2014 Arkansas Regional

[S.P.A.M.er 17]

Originally Posted by bduddy

...can anyone tell me what rule was violated at the end of that match?

Sure. The call was on a possession, more specifically herding. After the match ended, all of the referees met, and discussed what happened. Some of them saw what happened, others only got a glimpse. After the referees who saw what happened gave their description of the events, everyone unanimously agreed that the correct call was herding. This of course is a technical. It was called on the robot who pushed the ball into the low goal.

Source: I was one of the refs. Any other questions, feel free to PM me.

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.

Please take a look at this link directly from FIRST. Much happened during the final matches in the world championship. FIRST made sure that everything was done to sort out what was wrong on their end, the competing teams' end, and the interfering end. It just so happened that 16 was one of the competing teams in the finals (as was my old team). They were NOT involved in any of the foul play two years ago, just like they were not involved in any foul play at this regional (simply because there was none).

Source: Drive team and 2012 team captain for 180 SPAM. Once again, any questions please PM me.

I am sure that the picture they painted you of FIRST was accurate. I have been inspired by FIRST, I am currently a ME major at the University of Florida becuase of FIRST, and I can not recommend enough sponsoring a team. Your contributions may help inspire a student, just like FIRST has inspired many of us. If you truly want to know the community that is involved with FIRST, please read back to all of the responses that your posts has garnered. All affiliates of this program believe in FIRST's ideal of Gracious Professionalism, and not a single person would condone any amount of the behavior or dishonesty that your posts have been eluding to.

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by Andy Grady

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.

And this is indeed a position I would agree with, except that the inverse is not true. Many times a single hit with gusto were not considered possession enough to count as an assist for scoring. It is entirely too subjective, and it will be impossible to be consistent across all the venues with the current set of rules, I feel.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by sircedric4

And this is indeed a position I would agree with, except that the inverse is not true. Many times a single hit with gusto were not considered possession enough to count as an assist for scoring. It is entirely too subjective, and it will be impossible to be consistent across all the venues with the current set of rules, I feel.

I can agree with this. I noticed it this weekend, having reffed at Mt. Olive and then my team be competing at Groton. At first, I was a little annoyed at how they seemed to not be calling posession sometimes(and not just due to refs looking a different direction) and how it differed than how we called it at MO, but by Saturday afternoon, I had a pretty strong grasp of how they determined themselves to be calling posession. I have no problem with this because they were consistently calling it a certain way throughout the individual event. This is the most realistic situation I can see.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Andy Grady

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.

No, I wouldn't.

Can you tell me what part of this rule defines that as possession?

G12

An ALLIANCE may not POSSESS their opponent’s BALLS. The following criteria define POSSESSION :

“carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT or holding the BALL in or on the ROBOT),
“herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
“launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or
“trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).

[Andy Grady]

Originally Posted by sircedric4

And this is indeed a position I would agree with, except that the inverse is not true. Many times a single hit with gusto were not considered possession enough to count as an assist for scoring. It is entirely too subjective, and it will be impossible to be consistent across all the venues with the current set of rules, I feel.

I'd have to argue that any ball that is hit once and rolls into a goal is without a doubt a possession of the contacting robot, regardless of where it rolls. I mean, where else is the ball going to go? If the robot was pushed into it, and it rolled into the goal...then you'd have a point. If its a willing motion...well, then that is where it gets hairy. Any purposeful motion of a ball against a wall or goal going outside of the field would certainly have strategic merit in keeping the ball away from the other team. The spirit and intent of the possession of an opponents ball rule is to prevent just that.

[Andy Grady]

Originally Posted by bduddy

No, I wouldn't.

Can you tell me what part of this rule defines that as possession?

So you are telling me that a robot can purposefully score a ball and never possess it?

To answer your second question, I would call it herding.

To score in the goal, it takes one push to get the ball up the bump on the front of the goal, and one to push it down the ramp. Against the wall, one bump to push the ball upwards, and one to knock it out.

Edit: Trap works too...from the definition of possess in the glossary:

"trap (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them) a BALL."

[StevenB]

For the record, the referees who initially called the specific fouls in finals 2 and 3 were not associated with teams 16 or 3937. They didn't talk or consult with anyone outside the referee crew until the score was entered.

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

I didn't get to watch as much of Arkansas as I should. Do you know if these fouls were called much in quals? I've been watching a lot of streams the last two weeks and I've seen many teams violate said rule and not get penalized for it...

Yes, fouls all over the place; I'll do a more thorough analysis later, but from a brief glance at my pages of scorekeeper notes, there were fouls in more than half the matches. The fouls called in the finals were unfortunate but hardly unusual.

Both alliances were under incredible stress. For the red alliance, the result was 16 and 3937 getting hasty and missing lots of shots. For blue, it resulted in committing penalties they might have otherwise been careful to avoid (particularly in match 2).

[robotlover77]

Thanks to all who have responded to my prior posts. I have certainly been given a more clear picture of what FIRST really is.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you're going to act like this and lay out ridiculous accusations, no one wants your money.

[robotlover77]

Funny, I have been approached by 3 "teams" this year. They are all quite eager to take my money. Two of them virtually begged.

[AlecMataloni]

Alright, that's enough.

Someone on the mod team should lock this thread, as there's nothing else that can be said that will be productive.

[Roboter]

I was the Ref, scoring blue, in the corner in which the violation occurred.

//snip//

I have struggled with this myself. I hate the fact that the finals match, which bears great significance, was decided on fouls. But I don't question for a second the integrity of the other Refs.

//snip//

All that said, I do believe that the penalties are far too harsh. Not having experience before this, though, I cannot compare to other years.

And finally, if you are considering refereeing for a FIRST competition, later this year or another year entirely, make sure you think twice. It is a lot of responsibility and many people will count on you. And then go do it; the excitement is unrivaled and it is extremely rewarding to be able to volunteer for such an effective organization.

[JDNovak]

I don't post much but I would like to set the record straight. Someone back in the thread finally alluded to the real purpose of the FIRST experience in inspiring students to work hard at accomplishing what they set out to do. I try to get our team to understand that all we can do is try to look like we could win but winning includes luck and circumstance beyond our control. Last year, two penalty calls that were clearly questionable on video eliminated us from the Championship. We pleaded our case and walked away. Same thing happened in 2011. The most competitive person on our team is the drive coach. When I met him on the way back to the pits his first words were "I didn't want to win like that." We know that the scores wouldn't have been close if our Autonomous systems were working well and that will be our focus.
After 19 years, the winning and losing takes care of itself. My goal is to never be the team that someone wonders how we got there.
The choices are to play down to the competition or try to help the competition get better. We think the latter is the right choice and actively try to do that.
There is a thread on this forum every year of "best teams that have never won." The community is sophisticated enough to know who is doing the things that inspire youth to the next level.
Sure, the rules and amatur refs make the outcome less than perfect but there is so much more to the program that just can't be compared to sports.
We have struggled to get Arkansas companies to recognize that this is where they should be looking for their workforce. We had barely enough funding for this year and right now we have virtually no funding to do it again. If your goal is to make sure it goes away I'm sorry. Many of our teams can't raise the funds to travel out of state and stay in hotels so they can't survive without a local event.
Maybe your money would best be spent hiring professional referees for all events so no collusion could be possible. I hope you come to the conclusion that the competition is not the main product of FIRST and that the students that come through the program are able to handle the real world better than we can.

[Greg Needel]

Everyone take a breath, lets not let one person who we don't know tarnish the reputation of people who we do. Thanks to everyone who responded maturely and let your GP shine. Don't forget to keep being excellent to each other.



*Thread closed*