Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking

[Jon Stratis]

Over the years, my team has been on both sides in matches - we've benefited from calls, and we've suffered. We've benefited from having good alliance members, and we've suffered from having bad ones. It's the nature of the game.

If you think losing a match for reasons beyond your control has an associated "cost" based on entry fee and number of matches played, then you're missing the point of FIRST. Yes, losing matches sucks. Yes, having it happen because of something you perceive as a bad call sucks. Yes, being ranked low because you were on the wrong end of the "alliance member coin flip" sucks. We've all been there. But whether you win or lose, it's not a question of monetary cost. You aren't paying for the individual matches. You're paying for the experience. You're paying for the privilege to work with professional mentors and to build something awesome. You're paying to show up and be inspired (and hopefully do some inspiring in return) by other teams.

When I talk with my students, I do my best not to let them dwell on a match. It's in the past. Look forward to the next match, or the next event, or the next season. Handle what is under your control, and strive for constant improvement. After it's all over, celebrate your successes, and the lessons that failure has taught you.

There's certainly room for a lively discussion on what can be done to improve the system we currently have - there always is, in every system. But please, through all of it try to remember why we're all here. It isn't just about the robot.

[alex334]

Originally Posted by Siri

OP, I'm interested to know what happened when one of your students asked in the Question Box. If they did not receive a timely and correct answer, that's certainly something that can be changed.

We did not receive a timely reply at all. The only way my team found out about the foul was through one of the refs that knew our head mentor.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by alex334

We did not receive a timely reply at all. The only way my team found out about the foul was through one of the refs that knew our head mentor.

Yes, I got that, but what actually happened in the question box? Did the head ref not come over, did he refuse to explain the rule violation, or what? The solution for the ref not coming over is entirely different from not explaining the violation when asked by the student, so more clarity is appreciated. (In other words, finish the story, "my driver stood in the question box ready to politely ask the cause of the technical foul, and...")

[alex334]

Originally Posted by Siri

Yes, I got that, but what actually happened in the question box? Did the head ref not come over, did he refuse to explain the rule violation, or what? The solution for the ref not coming over is entirely different from not explaining the violation when asked by the student, so more clarity is appreciated. (In other words, finish the story, "my driver stood in the question box ready to politely ask the cause of the technical foul, and...")

From my understanding, our alliance captain never received a reply. The match was already a replay and was marred by countless delays. I really don't know what happened. We asked a number of refs until we received an answer. I was with the alliance captain when talking to the head ref, after knowing the source of the violation. He refused to view our complaint since it was too late. 1635 would know better than I do. The entire situation was hectic.

[ayo_christina]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Over the years, my team has been on both sides in matches - we've benefited from calls, and we've suffered. We've benefited from having good alliance members, and we've suffered from having bad ones. It's the nature of the game.

I was actually a Ref at this event and the one who found out the penalty for you. Your head mentor is my old head mentor.

Believe me when I say the referees at this event disputed over the interpretation of G25. We discussed it even prior to this match but ultimately, it comes down to the head referee's decision, whether we agree with it or not. We have to try to be consistent with each other and refs from other events.

We all have a heart and really don't want to see anyone go home based on a "bad call" or missing something. If we saw it, we called it. There are only 5 referees watching the field at a time, 6 robots, 24+ teams members, media people in our way (despite telling them to move), and lots of other variables. I'm not trying to make excuses but paint a picture. We can't possibly see everything all the time, just like any other sporting event.

The panels the refs use to input fouls only shows what is put in by that particular ref, it doesn't show what penalties other refs have put in. The walkies are only so much help when you're in a packed arena of screaming people. It's not until we meet after and try to clarify what we've called after that everything is clear. While we're doing this we are also making sure two refs didn't call the same penalty, confirming climbs, trying to get a green light, confirming the score, and in NYC, deal with field issues.

We can call agree some reforms should be made however, as a referee I would like to make some observations.
KNOW THE RULES. All of your drivers and driver coaches should be very familiar with the game manual. There were SO many teams that didn't take advantage of the manual strategically and received penalties simply for not knowing they couldn't do something.

I'm VERY sorry that your season ended this way and I know saying "It's the nature of the game" doesn't help, but it's true.

[tballer4596]

I'm really late on posting to this thread, but I have been following it. I'm the driver for team 375, and honestly felt the same when reading the begining of this thread. However, I realized that there isnt much we can do. Believe me, being the driver during that match, you can imagine how upset I was at the outcome. Especially knowing that NYC was techknights only regional, I felt particularly bad. It took a while to calm down over the bad call and all that, but once I did, I realized something that the entirety of 334 and 1635 should know. We played an awesome game. Im honored to say that I was able to play alongside you two teams. 334, your robots efficiency, speed, and maneuverability, as well as your unmatched ability to score was an amazing thing to watch. 1635, your powerful drive train, strong defense, amazing strategy and all around excellent driving helped our score soar past the other alliance. Ive watched this match many times, and Im proud to say that we delivered by far the best show during the whole event. Between the lighting fast scoring cycles of us and TechKnigths, the unstoppable defense of Technotics, and the great communication and support between the three of us, I think we were more successful than anyone else out there.We may not have won, but before the penalty, we saw the score, and we should all feel very proud. If it wasnt for your guys amazing and fast help during our between match radio wiring fiasco, my team might not have made it out there at all. Id like to extend a thank you from team 375 to both of you guys, for not only being amazing alliance partners, but being amazing teams over all. We all built great machines, played hard, and scored high. Thats what FIRST is all about. Team 375 knows what kind of team you guys are: the kind that works hard, plays hard, cheers hard, and does it all with a gracious professionalism not often seen during a time as intense as a semi-final tie breaker. Our season isnt over yet, and we plan on taking home the gold. With the confidence that comes along with knowing you played with 334 and 1635, no penalty can stand in our way, and we hope that you guys take that confidence with you too. Your entire teams should feel very proud, because if they are like me, every time they watch that match, although the end wasnt expected, our performance brings a smile to my face.

[sbak94]

Originally Posted by Karthik

This is a great attitude! If you don't like a certain aspect of FIRST or something that happened to you at an event, you should go quit! (Sorry for blowing up everyone's sarcasm detectors.)

We had a post from a concerned FIRST participant who was unhappy with his experience at his event. Instead of listening to his concerns and trying to see where we can improve things, people feel the need to chastise him, tell him he doesn't understand FIRST, and that he should go quit and find another program. I can't believe that's what this forum has come to. If someone can't offer criticism of the program without having stones cast from the glass houses of the peanut gallery, there's no way we'll be able to keep the program growing and improving.

The comment I made about quitting was actually meant to be sarcastic. I am sorry that it did not translate that way when you read it! I will work on my cyberspace sarcasm....

I do not think that we are necessarily "chastising him", for in Alex's opening thread he said,

Originally Posted by alex334

Looking back, this is a bit of a rant and I apologize, but a large number of people on my team, alliance, and in the NYC regional feel this way. I wanted to see everyone's opinion.

Thank you for reading. I look forward to your responses.

All the replies I have read have varied from agreement to stark disagreement. We are all just doing what he asked, stating our opinions. There were a few comments that seemed a bit harsh, like my accidentally not so sarcastic remark, but overall I think that Alex has received the comments he asked for. (Correct me if I'm wrong Alex!)
Overall you can not control how people will react to a strongly opinionated post, so Alex probably knew that there would be people who disagreed with him, because there are always two sides to an argument.
From a student's stand point this type of discussion is very interesting even if I strongly disagree. Seeing everyone's comments and opinions whether they agree with me or not is a great way to practice for the real world. I bet you that not everyone agreed with things that Dean Kamen first proposed, and in the field of STEM, that is happening every day. It is good for us youngsters to be exposed to this sort of argument so that we can be better equipped for the future.
I believe that this type of discussion is the way to make the program grow. People become passionate when they argue, and passion will drive someone or a group of people to action, to fix a problem that they might see.

I am not sorry for having my opinions and for stating them, but I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings in the process. That was never my intention!

[jblay]

I'm a little surprised that we didn't receive any info on the stuff discussed in this thread in the update from today.

[darkember]

Originally Posted by jblay

I'm a little surprised that we didn't receive any info on the stuff discussed in this thread in the update from today.

I dont think FIRST is going to touch this topic very much. Its not something that can be discussed easily. In the update you can see that an indirect reference was made to NYC regional problems, to be more specific the bandwidth issues with the field and cameras. A c++ update was released with fixes to the smartdash, which is where my team noticed trouble when we were on the field. After reading the updates I can conclude that FIRST will try to resolve the issue without actually bringing it up. That is just my opinion i can be wrong.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by darkember

I dont think FIRST is going to touch this topic very much. Its not something that can be discussed easily. In the update you can see that an indirect reference was made to NYC regional problems, to be more specific the bandwidth issues with the field and cameras. A c++ update was released with fixes to the smartdash, which is where my team noticed trouble when we were on the field. After reading the updates I can conclude that FIRST will try to resolve the issue without actually bringing it up. That is just my opinion i can be wrong.

That particular problem was in no way limited to NYC, though it was uncommonly bad there. (Actually, the G25 interpretations also weren't NYC-limited.) As to the others, I suspect the 'turn off your dashboard' will be unannounced, but it'd be nice if they could publicly standardize disc placement and feeder station procedure.

As for G25, I've put in a Q&A, Q577. I suspect it'll take some follow-ups to edge anything but "Reasonably Astute Observer" out of the GDC. (Entirely unfair, as Head Refs are more than reasonably astute and they obviously disagree about this.)

Does G25 have the potential to apply (at the referees' discretion) to all types of 2-on-1 defense, or is the intent limited to field-centric blocks? Could intentionally impeding 1 robot with 2 defenders qualify as blockading if no other match flow is stopped?

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Siri

That particular problem was in no way limited to NYC, though it was uncommonly bad there. (Actually, the G25 interpretations also weren't NYC-limited.) As to the others, I suspect the 'turn off your dashboard' will be unannounced, but it'd be nice if they could publicly standardize disc placement and feeder station procedure.

As for G25, I've put in a Q&A, Q577. I suspect it'll take some follow-ups to edge anything but "Reasonably Astute Observer" out of the GDC. (Entirely unfair, as Head Refs are more than reasonably astute and they obviously disagree about this.)

Does G25 have the potential to apply (at the referees' discretion) to all types of 2-on-1 defense, or is the intent limited to field-centric blocks? Could intentionally impeding 1 robot with 2 defenders qualify as blockading if no other match flow is stopped?

Of course we all already know that the GDC will give the least useful answer possible. Thanks for the effort, though. I wonder how many of these incidents it will take before they learn the importance of writing proper rules?

[Anupam Goli]

Being on the short end of the stick when it came to rankings really didn't sit well with me this time at Peachtree, but I don't see how else the ranking system itself can be changed. It was more the random alliance pairings during qualifications and some terrible scouting in my opinion that caused the eliminations at Peachtree to look like they did. 2 of the alliance captains in the had purely defensive robots with a 1 point dumper, where as teams like 1319 and 3489, who were some of the top offensive bots were sitting as low as 15th in rankings.

On a separate note, I cannot be happier about the job the referees did at Peachtree. Every call down to the little stuff in the rules were made. The head ref was very confident in her understanding of the rules. Thanks for calling all fouls with no leniency.

[Mr. Pockets]

Just attended the Detroit district. Refs seemed pretty good about the rules and in general seemed to err on the side of leniency in borderline cases (which honestly felt right. Winning by penalty is always a little less fulfilling)

Originally Posted by 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.

At least they're not instant DQs anymore. That was what happened back in 2010 (Breakaway) if you touched an opposing robot's tower near the end. It led to some pretty messy wins.

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by Wing

Being on the short end of the stick when it came to rankings really didn't sit well with me this time at Peachtree, but I don't see how else the ranking system itself can be changed. It was more the random alliance pairings during qualifications and some terrible scouting in my opinion that caused the eliminations at Peachtree to look like they did. 2 of the alliance captains in the had purely defensive robots with a 1 point dumper, where as teams like 1319 and 3489, who were some of the top offensive bots were sitting as low as 15th in rankings.

On a separate note, I cannot be happier about the job the referees did at Peachtree. Every call down to the little stuff in the rules were made. The head ref was very confident in her understanding of the rules. Thanks for calling all fouls with no leniency.

Thanks for the shout out, we do have a really good robot this year, and a drive team that matured before our very eyes. We did manage to reach as high as a #4 ranking before running into the buzzsaw known as 624 (Cryptonite) in the final match. We had the unfortunate luck of playing with only one top-8 seed (#6) and against five of them (#1,2,3,5,8), including you guys. Just the luck of the draw, and a consequence of a large field.

With regard to the number of "upsets" seen this year in eliminations this year, I agree that scouting and the depth of the field have the most to do with it. If a regional has 24 strong scorers, then the top seed will usually prevail. If the top seeds don't choose their partners well, or don't have good choices available with their second pick, you'll see what has happened so far. In this years game (to date) it seems that 3 good robots can outscore 2 great robots and a less capable third. Our 3 capable scorers went 6-1 in the tournament, and averaged 107 points/game in those matches. In comparison, the top seeded alliance scored 95 and 97 points in their q'final matches before the "gremlins" reared their ugly heads in the semifinals. "Upset" or not? You be the judge.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Of course we all already know that the GDC will give the least useful answer possible. Thanks for the effort, though. I wonder how many of these incidents it will take before they learn the importance of writing proper rules?

I should somewhat retract my criticism of the GDC, they gave a reasonable answer:

A. We cannot comment absolutely on hypothetical situations. Generally, impeding a single ROBOT without blocking all traffic across the FIELD is not considered a violation of [G25].

Hopefully this should shut down some of the more strained interpretations of this rule that have been going around lately.