pic: Who should have gotten the foul? part 1

[faust1706]

loading photo ...

[class1234567]

It really doesnt matter because if there wouldnt have been any fouls the end result would have still been the same. But in my view the call should have not been called.

For those wanting to see the video of the "foul" here is the link
http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2013mosl_f1m2

[faust1706]

G18-1
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE .

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

this is the foul we were penalized with.

Take note of the frisbee about to land in the 3 point goal.

[class1234567]

But one can also think that you alliance was trying to block 3284 from getting in postion to score. Also the judges could have thought you were trying to make 3284 hit you while you were shooting in your protected zone

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by class1234567

But one can also think that you alliance was trying to block 3284 from getting in postion to score. Also the judges could have thought you were trying to make 3284 hit you while you were shooting in your protected zone

Referee, not judge.

Do you have a time code on the video when this happened? and where on the field.

[Tem1514 Mentor]

I would have to watch again, but didn't the blue bot push the red bot for more then 5 seconds? That would be a blocking/pinning type foul I think.

[class1234567]

Originally Posted by rsisk

Referee, not judge.

Do you have a time code on the video when this happened? and where on the field.

my fault, i was typing to quickly , it is pretty much the whole match by the red alliance feeding station

[John Sabath]

Originally Posted by class1234567

It really doesnt matter because if there wouldnt have been any fouls the end result would have still been the same. But in my view the call should have not been called.

For those wanting to see the video of the "foul" here is the link
http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2013mosl_f1m2

I was surprised to see the technical called as well.

But while we're on the topic of bad calls at St. Louis, I present the missed pinning call that cost us QF1M2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZzERE7CDvg

[faust1706]

I do have an HD video of this match from a camera a few inches to the right of the kinect. And 3284 had zero frisbees in it's possession.

[Zakreon]

I'm sure almost all of our team would agree that 1288's intent was not to force us to foul, and it was quite clear that 1288 was just trying to increase the window of opportunity for you to get shots off.

Also worth noting is that it isn't a pin if the robot can go in the opposite direction, which 1444 and 1288 could of done for most of the match. We weren't pressing them against anything that would completely stop movement.

[Iaquinto.Joe]

A bit off topic but how does 3284 actuate their blocker? Is there a picture?

[Zakreon]

We use 2 cylinders on either side of the support struts



You can see one of them in that picture

[Lil' Lavery]

Who are you benefiting by posting these pictures? I understand venting frustration at a bad call, but the event is over and this matter has already been discussed elsewhere. It seems like you're just trying to drum up controversy.

The Blue alliance won the match by 60 points. Even if the refs hadn't called G18-1 on the red alliance AND had instead called G22 on the blue alliance, it would have been a 89-52 win for blue. The bigger issue in my mind is why the red alliance didn't realize their strategy wasn't working, and adapt partway through the match. Despite trailing coming out of autonomous, they only had one robot even attempting to score, and it was getting shut down. Continuously launching into a blocking device is just a waste of discs and time.

[coalhot]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Who are you benefiting by posting these pictures? I understand venting frustration at a bad call, but the event is over and this matter has already been discussed elsewhere. It seems like you're just trying to drum up controversy.

This. And to those that propose instant replay for FIRST matches, this is one of the issues that comes with it.

On another note, seems like a more than normal amount of teams/people/students complaining when their season is over. Must be the weather around these parts...

[ToddF]

No matter who won or lost, or whether the foul in question would have made a difference to the final outcome of the match, all teams that play the game should have the right to be fairly refereed. From what I've seen, the "question box" isn't treated as a way to appeal a ruling, it is treated as a way to inform the teams of the referees final ruling, with no chance of that decision being reviewed or reversed. In the absence of a legitimate appeals process, those teams who feel they have been wronged have little other recourse than to post their evidence on CD, let the community decide, and provide the referee community with an example of how they got it wrong or right, as the case may be.

I have no bias in this particular match, but I'm glad to give my analysis, just as an intellectual exercise. I will say up front that in judgement calls, I'm going to favor the non-aggressor. This is often how professional sports refs make judgement calls, according to books I've read by professional sports referees.

First I'll say that in this particular case, just presenting pictures as evidence is not going to cut it. Without video, the evidence is inconclusive to make a ruling. The video available isn't super clear, as it is from rather far away. Links to closer video might change my analysis. But here goes:

The first thing I noticed was that at least two refs were waving the flags almost constantly. Until I read at least two threads, I couldn't even figure out what the penalty was that was in dispute. I finally decided to ignore the refs and observe the robots. I first looked for pinning penalties. I could find no instances of pinning for over 5 seconds, as all of the robots could have escaped by simply backing off from the pushing contest. What I saw was the blue robot attempting to hold position to block the tall shooter (legal action) and two red robots trying to push the blue robot out of blocking position (legal action). At :42, the blue robot pushes a red defender into the red shooter (not illegal). At 1:04, the red robots work together to push the blue robot out of blocking position (legal action). That the blue robot is no longer blocking is evidenced by a 3 point shot at 1:06. At 1:08, the red robots, still working together, force the blue robot to commit a "too tall" penalty, by pushing the blue robot over the auto line. Now comes the point where a judgement must be made. I see the blue robot continuously attempting to return to the auto zone, and finally succeeding at 1:19. At 1:06, the blue robot ceased being a blocker, and became the victim of the red robots forcing it commit a penalty. So no penalty called on the blue robot. The blue robot continuously attempts to return to the autozone for over 10 seconds. The red robots prevent blue from doing so. So I see a technical foul by red. At 2:00 the blue robot voluntarily drives out of the auto zone before lowering their net, which is a penalty.

So, in short, pushing and shoving is fine. When blue is blocking the red shooter, red's actions are double defensive (defense against a defender). When blue is no longer blocking the shooter, red forcing blue to commit a penalty (pushing the robot out of the auto and preventing blue from returning) has no justification. When blue drives over the line voluntarily with the net up, blue commits a penalty.

From all the flag waving by the referees, I have no idea what penalties were actually called. I also give them the benefit of the doubt, as I had to watch the video numerous times to really see what was going on. Honestly, this just makes me want to volunteer to be a referee. If I did, though, my wife would kill me. Going to two regionals as a participant already eats away enough of my vacation days.