2014 Arkansas Regional

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by robotlover77

I am not attacking anyone. I simply provided information that I did not know beforehand. I notice you did not dispute that indeed it is all factual. People can take from it what they want and draw their own conclusions. I think transparency is of utmost importance in any kind of competition especially when the outcome is determined by the referees decision, not by game play.

I was there as a potential team sponsor. I am not relying on biased hearsay. There was not simply one foul that decided one match. The blue alliance won the first match and appeared to have one the second and third, but because of fouls called in the last two after the match had concluded it was determined that they lost. I heard many in the stands voicing their displeasure. One person even predicted the exact outcome after the second match. I was shocked and asked where to voice my concerns. They directed me to this site and told me to send a letter to FIRST.

As vehemently as I disagree with your accusations and interpretation of events, it seems that you've been the victim of a lack of context and some unfortunate behavior on the part of one of the Arkansas regional competitors, or at the least misinterpreted what was told to you.

I can see how, as a new potential sponsor, it would be confusing and suspicious how the finals shook out at Arkansas-- but fortunately there's a lot more context than what you are putting on the table. As has been mentioned, 16 is a Hall of Fame team, meaning they have won the single most prestigious award in FIRST-- the Championship Chairman's Award. Not only has FIRST held up this team as an example to all of us, but they have through the nearly 20 years of their existence been quite simply a shining example of gracious professionalism and what it means to be a FIRST team. Not only that, but, as already mentioned, they have very little to gain from any of the activities you accuse them of.

If I'm reading your posts correctly, it seems that you are new to FIRST and believe you've had a very questionable experience. I urge you to listen and try to parse what everyone is trying to say-- even if they're a bit rough about it. Please understand you are accusing one of our most admired teams and most beloved families of doing nothing less than violating everything that they and we as a community stand for. Outstanding claims require outstanding proof, and so far you've brought very little data and a lot of speculation and misinterpretation to the conversation.

I hope you have the opportunity to experience FIRST at its fullest if you are indeed a new-comer. If you aren't, I genuinely hope that you reflect on you words and realize how ridiculous the accusations you are putting forth are.

[Canon reeves]

There is just no way that the Novaks would ever do this, their overflowing gracious professionalism is so evident, during quarter finals our alliance was going against theirs and we needed an Anderson connector and they brought one over on the spot. The fouls can not be ignored just because it changes the match, the fouls weren't forced by anyone. All members played an extremely good match, and the reffs didn't have a dog in the race, they are there to officiate and they do that to the best of their abilities. As much as they want to see everyone win, they are un-bias, and are there by their own will and we are so thankful for them. It is OK to question things, but in the proper fashion, resorting to dragging a family's name through the mud is not an example of Gracious professionalism, that is not in the goal of First.

[robotlover77]

Admittedly I am new to FIRST. I was asked to watch a regional competition as a potential sponsor. It just so happened that this is the match that worked out logistically. I have however witnessed countless other competitive events in a host of fields on all levels. There is potential for bias in all competitive events and FIRST in no exception; to think otherwise is extremely naive.

The level of support you have for certain teams is impressive, however, nobody should be above review. Mistakes can be made regardless.

Remember, that 2 years ago, 16 experienced first hand what somebody actually fixing an event feels like, and I guarantee that they would NEVER allow anything like that to happen, because they have seen how it affects everybody involved.

So are you saying that past FIRST events have been "fixed" ? Was it called into question and rectified? I would appreciate any honest feedback as I am trying to make a decision regarding team sponsorship and I in no way want to be affiliated with an organization that condones such behavior and dishonesty. The team appealing for my sponsorship painted a much different picture of FIRST.

[sircedric4]

I am trying to figure out how to get my name out of the conspiracy theory quote just so some of the well deserved reputation hits to that account don't get associated with me or my team.

I have been talking to the Novak's and they couldn't be more pleasant people and they are probably more devastated at the perceptions than I am. Our team is indeed writing a letter to FIRST, but it is a plea for reasonable penalties and to learn their lesson going forward about the game Aerial Assist. Our letter will be praiseful of the Arkansas Regional staff and volunteers because they were put in an impossible position.

I can only speak for myself, but as a mentor with a dog in the hunt, we had a wonderful time at a beautiful venue, and lost our regional finals due to penalties that were commited by our alliance. That the rules are silly and too punishing I am more than willing to discuss, but collusion or conspiracy I will not entertain.

[coalhot]

Originally Posted by robotlover77

So are you saying that past FIRST events have been "fixed" ? Was it called into question and rectified? I would appreciate any honest feedback as I am trying to make a decision regarding team sponsorship and I in no way want to be affiliated with an organization that condones such behavior and dishonesty. The team appealing for my sponsorship painted a much different picture of FIRST.

Hopefully this clears up a little about that. Be sure to read the report though:

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...einsteinreport

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by robotlover77

So are you saying that past FIRST events have been "fixed" ? Was it called into question and rectified? I would appreciate any honest feedback as I am trying to make a decision regarding team sponsorship and I in no way want to be affiliated with an organization that condones such behavior and dishonesty. The team appealing for my sponsorship painted a much different picture of FIRST.

2 years ago at championships, during the finals, someone actually interfered with the field, and was able to shut down any robot at will. He admitted to doing it during one match. He was asked to never come back to a FIRST event ever again. Some people around here still have very harsh feelings on this, so this is about as much as this should be discussed. I just wanted to bring it up as a reason they would NEVER interfere, because they were on the other side.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by robotlover77

Admittedly I am new to FIRST. I was asked to watch a regional competition as a potential sponsor. It just so happened that this is the match that worked out logistically. I have however witnessed countless other competitive events in a host of fields on all levels. There is potential for bias in all competitive events and FIRST in no exception; to think otherwise is extremely naive.

The level of support you have for certain teams is impressive, however, nobody should be above review. Mistakes can be made regardless.



So are you saying that past FIRST events have been "fixed" ? Was it called into question and rectified? I would appreciate any honest feedback as I am trying to make a decision regarding team sponsorship and I in no way want to be affiliated with an organization that condones such behavior and dishonesty. The team appealing for my sponsorship painted a much different picture of FIRST.

As Nick mentioned, you're unfortunately missing context. The final rounds of the world championship in 2012 were sabotaged by (a now banned individual) interfering with robot communications.

FIRST is all based around "gracious professionalism" and a lot of the honor system. It is a touchy subject for a lot of people (for better or worse) whenever accusing a team or person of wrongdoings, even when they aren't Hall of Fame teams, storied volunteers, or "elite teams". I hope you have the opportunity to learn a little more of what we're about.

Next time, maybe ask around a little more before throwing accusations out, though

[Andy Grady]

Originally Posted by bduddy

I'm not going to comment on any conspiracy theories.
But can anyone tell me what rule was violated at the end of that match? 4090 only contacted the red ball once and without using an active mechanism, which has been specifically defined as not being POSSESSION. The only thing I could find is G11,
BALLS may not be intentionally or repeatedly ejected from gameplay
but that's a Foul, not a TF. Maybe hitting the opponent's ball into your own goal isn't part of the "normal" way to play this game, but that doesn't mean that it's a foul.

I watched the video, admittedly it was a bad view, from my standpoint G11 was likely violated. In the same case, you could also make a strong case that the robot was also herding or trapping the opponents ball which is a definite TF per G12. It happened fast and would be quite a tough judgement call to make.

[Arefin Bari]

First of all, this is a high school robotics competition.

Second of all, team 16 has enough blue banners.

Third of all, team 16 has won the championship before and they are a hall of fame team.

... I dont think they care much if they dont win one regional.

Everyone knows who Baxter Bomb Squad is and if you don't, you simply dont know their characteristics and their involvement in our community.

... Oh and if you did, you would never publicly attack the Novaks.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Andy Grady

I watched the video, admittedly it was a bad view, from my standpoint G11 was likely violated. In the same case, you could also make a strong case that the robot was also herding or trapping the opponents ball which is a definite TF per G12. It happened fast and would be quite a tough judgement call to make.

I don't think a G11 call would be too out there, although I don't think that they were actually attempting to score the red ball. But I don't think you can justify G12 at all. Herding specifically refers to contacting the ball multiple times, which did not happen, and trapping is defined as pressing the ball against the field or another robot, which clearly was not done.

I've been seeing a lot of misconceptions about possession lately, that's the main reason I'm posting really...

[Jefferson]

Originally Posted by robotlover77

So are you saying that past FIRST events have been "fixed" ? Was it called into question and rectified? I would appreciate any honest feedback as I am trying to make a decision regarding team sponsorship and I in no way want to be affiliated with an organization that condones such behavior and dishonesty. The team appealing for my sponsorship painted a much different picture of FIRST.

When we won the world championship in 2012, 1 member from a different team used a weakness in the WiFi communications to wreak havoc on other robots at the highest level. Two of the robots on our alliance had changed our radios, unwittingly making us immune to the attack. These events led some to question the legitimacy of the win. It was thoroughly investigated by FIRST, the offending party banned from any future FIRST activities, and we've all moved on.

I will not respond to any of the other accusations you've made here. They are slanderous and disrespectful. As your arguments have been thoroughly debunked, I would suggest that you and everybody else simply drop this thread.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by robotlover77

Admittedly I am new to FIRST. I was asked to watch a regional competition as a potential sponsor. It just so happened that this is the match that worked out logistically. I have however witnessed countless other competitive events in a host of fields on all levels. There is potential for bias in all competitive events and FIRST in no exception; to think otherwise is extremely naive.

Coming from a sporting context, or the context of most other events, I understand why you might leap to the "realistic" conclusion of foul play, but the thing is, FIRST is fundamentally different from nearly any other competition on the planet, because the goal isn't building the robot, it's building the students, inspiring the community, changing the culture of not only our nation, but the world. A football game is inherently petty-- there is no higher cause, but if you took a bit more time to talk to students not just about their team, but ask them about the others, you might get a better understanding of just how far teams will go to help their competitors compete to their fullest. It isn't uncommon in eliminations for an alliance to take a time out in order to give their opponents time to fix their robot. Team 16 and the Novaks are a shining example of this-- there wasn't a single team at that regional who wasn't impacted positively by them. To accuse them of intentionally causing a fracture in the community they helped to build and nurture at a regional that they are so invested in is like accusing parents of poisoning their children.

Originally Posted by robotlover77

The level of support you have for certain teams is impressive, however, nobody should be above review. Mistakes can be made regardless.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But we also need evidence of those mistakes, not broad accusations based on theory and hearsay.

Originally Posted by robotlover77

So are you saying that past FIRST events have been "fixed" ? Was it called into question and rectified?

Not fixed-- a couple of years ago, a mentor interfered with the wireless during the final matches of Championships. The mentor was banned from FIRST and measures were taken to improve wireless security at events.

Originally Posted by robotlover77

I would appreciate any honest feedback as I am trying to make a decision regarding team sponsorship and I in no way want to be affiliated with an organization that condones such behavior and dishonesty. The team appealing for my sponsorship painted a much different picture of FIRST.

Investing in a FIRST team is one of the best uses for your money out there, hands down. I don't know what team you were with, but I can almost without qualification say that your investment will help change at least one student's life, and quite possibly many more.

[robotlover77]

I do realize this is a high school robotics competition, however I have been asked to donate a substantial amount of money to a team. In return they would display my organization's logo as a representative of my organization. I do not take this lightly. I am now getting a much different picture of what this is all about, both from the weekend's competition and more so from this website.

[connor.worley]

I had the honor of going up to New York last Thanksgiving to kick off the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade with teams 16, 25, 180, and 1477. I can tell you firsthand that 16 isn't the type of team to be dishonest in any way - ever.

[Andy Grady]

Originally Posted by bduddy

I don't think a G11 call would be too out there, although I don't think that they were actually attempting to score the red ball. But I don't think you can justify G12 at all. Herding specifically refers to contacting the ball multiple times, which did not happen, and trapping is defined as pressing the ball against the field or another robot, which clearly was not done.

I've been seeing a lot of misconceptions about possession lately, that's the main reason I'm posting really...

Say robot 1 on the red alliance hasn't touched the ball, a partner shoots the ball over the truss and it ends up sitting in front of the red goal. Robot 1 then proceeds to pop the ball into the goal. Would you give robot 1 credit for possession? Absolutely...even on only one touch.

What if it was a blue robot and it went into the goal seemingly with purpose? It is also directing a ball into a certain direction with purpose. Also possession. In open field, I would agree...it would take multiple hits in the same direction. Against a corner, it would depend more on the direction the robot was moving and intent. That is my opinion.