San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by twetherbee

Here is the video I recorded of that match. Tech foul in discussion occurs at about 2:30.

http://youtu.be/vp_kB8LRUg0

Congrats to 1266, 330, 4583, and 4486. 330's driving in the semi-finals and finals is among the best I have ever seen in first.

I have no intention of blaming anyone. I am posting what I think I see. I also have no idea what the outcome of that match was.

What happened was very odd. The way the ball was thrown was directly at the blue alliance robot. It could appear as both a poorly timed inbound to a robot up the field, or possibly a way to mess with the blue alliance robot.

[David8696]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

I have no intention of blaming anyone. I am posting what I think I see. I also have no idea what the outcome of that match was.

What happened was very odd. The way the ball was thrown was directly at the blue alliance robot. It could appear as both a poorly timed inbound to a robot up the field, or possibly a way to mess with the blue alliance robot.

The way I saw it is that the human player (knowing if we didn't score FAST, we were going to lose) tried to inbound it to 2485, who was moving in his direction, quickly and let them pick it up while it was bouncing. 330 drove into the path of this semi-desperation throw, but clearly the human player could never have thought the ball would be able to knock out 330's ball.

Another important note: The rule cited (G32) is worded "Strategies employing TEAM member actions to deflect opponents’ BALLS are not allowed." Two things seem to jump out at me here:
1) The fact that instead of G31 ("Strategies employing TEAM member actions to inhibit ROBOTS are not allowed."), they chose to invoke G32, implying that they felt that the human player's actions were against the blue ball, rather than the robot. Were the action interpreted as an attempt to mess with 330, they would have invoked G31 instead.
2) The term "strategies" is extremely important here. It means that unless the action is a clearly intentional attempt to deflect the opponent's balls (it could even be interpreted as requiring repetition), the foul should not be called. This has been shown in such situations as the Week 1 regional when a robot intentionally tipped another robot, but because it was clearly not their overall game strategy, but instead simply "taking an opportunity", it was considered not to be a foul, as G27 is worded "Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed."

It seems to me that this technical foul should not have been called, especially not to cause the end of a regional (we were down 1-0, and had we won there would have been another match).

[David8696]

I also want to note that I am absolutely not trying to take anything away from our opponents. They played two unbelievable games, and as has been mentioned previously, the drive team of 330 should serve as an example for all aspiring FRC drivers. I just feel that the regional should not have been decided based on a single arguable call.

[Racer26]

Tough call. Looks to me like HP wasn't aiming for 330 (and the Blue BALL within), but rather trying to get the Red BALL down field in a hurry and 330 happened to move into the path, but without being that HP, it would be tough to say what his intent was.

The fact that it was unsuccessful in causing 330 any trouble (the Blue BALL didn't even flinch in 330s grasp, and they were able to get a [failed] shot off before the end of the match) ought to be a part of the decision to call the foul.

Certainly strategies (even failed ones) of what is being alleged here ought to be punished with a Tech foul, but I have an awfully hard time seeing this as being an intentional strategy, at least when I'm only seeing this one video, which changes angle at an inopportune time for optimal viewing, and never really gets a good angle on the HP in question; perhaps the refs could see something that this video didn't capture.

[brandon.cottrell]

On behalf of 1266, the alliance captain of the winning alliance, I'd like to apologize for the technical foul call. While we do accept it as a victory because it was still a very close game, we are a little offput because it sort of seems like we didn't really "win" it. I would have liked to see a 3rd match played, with a matchup like that you guys really deserved it.

I guess we will just have to hope that technical foul calls will be more refined by Las Vegas, and that we're more aware of what exactly was the foul and sooner. Let's keep in mind though that the refs are doing their best, and that we're fortunate to have dedicated people like that in FIRST.

[David8696]

Originally Posted by Brandon1266

On behalf of 1266, the alliance captain of the winning alliance, I'd like to apologize for the technical foul call. While we do accept it as a victory because it was still a very close game, we are a little offput because it sort of seems like we didn't really "win" it. I would have liked to see a 3rd match played, with a matchup like that you guys really deserved it.

I guess we will just have to hope that technical foul calls will be more refined by Las Vegas, and that we're more aware of what exactly was the foul and sooner. Let's keep in mind though that the refs are doing their best, and that we're fortunate to have dedicated people like that in FIRST.

This is one of the most Gracious Professional posts I've seen in my time in FIRST. On behalf of the W.A.R. Lords and the FIRST community, I'd like to thank you for exhibiting exactly the values FIRST most tries to promote. And I completely agree with you about the refs; I just think it's too bad when the outcome of a match and even a regional is placed on their shoulders like this.

Originally Posted by Racer26

...at least when I'm only seeing this one video, which changes angle at an inopportune time for optimal viewing, and never really gets a good angle on the HP in question; perhaps the refs could see something that this video didn't capture.

One of the team parents actually got a video from directly behind the ref; it's uploading to youtube right now, and I'll post it as soon as it finishes. It's always good in these situations to consider how it could be seen from as many angles as possible. However, I will say that in my personal (and admittedly biased) opinion, this does nothing to support the idea that it should have been called a foul.

[David8696]

This should be live in about 7 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSRw5Ck5oJ0

Edit: Video is now live.

Edit 2: The incident in question takes place at around 2:05 (I recommend watching a few seconds before the pass itself, as it seems to become apparent that 2485 was trying to move into position to take a human player pass).

[sircedric4]

A very similar thing happened at the Arkansas regional finals. Technical fouls called and deliberated on after the game was over and not in real time were levied on the blue alliance for both the last games. These technical fouls changed the results of the game.

This particular game puts too much control in the referee's hands with the size and human judgement aspect of the penalties. An honest mistake on the referee's part can literally cost an alliance an entire regional championship. This is not an isolated San Diego regional problem, it is systematic and showing up at other venues.

[Johnny]

Originally Posted by Brandon1266

On behalf of 1266, the alliance captain of the winning alliance, I'd like to apologize for the technical foul call. While we do accept it as a victory because it was still a very close game, we are a little offput because it sort of seems like we didn't really "win" it. I would have liked to see a 3rd match played, with a matchup like that you guys really deserved it.

I guess we will just have to hope that technical foul calls will be more refined by Las Vegas, and that we're more aware of what exactly was the foul and sooner. Let's keep in mind though that the refs are doing their best, and that we're fortunate to have dedicated people like that in FIRST.

Brandon spoke for our team. Our team doesn't like the idea of our win being questioned because it was a hard fought victory. Having to win a match "on account of a penalty" is never optimal, but it's just part of the game.

I've been involved in FRC for 10 years and have seen ref calls decide matches and lots questionable calls. I've watched the replay and was on the field when the call happened and I honestly can see why the ref could have made that call.

Picture the scenario; the game was close and the beach bots scoring that last ball could have put the blue alliance ahead, but as the beach bots are going to score the ref sees a red ball move across the field with some force hitting the beach bot robot and no attempt by the red team to grab the ball. Seconds later 330 shoots and misses.

This is probably what the referee saw. Intentional or not, we need to understand that this is a difficult call but it's understandable why it was made. 987 and 2485 were fierce competitors and I have great respect for both teams. 987 has been one of my favorite teams since I started frc and I have looked up to their organization ever since. 2485 has a special place for me because I remember when our original mentor and myself as a student helped your team get started in frc and vex. You guys have turned into such an amazing team! Team 1266 apologizes tremendously for having to win under these conditions. Having been around so long though, I accept that penalties are part of the game and I instruct all my students to be very careful with everything they do during a match, especially during elimination because the threat of game deciding penalty are always present.

We will be seeing 987 and 2485 again at the Vegas regional and our team is looking forward to it! Once again I'm sorry for our team having to win by technical foul, but props to our alliance partner team 330( my favorite team besides my own). Their driver was amazing and saved us quite a few times with his ability to weave through defenses and score in the high goal!

[CTHP]

The judges and referees should have weighed available video evidence considering the importance of the final matches. I watched the YouTube video half a dozen times (at the crucial moments - took about 90 seconds to reach a conclusion) and it was clear that the RED ball was heading toward a RED alliance robot when #330 turned into the path of the RED ball. So if it was a 'strategic' move to inbound a ball to deflect an opponent’s ball tucked safely inside an opposing team robot then isn't it equally likely that #330 turned into the path of the RED ball in order to create the foul? Sure it is.

Do I believe that? Of course not! What we had here was a spirited match and given the situation neither the HP nor 330 were intentionally attempting to cause a foul. Had the ball been clearly over-thrown past all the RED robots to an open part of the field containing only a BLUE robot and its ball, then the refs have a 'strategic' foul to deal with. From what I understand, only a single referee saw the event and video evidence presented to the refs seconds after the match ended was not given due consideration.
I also agree with the assessment from Hayes92107: “Based on my GoPro video, the ball was being inbounded to 2485 when 330 tried to pass our robot to get into scoring position and the ball bounced off the blue ball that was within the passing robot”.

[TheMadCADer]

An important thing to keep in mind when something like this comes up is the reason we have foul points. The foul points awarded should be directly related (though not necessarily equal) to the amount of harm done. Fouls exist to keep unfair play from changing match outcomes. Changing the outcome of a match is exactly the opposite of what they're intended to do!

Sure we can argue back and forth over whether the rules were violated or not, but there comes a point where you should question a rule that is causing undesired results. Rules are tools, if they aren't working, let's fix them.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by CTHP

The judges and referees should have weighed available video evidence considering the importance of the final matches.

The judges have nothing to do with it. And the referees are prohibited from looking at videos (section 5.5.3).