Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking

[alex334]

In response to some comments:

Racer: I would propose a larger implementation of the district model. That seems to work a lot better and attract smaller amounts of teams.
What I meant by punishing teams that do play by the rules is the fact that multiple teams seem to repeat offenses despite warnings. This can cost an entire alliance the match since penalties, as I've said, are reaching into the 100+ range this year.
How would you feel if they allowed video references during elimination?

On the topic of awards, I wanted to see more appreciation of engineering feats performed by teams that did not do very well in the competition. All of the awards seem to have a "and performed well during competition" clause. Perhaps a "best chassis," "best shooter," etc. awards. I saw multiple teams (271 had an amazing drive train) with amazing engineering achievements that went unrecognized.

Sam: If you could prove your point using the footage available, should that not count?
The fact that I am an alum is true. I do appreciate the fact that he listened to me, despite the fact that I was just following up on my alliance's complaint. I just can't stand to see my team lose a regional because of a bad call.

In general: It seems that these problems are widespread. A solution would be great.

[nicholsjj]

Originally Posted by EricH

Actually, it is. IF R1 cannot go under the pyramid, it is blockading. Or, if a third blue robot B3 was in front of the pyramid, it's blockading.

Additionally, the rule specifically calls out "to stop the flow of the match". If I were a ref, and I saw that setup (assuming B1 and B2 are not on their respective ways elsewhere), I would probably call the penalty regardless of whether R1, R2, and R3 could go under the pyramid, as B1 and B2 are attempting to blockade the field to stop the flow of the match--and the rule does not require a specific opposing robot action attempt to trigger enforcement.

The rules are not special to any individual team design. All teams had the manual and determined how to play the game. Teams like 1986, 610, and 2056 have no issue with this particular "blockkade" so why should the rule be called any different for teams that can't shrink under 29 inches. We designed our robot to be able to climb and stick out to max dimensions so that we could play some off hand defense. I think this year refs will be put in an undesirable spot just like what happened to OP.

[zzzag]

Granted, I was not on the floor at the time, but from my vantage point in the stands I couldn't tell why the deciding match in that elimination round was replayed in the first place.
334/375, does either of you know why we got the replay?

[darkember]

We got the replay due to communication issues on the field

[alex334]

Originally Posted by zzzag

Granted, I was not on the floor at the time, but from my vantage point in the stands I couldn't tell why the deciding match in that elimination round was replayed in the first place.
334/375, does either of you know why we got the replay?

Yes. The controller for our (334) shooter/climber was not functioning due to FMS. We had a lot of problems with connectivity during the entire regional mainly due to team members not having updates.

[ablatner]

I do think that the pyramid penalties are really tough. The point of them is to protect climbers, but the penalties end up punishing a lot more and deciding matches.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by alex334

How would you feel if they allowed video references during elimination?

To what (or more particularly, to whose)? Do you refer to the team videos, if they can be brought from the stands quickly (and which you can almost guarantee are in favor of the team), or to the webcast video (which in 9 cases out of 10, will be pointed elsewhere or not have the quality needed), or to some other video point? When you can define more fully where the video to be referenced is coming from, I can answer that question.

Sam: If you could prove your point using the footage available, should that not count?

Not if the ref can't look at video (or rather is not supposed to). Referees will not look at video in a question--that's in the Manual, Section 5.

In general: It seems that these problems are widespread. A solution would be great.

I think the main problem here is in interpretation, not in the rules or even necessarily the particular refs. Interpretation is a tricky thing to get both correct and consistent. There may not even be a solution.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by nicholsjj

The rules are not special to any individual team design. All teams had the manual and determined how to play the game. Teams like 1986, 610, and 2056 have no issue with this particular "blockkade" so why should the rule be called any different for teams that can't shrink under 29 inches. We designed our robot to be able to climb and stick out to max dimensions so that we could play some off hand defense. I think this year refs will be put in an undesirable spot just like what happened to OP.

This. It is crazy that some teams get additional benefits because of arguably poor design decisions (all else equal, I think most would agree being less than 28 is better than greater than 28). This is similar to top heavy robots getting calls for being tipped when similar defense won't tip a better designed robot.

I recall this rule from 2011 and maybe last year. Has it ever been called previously?

[alex334]

Originally Posted by EricH

To what (or more particularly, to whose)? Do you refer to the team videos, if they can be brought from the stands quickly (and which you can almost guarantee are in favor of the team), or to the webcast video (which in 9 cases out of 10, will be pointed elsewhere or not have the quality needed), or to some other video point? When you can define more fully where the video to be referenced is coming from, I can answer that question.


Not if the ref can't look at video (or rather is not supposed to). Referees will not look at video in a question--that's in the Manual, Section 5.

I think the main problem here is in interpretation, not in the rules or even necessarily the particular refs. Interpretation is a tricky thing to get both correct and consistent. There may not even be a solution.

I would personally be fine with the webcast video being used for evidence. It's pretty clear to see that there wasn't a penalty even in the video that I linked. I'd be fine with just using that.

I'm suggesting a change to that specific rule (Section 5), especially regarding eliminations.

I agree that the fault lies in interpretation. I would just appreciate it if the GDC left fewer of these rules in the manual.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by alex334

Sam: If you could prove your point using the footage available, should that not count?

No, if you let teams start using video replay you open up a huge pandoras box of potential delays and bad angles and disputes. It might suck but it's the only way.

Originally Posted by alex334

The fact that I am an alum is true. I do appreciate the fact that he listened to me, despite the fact that I was just following up on my alliance's complaint. I just can't stand to see my team lose a regional because of a bad call.

I think we were the poster child of questionable rules and calls last year, they even changed the rules at championships because of what happened to us.

After words I consoled my team and praised them on what a great job they did, then I found the head ref and complimented him on doing a good job and making a tough call. I didn't come on CD and complain about the refs and unfairness of it all.

BTW If you/we hadn't lost one of the other matches in the first place a questionable call couldn't have hurt us. Can't blame anyone else but you/us for that.

[zzzag]

Originally Posted by alex334

Yes. The controller for our (334) shooter/climber was not functioning due to FMS. We had a lot of problems with connectivity during the entire regional mainly due to team members not having updates.

Maybe it's just me coming from SBPLI but today had the highest number of replayed matches I've ever seen. As part of a team that has had connectivity issues in the past and never had anything replayed, it struck me as a bit odd.

Anyway... thank you for the clarification. From the video it was not apparent that there was a malfunction - of course, I look for lack of motion to determine a connectivity issue most of the time. To I would guess many onlookers, 334's robot seemed to be functioning similarly to how it had in previous (not replayed) matches, for all if not most of the match.

That said, if there was an issue with your system that was impacting your performance on the field and delaying the progression of gameplay by requiring replayed matches "during the entire regional", I would assume common sense would dictate installing those updates at first opportunity.
The combination of upset victory by the other team with what appeared to be a very delayed call for a replay did seem just a tad fishy.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by alex334

In response to some comments:
On the topic of awards, I wanted to see more appreciation of engineering feats performed by teams that did not do very well in the competition. All of the awards seem to have a "and performed well during competition" clause. Perhaps a "best chassis," "best shooter," etc. awards. I saw multiple teams (271 had an amazing drive train) with amazing engineering achievements that went unrecognized.

I suppose then that the several Innovation in Control awards that 1075 won, whilst never having a particularly competitive robot in those years is an exception then?

Furthermore, if the engineering feat they achieved didn't give them a significant competitive advantage, what made it remarkable? 1075 won IiC awards for a multi-position pneumatic arm (when you were limited to specific valves with no center-off option), and a swerve drive with several modes.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by alex334

I would personally be fine with the webcast video being used for evidence. It's pretty clear to see that there wasn't a penalty even in the video that I linked. I'd be fine with just using that.

I'm just going to point out that in many cases, the webcast video (assuming that you've tapped into the box, which would solve bias claims and "takes too much time to grab" complaints) will be pointing not at the area of interest but to some other area of the field, unless webcasts have gotten a LOT better lately. Used to be, half the stream was looking at some poor robot that was stationary through no fault of its own (or not), which unless it happens to be the one where the call was made will be useless. With full-field cameras and the devices available to do playback at the event, I would be skeptical of the quality being sufficient to make a call except in the most blatant cases. (Look at the WPI thread, where the webcast viewers were wondering how two 10-point hangs weren't counted until someone pointed out that one robot was on the ground and the other was on a disc.)

[orangemoore]

I think that this year having a point of view from where the drivers stations are or from overhead would help the refs to make good decisions about pyramid fouls. From last year it was easy to tell when there was contact in safe zones but if the team is almost pinning the other team to the pyramid it could just look like there is contact with the pyramid.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by alex334

Yes. The controller for our (334) shooter/climber was not functioning due to FMS. We had a lot of problems with connectivity during the entire regional mainly due to team members not having updates.

Also, part of passing inspection is that all software is the correct version. How was this even a problem on the field?