Rules that are [not] getting called at Regionals, the +s and -s

[Ethulin]

So, after just attending the PAC NW regional I would like to talk about what rules people are not seeing getting called, as well as rules you are seeing getting called and that you are impressed with.

This should not become a "flame the referees" thread. It should also not become a "we lost match #XX because of this crap call". It should be "I noticed that rule XX is routinely not being enforced in these situations".

If this thread turns out right it will not only be a useful thread to upcoming teams with regionals but maybe just maybe to the FIRST organization themselves.

Please also put what regional you noticed these things at.

So now I can step off the soap box and talk about the things I noticed.

The good:
PACNW: offsides is being called well

The bad:
PACNW: The remaining balls after the robots are loaded are not in corrals at beginning of match, they are in plastic bins behind player stations
PACNW: In the above situation the remaining balls are not evenly distributed, for example the HPs could have 8 in one bin and 2 in the other
PACNW: Some human players would step out of the alliance zone to throw and were not assessed any penalty
PACNW: 3in intrusion was given a 5pt penalty not a DQ as called for in G21

Observed (not sure good or bad):
Low amount of pining calls
Almost all bot interaction (ramming) was deemed acceptable

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Ethulin

The good:
PACNW: 3in Intrusion is being called well

The 3 inch intrusion was actually called completely wrong, in the instances I witnessed.

I saw teams getting 5 point penalties, and not DQ's like <G21> calls for.

[Ethulin]

Originally Posted by Cory

The 3 inch intrusion was actually called completely wrong, in the instances I witnessed.

I saw teams getting 5 point penalties, and not DQ's like <G21> calls for.

After re-reading G21 you are %100 correct. I am changing my post above. When you saw it called incorrectlf Cory was it that they went 3in in and were NOT called or that they were called when they did not go 3in in?

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Well you may not want it to become that but there's a pretty good chance it will, so I would recommend having it moderated so it doesn't become that kind of thread.
The refs are only human and human volunteers at that. I don't want them feeling persecuted and then we have a shortage at competitions because they are tired of being bashed by everyone.

I agree. I think however, that this thread should remain upon untill such time as some one DOES harp on a specific referee, a specific call etc. Lets see if CD can remain mature and GP on their own. If we can't I think it should become moderated.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Ethulin

After re-reading G21 you are %100 correct. I am changing my post above. When you saw it called incorrectlf Cory was it that they went 3in in and were NOT called or that they were called when they did not go 3in in?

The head ref would state that they had gone into the goal more than 3", and as such were receiving a 5 pt penalty.

I didn't get to see many matches other than my own team's, and the matches immediately prior/after my own, but I saw this happen at least 2-3 times. Whether or not it was called this way all weekend, I can't say.

[Ethulin]

Originally Posted by Cory

The head ref would state that they had gone into the goal more than 3", and as such were receiving a 5 pt penalty.

I didn't get to see many matches other than my own team's, and the matches immediately prior/after my own, but I saw this happen at least 2-3 times. Whether or not it was called this way all weekend, I can't say.

Ok, I get what you are saying. I thought you meant that not only were they getting the penalty wrong the call was wrong as well. But now I understand. And yes, it was called like this all weekend.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

At BAE, the refs were calling G21 correctly. In fact, the refs at BAE did a great job. There weren't any controversial calls that I can remember.
Everything was being called accurately. Granted, I wasn't watching Human players, I was watching robots.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Ogre

At BAE, the refs were calling G21 correctly. In fact, the refs at BAE did a great job. There weren't any controversial calls that I can remember.
Everything was being called accurately. Granted, I wasn't watching Human players, I was watching robots.

Same thing in my case watching the NJ regional.
There was absolutely no controversial calls, and penalties were being assigned for the right things, and DQ's were being assigned for the right things as well.

Originally Posted by ewankoff

in the NJ finals some teams tried to block team 25's amazing auto mode and some like spike actually succeded making them miss all 10 balls in atleast 2 or 3 matches

But what was really funny, was since 25 missed 10 balls in the finals due to someone interfering with their autonomous shooting in this manner, they still came back after losing autonomous and the bonus, and won the match.

So, don't claim that once you lose autonomous, you will never be able to win the match.. cause it did happen in NJ, and most likely will happen again.

[mtaman02]

Originally Posted by Ogre

At BAE, the refs were calling G21 correctly. In fact, the refs at BAE did a great job. There weren't any controversial calls that I can remember.
Everything was being called accurately. Granted, I wasn't watching Human players, I was watching robots.

At the NJ Regional The Majority of the calls were:

Off Sides

At the NJ Regional there were Team DQ's but I do not remember on what basis

At the NJ Regional due to a very buggy scoring system and faulty IFI Equipment close to 7 matches were replayed b/c teams felt they were cheated out of who won the autonomous mode, not to mention the time between the autonomous mode to switch to the second portion of the match (probably like 15 seconds or so). If the scorers started the match the Arena Controllers would not get the signal that the match has started. During the Finals the Final Score would be tallied up as let say blue 25 red 35 but for the final score it would say blue 25 red 0 even though there was no penalties thrown.

As you can see we are just into the 1st week of regionals going on to our 2nd set of regionals and many of these issues will probably not get resolved till nationals. The refs can only do so much with what they have to work with. I believe the Refs at the NJ Regional did an outstanding job including head ref Sky. I hope they all return next year because they made this regional Fun, Fair for everyone. My hats off to these guys.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by mtaman02

At the NJ Regional due to a very buggy scoring system and faulty IFI Equipment close to 7 matches were replayed b/c teams felt they were cheated out of who won the autonomous mode, not to mention the time between the autonomous mode to switch to the second portion of the match (probably like 15 seconds or so). If the scorers started the match the Arena Controllers would not get the signal that the match has started. During the Finals the Final Score would be tallied up as let say blue 25 red 35 but for the final score it would say blue 25 red 0 even though there was no penalties thrown.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but please be aware that neither the scoring system nor the arena control system were developed by Innovation First Inc (IFI). If problems with the field control and/or scoring system were experienced at your regional event (and where were they not?), then please do not blame IFI - they didn't have anything to do with it.

-dave

[mtaman02]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Not to make too fine a point of it, but please be aware that neither the scoring system nor the arena control system were developed by Innovation First Inc (IFI). If problems with the field control and/or scoring system were experienced at your regional event (and where were they not?), then please do not blame IFI - they didn't have anything to do with it.

-dave

nope mr lavery i don't blame IFI things do go bad and its to be expected but as far as the the 2006 scoring system is concerned it was very buggy and the program froze up easily and virtually un noticeable and when the score table wanted to start the match they couldn't b/c the program froze with out them noticing it. I think i witnessed the score table reboot the systems at least 1 or 2 times every 3 matches.

[AmyPrib]

See post 122
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...607#post466607
for incursion ruling. DQ regardless of how you got in the goal past 3".

[Steve W]

<G21> ROBOT Incursion into the Corner Goal - Incidental incursion into the corner goal that occurs as a result
of a ROBOT pushing balls into the goal is permitted, not to exceed a distance of approximately 3 inches.
Intentional incursion, for example to use a ball gathering mechanism to drop off balls inside the goal, or
extending a portion of the ROBOT through the goal opening to activate the ball counting system, will
result in disqualification of the offending ROBOT.

This could mean 2-4 inches. I saw some that were marginal that were not called because, I believe, they didn't cause a safety concern. You will also note that there is no penalty defined if you go past the 3". I believe that the rule probably is read that if a robot is pushed in then it would be the refs decision on how to call. It may be that the pushing robot only pushed a bit and barely infringed or that they just pushed as hard as they could, knowing that the other robot was inside the coral. This may not be written in the rules but I am sure that the refs have discussed. The head ref should explain in the drivers meeting and if he/she doesn't then the drivers should ask the question.

I believe that the rule was written that way so that if a bumper went in then there wouldn't be a penalty but if a ball delivery system did then a penalty would be assessed.

If someone gets an answer this week it would be good of you to post.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Cory

The 3 inch intrusion was actually called completely wrong, in the instances I witnessed.

I saw teams getting 5 point penalties, and not DQ's like <G21> calls for.

I see a flaw with this rule <g21> and the allowed bumper design <r35>.
the bumpers are allow to be 3.5 inch extended out from your robot and if
you are a ball dumper and you put bumpers on the side with your ball loader/unloader you have a piece of your robot that can easily protrude
pass the 3" zone. This is even more if you take the fact that you are
on a ramp. The field's designed buffer zone conflicts with the allowed
robot design making a DQ very harsh under those conditions and really
cramps the style of the ball dumpers because they will be forced to
remove their front bumpers.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Ethulin

This should not become a "flame the referees" thread. It should also not become a "we lost match #XX because of this crap call". It should be "I noticed that rule XX is routinely not being enforced in these situations".

If this thread turns out right it will not only be a useful thread to upcoming teams with regionals but maybe just maybe to the FIRST organization themselves.

Well you may not want it to become that but there's a pretty good chance it will, so I would recommend having it moderated so it doesn't become that kind of thread.
The refs are only human and human volunteers at that. I don't want them feeling persecuted and then we have a shortage at competitions because they are tired of being bashed by everyone.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Ethulin

The good:
PACNW: offsides is being called well

Rule G26 states that a 5-pt. penalty is to be assessed for every 5 seconds that a robot remains off sides. Off sides penalties were not ever assessed as such to my knowledge. We made the referrees aware of how that rule reads midday on Friday and they acknowledged that they were in error, but never corrected that error procedurally -- presumably to maintain continuity and fairness to all teams.

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Well you may not want it to become that but there's a pretty good chance it will, so I would recommend having it moderated so it doesn't become that kind of thread.

We'll take care of things if it comes to that. Let's give people the benefit of the doubt, please.