 should ahve been disabled for breaking the mobile goal, and perhaps even disqualified for their continuous agressive behavior. But once again, no call was made.

There is no rule DQ'ing a team for "continuous aggressive behavior." If they break one of the rules you mention, they would have been DQ'ed. When I watch the video, it appears pretty clear that none of their "infractions" were intentional.

[RyanMcE]

First, thanks for the pulic reply so people can see the different sides of this issue.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

I just watched the match. I guess you clearly saw a different match than I did. 469 put their ball grabber in 93's basket in an attempt to block all of the balls from falling into it. This was OBVIOUS. Yes, they became tangled, but it clearly wasn't intentional.

Wheee... Ok, to block the balls from falling is legitimate, but the claw need not be in the basket to do this - above teh basket works fine. What is OBVIOUS to me is that the claw was INTENTIONALLY put into the basket by the drivers of 469, then before lifting it out, INTENTIONALLY drove backwards.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

In fact, I thought 469 did a very gracious thing: in the fight to become untangled, 93 flipped in its side. All 469 had to do was take their hands off their controls and they would have won the match (because 93 could not do anything). Instead, 469 drove forward, righting 93 and putting them on their feet again.

Yay, now its GRACIOUS to get your own robot out of an entanglement that you created! If 469 ha not driven forward, they would have been effectively disabled (trying to drag 93 all over the field). It was hardly in the interests of 93 that they drove forward to try to get out of the entanglement that they created, even if the end result was also better for 93.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Their strategy was clearly not to intentionally damage, entangle, or tip 93. If you were at the Great Lakes Regional and saw when 67 put a ball in 1241's hopper before the balls fell, you would have clearly recognized the strategy. 469 didn't have a ball to put in 93's hopper, so they used their big claw instead. It's unfortunate that it got tangled.

Actually, it was quite fortunate for them. And I guess we're both mind readers now, since we both seem to know what 469 intended to do. Nevertheless, I saw consistent agressiveness in 469 (which I like) but consistent non-enforcement of rules (as I interpret them) when that agressiveness led to entanglement and damaging other robots (as in the case of 494 as mentioned in the thread linked to above).

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

(As a note, in past year's 93 could have been subjet to a DQ since netting was considered an entaglement hazard, so you can argue on either side.)

Since last year's rules apply to this competition, this is clearly germaine......

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Wow... talk about seeing the world thought filtered lenses. It appeared to me that 93 was the aggressor on this play. 469 was trying to hold the moveable goal under the ball dump and 93 was trying to push them out of the way. It simply looks like they flipped over during the battle for position under to ball dump. Anyway, it seemed clear to me that 469 was there first and that 93 initiated the contact. Furthermore, BOTH robots flipped over (not just 93). 469 was just able to re-right themselves.

As I was saying, I didn't see it happen, and the video didn't show it, so its hard to tell what exactly happened. What I do know is 469 had a history of ungracious behavior (once again, in my view, clearly not the referee's). I also said, you may recall, that I thought this was legitimate from the information I had.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Once again, the lenses are filtering pretty heavy. Did you notice during the video that when 93 flipped, 469 flipped as well? Also, did you notice that 469 flipped INTO to movable goal? It seems that flipping into the movable broke the pole. Do you really think that they flipped INTENTIONALLY into the goal so they could break a pole?

No, I don't really think that 469 intentionally broke the goal. But do you really think I said that? This is what I said:

Originally Posted by Ryan McElroy

The question is, does the word intentional apply to both clauses or only the first? Depending on how you read the rule, 469 should ahve been disabled for breaking the mobile goal, and perhaps even disqualified for their continuous agressive behavior. But once again, no call was made.

I mentioned that this one is interpretation of rules. The question is: Does "If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal or damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal, that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified." mean
1. ""If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal or intentionally damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal, that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified." or does it mean
2. "If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified." and "If ROBOTS damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified."
I wrongly assumed this was clear, but I find it interesting that you only quoted the first part of that point and not the second part that I had to quote myself.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

This is legitimate gripe. However, you should have asked the refs this before leaving the playing field. Perhaps the one referee you talked to was not informed correctly. Either way, complaining about it here isn't the right thing to do. You have recourse within the rules, but once you leave the playing field, the results are final. If you did not pursure your recourse within the structure of the rules, that is your team's fault - don't complain about it here.

Ah, but we did pursue recourse; why do you assume we did not? Our alliance captain went to the head referee immediately after the match and asked about the call. Unfortunately, by the time the (wrong) score was posted, all the balls had already been cleared out of the goals, the flags picked up, the goal replaced, etc... So what real recourse did we have? Referee's decisions are final, wether they be right or wrong, and that is that. I accept that. But to think sweeping it under the rug like no mistake was made is better than bringing it up on these forums is ludicrous. I think this is a wonderful place to have this discussion.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

There is no rule DQ'ing a team for "continuous aggressive behavior." If they break one of the rules you mention, they would have been DQ'ed. When I watch the video, it appears pretty clear that none of their "infractions" were intentional.

Not all infractions have to be intentional, Chris. Nobody ever tried to break the ball chute plane, but those penalties were still assessed. Nobody tried to touch the controls early, but those penalties were still assessed. And as for your first statement, please consult the rules before saying that. Once again, rule <G32>: "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. Accidental tipping over of a robot is not considered damaging and may be allowed at the discretion of the referees. Intentional stabbing, cutting, etc., is illegal. If a breach of this rule occurs, the team will be disqualified for that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team being disqualified from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event."
That to me looks like a rule against "continuous aggressive behavior" that results in other robots getting damaged. There are similar rules about the field.

The real point of this thread (other than blowing off some steam at once again being screwed by rules not being enfored) is to try to show that there is a trend of rules not being enforced over a number of years (see my original post), and to get a some momentum behind the idea of actually enforcing rules. I have probally done a terrible job at this because I am still bitter. But pretending that there is no problem because you don't like me doesn't make the problem go away.

[KenWittlief]

I think the only way this type of situation is going to be resolved is for FIRST to bite the bullet

acknowledge that FIRST HAS become a battlebots event to some extent

and to create reasonable rules to deal with it and make it fair

nobody can design a robot that can be hit or rammed on any square inch of its surface at any time with any given amount of force and not be toppled or damaged - every bot will have a soft spot somewhere

in sports where body contact does occur, there are rules - you cant punch a quarterback in the face and then say, 'Hey, whats the matter, if you cant take it you shouldnt be out here'

and even in boxing and martial arts sports, there are body parts that are off-limits

it would be very easy for FIRST to implement a bumper requirement, and then impose a penalty for any bot that hits, pushes or rams another bot outside its bumber zone (hitting above the belt :^)

but I think the problem is, FIRST is pretending its still 1998, when bots rarely ever touched each other - and expecting this problem to go away with a sprinkling of GP talk

its not going away - it needs to be dealt with headon.

[KenWittlief]

Let's distinguish between "ramming" and "pushing". If a robot backs up and continually slams into their opponent with firm structure that's ramming...

ok, thats ramming - I saw this happen many many times this year, with bots getting knocked over and with bots damaged to the extent that parts literally flew off the field

and no DQs were announced - were they called? I dont know - I would think if you want to discourage this type of agression you would make a point of announcing that team XYZ was DQ for inflicting damage or tipping.

like other sports I consider defense being faster or stronger and getting BETWEEN your opponent and the goal - getting their before they do and keeping them away

I dont consider it defense if you run up behind a basketball player or a fieldgoal kicker and slam into them as hard as you can while they are trying to make a shot - its not allowed in other sports, why is it allowed in FIRST?

And where is the spec for how much force or impact your bot must be able to withstand in a match? saying it must be robust is weasle-words - no matter what you build I guarentee you I can build something stronger and put an impact point on my machine, find your weak spot and take you out on the field

then all I have to do to defend my actions is point to the 'robust' words in the manual, and tell you its your fault your bot couldnt take a little rough play.

is this what FIRST has come to?!

[Peter Matteson]

I have to say that many of the adult mentors I was sitting with with in the back of the Galileo stands thought that this looked intentional during the competition and were surprised when there was no penalty. 469 made several questionable (I mean interpretation of not motivation for) moves in the elimination rounds. [Text Deleted by Ddzconfusd]

That being said, did 469 have good bot? Yes.
Did they know how to play the game to win? Yes.
They beat my team fairly in the Galileo finals and deserved to go on to Einstien, and for that I congratulate them. That is not the point. The point is that rules should be called as written and they were not on the Galileo field. I just want to see rules consistently called the way they are written.

[Text Deleted by Ddzconfusd]

[Ricecube401]

As 469's "Sharpshooter" or whatever the human player is called, I've seen a bunch of things when not missing the goals completely.

The quarterfinals against 93 and their alliance was interesting to watch from my POV, and while many consider that our drive team is an irresponsible, malicious and crazy bunch, our intentions were pure in the fact that what we performed was a defensive manuver carried out under pressure and frantic yelling by our esteemed drive team coach.

It was never our intention to use "chomp-chomp" to be entagled into 93's net, but at the time, we considered it the best defensive play we could muster against them. besides, the net was designed with the knowledge that entanglement would be an issue. I don't feel any regret for what happened.

So no, we're not crazy or intentionally trying to demolish all robots in our way, and we are not even UNINTENTIONALLY trying to demolish everything...

And come on, don't bag on our arm operater either, she did a good job with the coach hassling her about something that was so hard to see.

The whole drive team is down with the procedure and we acted within the rules. I suppose some teams don't like our strategy, which is at times hard-nosed and rough, but we came to play and do the best we could. people might be offended by our arm, but we utilized that 4 lb wonder well enough to stay legal and fit with our versatility.

As far as the Team is concerned, we should not be apologizing about our arm, our robot, our strategy and our field team, cuz' this is what we are.

Our drive team is not evil either, and they never meant no harm. That's probably why I was the Human player.

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

And where is the spec for how much force or impact your bot must be able to withstand in a match? saying it must be robust is weasle-words - no matter what you build I guarentee you I can build something stronger and put an impact point on my machine, find your weak spot and take you out on the field

then all I have to do to defend my actions is point to the 'robust' words in the manual, and tell you its your fault your bot couldnt take a little rough play.

The specs are the laws of physics dealing with conservation of energy.

There is going to be a 130 pound robot coming at you at 12 feet per second, going after the same ball / goal / inner tube / whatever that you are. That energy is going to be transferred to your robot. It needs to either be strong enough to take the impact or flexible enough to absorb it.

There is going to be a 30 pound arm swinging at the maximum energy of the motors / pistons available to grab the same ball / bar / goal/ whatever that you are, and parts of your robot is going to frequently, very frequently be in the path of action. It needs to either be strong enough to take the impact or flexible enough to absorb it.

We had PVC wings to push the balls - should our opponents be penalized if they tear them off during a match? No - we understand that they will generally take the load, we keep them stowed whenever possible, and we keep lots of spares to replace them.

In 2002 national finals when we drove full bore into the goal and into Beatty, we had no intention of damaging them; if you saw their robot it seemed pretty likely they would have won that confrontation. Our only choice was to knock them off course so they wouldn't be in position to grab the goals. Worked pretty well - does anyone think we should have been DQ'd?

Our team used to have a rule for our drivers for aggressive play: if you break their robot you get to go their pits and help them fix it. Still a good rule.

Just remember, it's not about winning. Winning is fun, we try to win, but that's just icing if we do.

[RyanMcE]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I think the only way this type of situation is going to be resolved is for FIRST to bite the bullet

acknowledge that FIRST HAS become a battlebots event to some extend

and to create reasonable rules to deal with it and make it fair

...

its not going away - it needs to be dealt with headon.

Yes! Someone who can see past the bitterness to the real intent of the post. I think that what I am talking about is a systemic problem with FIRST, and that it needs to be dealt with as opposed to pretending that everything is ok as bullies duke it out for the championship.



I have also noticed that my reputation has suddenly gotten quite a bit worse. Here are some of the reactions that I think are legitimate and should be seen:

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

I disagree with your opinion about calling out 753 in Portland. They played aggressive, but did not intentionally tip anyone. It would have been called. Also, another head ref would've wimped out on the 6 minute timeout for 753, so don't complain.

Thank you Andy, for enforcing the rules. It is legitimate to disagree with me on the intentions of 753, and I think the PNW regional was in general well-called. But I think it is very interesting that you admit that most other head referees would not have stuck to the 6 minute limit. Why not? Is it because the rules are largely ignored when it is convinient? This is another example of the exact problem I'm trying to point out!

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Aaaah ... GP at its finest. Thank You, I was a referee on Galileo and I believe we GOT IT RIGHT. Your post was DEFINITELY bitter and biased, and inappropriate. I WILL respond publicly, without flame.

I respectfully DISAGREE. And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the two referees with whom I conferred about the penalty (assigned to the far side of the field from our players station) were wrong, and there was no penalty. But they said there was a penalty, and they said it was assessed. And yes, I am biased (I want my team to win; do you not want the same?) and I am bitter (having lost three years in a row to people who, in my opinion, were intentionally streching and/or breaking the rules).

Originally Posted by JVN

Referee calls are final.

Whoa, high-repuation people have taken notice of this post. And they have promptly ignored the problem. I agree, they are final. I am not asking that the taped be reviewed and the results of the match changed. I am asking for an overhaul of the system that encourages rules to be ignored when it is not convienient to enforce them. Another shout out to Andy who had the balls to stick to 6 minutes for both our alliance and the opposing alliance when we took the timeout.

Originally Posted by Clark Gilbert

...

What no comment? Just unabashed reputation degradation? :-)

[JVN]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

Whoa, high-repuation people have taken notice of this post. And they have promptly ignored the problem. I agree, they are final. I am not asking that the taped be reviewed and the results of the match changed. I am asking for an overhaul of the system that encourages rules to be ignored when it is not convienient to enforce them. Another shout out to Andy who had the balls to stick to 6 minutes for both our alliance and the opposing alliance when we took the timeout.

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

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.

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

I watched the video of the matches you speak of.

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.


John

[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.

[Don Wright]

Wow...posting people's private replies publically...that's pretty nice.

I was on the field and I heard 469 talking strategy... This is what I heard...

"Ok...in order for us to win this thing, here's what we need to do. When 93 opens up their net, instead of just dropping a 2x ball in there which would be too easy and nice, lets ram chomp-chomp in there. That way, we can get all tangled up and tip us both over trying to get away. Then, make sure we pick both of us back up to make it look like we are nice, and then release them so we can go and do what we really built our robot to do...go and be the best ball hearding, most offensive robot out there and cap at the end.

But, that might not work all the time, so what we will do next is position ourselves under our goal so they come over and try to push us out of the way. Then, we will tip us both over again, BUT WE HAVE TO BREAK THE MOBLE GOAL. This is very important and is a must. But, only pull out one pipe to make it seem not too intentional. Then, pick us back up and continue with our offensive strategy."

Come on. Sorry, but quit whining. Several times this year we have been broken by other teams (the Martians 494 did a nice job on us at GLR). But we understand it's a game. A rough game. And we fix what is broken, hopefully better so it doesn't happen again, and remember it for next year so we design something more robust. No HARD feelings...in fact...we like it. It forces us to examine our designs and go back to even more basics (like we are next year) to makes things stronger and easier to repair.

Maybe we should play next year like lego league...where the field is divided into four quadrants and we all have our little sections to drive around in so nobody can hurt anybody else. Yea...that will be exciting. I'm sorry, but to the general public which I think FIRST is trying to appeal to, to get more interest from, we need these kinds of matches. When things like this happen, the stands are roaring and everyone is running from the food stands to see what is going on. This is the kind of excitement we need.

And another thing...comparing some of the FIRST robots to the flipping robots you see on battlebots is silly. Sure, if someone uses a cylinder on a flipper and continuously flip robots over, they should be DQ'd. But, I didn't see anybody do that at all. Making a low profile robot or some kind of wedge shape is a very fundamental design to stop yourself from getting pushed around and bullied and that is the name of the game to fulfill your strategy...

Congrats 469. You did nothing wrong. Looking forward to being more competitive next year so we can be a challenge to you...

The only thing I can agree on is how the scoring was done. The balls are removed from the field and everything is reset before the scores are posting so if there is a disagreement, there really is nothing to "check". But, I don't know how to fix that...

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

Wheee... Ok, to block the balls from falling is legitimate, but the claw need not be in the basket to do this - above teh basket works fine. What is OBVIOUS to me is that the claw was INTENTIONALLY put into the basket by the drivers of 469, then before lifting it out, INTENTIONALLY drove backwards.

469's drivers are 48 feet away, looking through two stationary goals and other robots driving around the field. I think it is forgivable that their first move is to start driving away (especially if they couldn't see that their claw is tangled on 93).

Yay, now its GRACIOUS to get your own robot out of an entanglement that you created! If 469 ha not driven forward, they would have been effectively disabled (trying to drag 93 all over the field). It was hardly in the interests of 93 that they drove forward to try to get out of the entanglement that they created, even if the end result was also better for 93.

469 would have happily been disabled if it also meant 93 was disabled. Afterall, it appeared that their entire strategy was to play defense and nullify 93. The entanglement would have achieved this objective of nullifying 93. However, they took the high road and put them back on their feet for a fair battle.

Actually, it was quite fortunate for them. And I guess we're both mind readers now, since we both seem to know what 469 intended to do. Nevertheless, I saw consistent agressiveness in 469 (which I like) but consistent non-enforcement of rules (as I interpret them) when that agressiveness led to entanglement and damaging other robots (as in the case of 494 as mentioned in the thread linked to above).

To me it was clearly obvious what 469 was doing. It was a near replay of the 67/1241 match up until 469 dropped the big ball (watch the video: you will see 469 take the big ball off of the red movable goal, then drop it. They pause for a second figuring out what to do and then do the next best thing - block the hopper with their claw).

As I was saying, I didn't see it happen, and the video didn't show it, so its hard to tell what exactly happened. What I do know is 469 had a history of ungracious behavior (once again, in my view, clearly not the referee's). I also said, you may recall, that I thought this was legitimate from the information I had.

I don't know what history you know of, but I think most teams that go to the competitions around the midwest would agree that 469 is one of the most gracious teams around.

Not all infractions have to be intentional, Chris. Nobody ever tried to break the ball chute plane, but those penalties were still assessed. Nobody tried to touch the controls early, but those penalties were still assessed. And as for your first statement, please consult the rules before saying that. Once again, rule <G32>: "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. Accidental tipping over of a robot is not considered damaging and may be allowed at the discretion of the referees. Intentional stabbing, cutting, etc., is illegal. If a breach of this rule occurs, the team will be disqualified for that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team being disqualified from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event."
That to me looks like a rule against "continuous aggressive behavior" that results in other robots getting damaged. There are similar rules about the field.

What the rule states is this: if you intentionally damage/tip/stab/cut/etc. you will be DQ'ed for the match (it was ruled that 469 did not do this). Repeated offenses (intentional damage/tipping/cutting/etc.) could result in being DQ'ed from the remainder of the tournament. This rule does not say that repeated aggressive play will DQ you from a match. It says that repeated DQ's from breaking G32 will get you kicked out of the tournament. 469 was never called once for breaking G32. Therefore, they couldn't have repeated offenses.

But pretending that there is no problem because you don't like me doesn't make the problem go away.

Hold on. Who said I don't like you? I just watched to video and gave an unbiased opinion. It's just that what I saw doesn't agree with what you saw.

So far, the arguements Ive seen is that people "played too rough"

469 and many others played some tough defense during the elimination rounds and all through the weekend. I don't see any problem with that linked match at the top of this thread...469's drivers tried to get away and they both ended up on the ground, so basically it was a total freak accident...why would a referee call something on a freak accident? 469 played tough, but not maliciously and thats why they made it as far as they did. I don't see any arguement against 469 here in what they did and the refs made the right no call and that should be that. FIRST warned you that these robots should be made tough...they said that with good reason and many of the successful teams over the weekend proved their statement true.

[BFreund]

As a frustrated member of team 93, I must say this just sucks. Im not talking about the plays or the calls that were made or not made. Im talking about the feeling of having such an awesome robot and seeing the national championship within reach and fallign short. In the heat of the competition, I was furious. How could 469 do this? I wanted to point fingers and place blame. Well, I've cooled down since then, and so has most of our team. I realise that its all in the past and we can't change it. Whether or not 469 was trying to disable us or not we'll never know. What I know is that they were gracious professionals in semifinals match 1.2. They could have ripped their arm down and out of our robot and tipped our bot over. But, in the spirit of FIRST, they made sure we were on all fours before retreating. I thank them for that. They beat us and moved on and took second place. Way to go. Hopefully, no one holds any grudges and next year we'll have all cooled down. Seeing how it's my last year in FIRST, good luck next year team 93, and all other teams as well.


Brandon