POLL ONLY. SVR F-3

[Pavan Dave]

Do you think it was necessary to go into a 4th round during the finals of SVR?

[Jimmy Cao]

Sorry for replying, but are there any videos of this so that the rest of us (who were not there) can see?

Thanks.

[Pavan Dave]

Currently I do not have footage or know where to get it. If anybody has a copy and could send it to me, I could upload it and post it.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Lostmage333

Sorry for replying, but are there any videos of this so that the rest of us (who were not there) can see?

I'm sort of hoping the Blue Alliance guys will be on top of this one ASAP. Otherwise, the webcasts are often archived and viewable through the NASA Robotics Education Project page. (I also missed the matches, and only tuned in in time to catch the aftermath....)

Originally Posted by Pavan Dave

Do you think it was necessary to go into a 4th round during the finals of SVR?

I know, it's supposed to be a poll only.* But I figure it's worth posting <T16>, just so that we can bring the rules back into the discussion (rather than just the visceral response to a bad call):

If, in the judgment of the Head Referee, a “field fault” occurs that affects either the play or the outcome of the match, the match will be replayed. Example field faults include broken field elements, power failure to a portion of the field, improper activation of the field control system, errors by field personnel, etc.

I can definitely see a bad call by the referees being construed as an error by field personnel affecting the outcome of the match. <T16> mandates a replayed match in that case, rather than a reversal of the call (which might have been the more just thing to do).

So be careful what you vote for: voting no is, in a way, a vote to allow the officials to bend the rules when convenient. (And that's not necessarily a bad thing, particularly in cases when the rules are flawed.)

*I hate it when people do that...no offence, Pavan!

[EricVicenti]

First of all, I am very thankful for this poll. It is comforting to know I don't have an unreasonable bias on this matter.

I will not go into detail here, but in my opinion, 'errors by field personnel' does not include the judges making an initial poor call, because it does not absolutely require the match to be replayed. In other words, there were no conditions that could have altered the results of the match, which seems to be the intent of the rule.

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by Lostmage333

Sorry for replying, but are there any videos of this so that the rest of us (who were not there) can see?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Cory

P.S. I think people are forgetting that Red was actually announced the winner of the event, and then the referees went back and decided to change their minds. It wasn't like they deliberated prior to announcing the score and then changed their minds. This seems like a major departure from standard operating procedure. If there was any question that the match was not being scored correctly, it absolutely needed to be rectified prior to announcing a score. Nobody wants to win by a referee error, but how would it feel to be awarded the win, and then have it taken away?

As I posted in the other thread...

Here's a link to Finals Match 3 with both matches and commentary by refs as it was shown on the webcast...

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/joman...SVR2008FM3.wmv Thanks for the mirror, Joman!!

Originally Posted by lemon1324

That said, decisions by personnel, good or bad, are a part of any sport, and ahould be taken as such. The vounteer crew did they best job they could, and tried their best to give everyone a fair show. My hat's off to them.

...They did their best job, and still failed, and still screwed over both alliances.

Originally Posted by Tetraman

The replay was the fairest action the refs could have taken.

This may be the most unfortunate situation of FIRST this year, but that doesn't mean we treat this as the most disgusting thing to happen in a competition. Is it the refs fault? Maybe. But don't give them crap because they don't deserve it. All we can ask for is the situation be remembered as another FIRST lerning experiance and not something against FIRST or it's volunteers.

...So wait, we're not supposed to "give them crap?" How about politely pointing out the blunt and absolute failure of the refs over the entire event? It's not "giving them crap," it's stating plain and observable fact.

No replay. In fact, no match 3. It should have ended after match 2.

[morpheous115]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

...They did their best job, and still failed, and still screwed over both alliances.



...So wait, we're not supposed to "give them crap?" How about politely pointing out the blunt and absolute failure of the refs over the entire event? It's not "giving them crap," it's stating plain and observable fact.

No replay. In fact, no match 3. It should have ended after match 2.

Agreed. We all understand that they are volunteers, but that doesn't grant them immunity from criticism for doing a halfassed job on a competition that many teams have invested over 5-10,000 dollars on each!

-morpheous




.

[dtengineering]

Referees and umpires are a key element of sports, and have probably the toughest job in all of sport. If they do their job well, they are hardly ever noticed, but if they are anything less than perfect their errors can have a massive effect on the outcome of a game and be remembered forever. Consider, for instance, The Hand of God goal.

Therefore it behooves a team that wishes to be a champion to provide a sufficient margin of victory such that the officials' decisions -- whether correct or not -- are not the deciding factor. Although unfortunate, human error, by players and referees is an element of sport, and when one commits to playing the game one does so knowing that there is the possibility of a call being missed, or an incorrect call being made.

If one does not like this fact, one should not engage in competitive sport.

This is not to say that bad calls should not be noticed, or cannot be commented upon, merely that they are to be expected, no matter how much effort goes into trying to minimize the number that occur.

In sort, congratulations to the champions, who dealt with the refereeing and overcame the challenges it presented... even though it was not their choice to win this way, they managed to win... and condolences to the finalists who didn't want to lose this way.

Most of all, however, condolences to the refs and tournament organizers who did their best to provide a fair and fun competition, and probably feel much worse about this situation than even the teams involved do. It's not like they were trying to screw up... they just did. It happens.

So my vote is YES, there should have been a match if that is what the refs and tournament organizers felt was fair. Not the call I would have made, perhaps, but I wasn't there. It is up to the teams to suck it up and deal with the officiating, so long as it is not intentionally biased. As for the multiple gold medals idea in the olympics, I believe that has only happened in events where the judging has been shown to be intentionally biased.

Jason

[TKM.368]

Both sides are right:

Refs have a tough job --vs-- Refs were supposed to be trained.

Humans make mistakes unfortunately. I think people got caught up in the heat of the moment.

I can recall in many matches over many years "there was a change in the score from the last match" and can only imagine if all of those resulted in rematches. Yikes!

[bduddy]

I voted No, but I'd actually like to change my mind. Yes, we all know that the call was against the rules. However, the refs had called it that way all day. If they suddenly changed their mind then, to literally decide the championship, 100 (and their partners) would have a legitimate argument that, based on what the refs had been saying, they thought they had done enough in the match. Of course, they should have read the rules and someone should have informed the refs earlier, but "stuff happens" and no one can memorize every possible application of the rulebook. Should this have resulted in a replay? Well, preferably the rules would have been known to all, including the refs, in the first place. But although the rules are black and white, the field is in shades of gray, and it's better, in my opinion, that the match be decided on the field than a side losing as the direct result of a referee's decision.

[math4origami]

While watching matches, I did notice the ref's called the rule their way. However, those matches would not have been decided by the 12 points. The other team won by more than 12 in those cases.

I do not think that the judges would appreciate a random student from a random team coming in from the crowd, who did NOT participate the match, and go up to them to say, "Oh, by the way, you guys called the wrong call that last match."

If someone went up to them every single time we saw something wrong with the rules, that wouldn't reflect too well in their eyes, would it? They would see our team as some people who would argue over rules over and over again, even if we weren't even in the match.

The process perpetuates itself, and then when it DOES fall to us, then we can't do anything about it because they say that they've been doing it the whole day. Would they have liked another random team to be correcting their referee'ing all day long? I'm sure that after a while, they would stop listening to us "cry wolf".

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by math4origami

While watching matches, I did notice the ref's called the rule their way. However, those matches would not have been decided by the 12 points. The other team won by more than 12 in those cases.

I do not think that the judges would appreciate a random student from a random team coming in from the crowd, who did NOT participate the match, and go up to them to say, "Oh, by the way, you guys called the wrong call that last match."

If someone went up to them every single time we saw something wrong with the rules, that wouldn't reflect too well in their eyes, would it? They would see our team as some people who would argue over rules over and over again, even if we weren't even in the match.

The process perpetuates itself, and then when it DOES fall to us, then we can't do anything about it because they say that they've been doing it the whole day. Would they have liked another random team to be correcting their referee'ing all day long? I'm sure that after a while, they would stop listening to us "cry wolf".

I have to say, I was disappointed by the refs during the elims. Not only with the supported trackball shenanigans, but the fact that many, many illegal "defensive" plays were not properly penalized; team 8 throughout the entire elims or example.

We pay quite a bit to play the game, why can't we play the game in the rulebook?

[Cory]

Team 100 and Team 254 pointed out the incorrect scoring of supported trackballs to the referees earlier in the elimination rounds.

I don't have anything good to say about the refereeing at this event. I'll leave it at that.

[waialua359]

Trophys should be given to all 6 teams as regional winners. Its none of the teams faults for referees that dont know the entire playbook. You never do a playover. It opens up further a can of worms after its over.

Many inconsistencies happened at Chesapeake this past weekend which cost teams the chance to advance simply because they created their own "interpretations" of the playbook. Just too many inconsistencies in scoring and penalty calling which evolved during the competition. From what I heard from people that saw the finals matches, I am not surprised it happened at SVR also.
I am not here to bash volunteers that work hard at events. I just feel that its the responsibilities of the volunteers, especially the head ref to have their team understand the playbook. This isnt some program that cost a few dollars to participate to create a robot overnight.
Blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifice takes place just to get to the point of participating.
I feel bad for all 6 teams being put in a bad situation.