San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by mkausas

Image of when 330's intake snapped our belt:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1LW...9FN3I0NXc/edit

Image of our belt dragging on the ground:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1L...it?usp=sharing

Later in the match 1266 was heavy defense on 987; however, they drove up onto 987 for a solid 4-5 seconds making obvious contact inside their frame perimeter.

Image of 1266 on top of 987:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1L...it?usp=sharing

They loaded for me. My opinion of this is an unfortunate truth of the reffing process: if a ref doesn't actually see 330's intake in there and physically snapping the belt, then how can they be certain that that's why the belt broke? As I did earlier in this thread (or another thread, I don't remember...), I'm simply playing the necessary devil's advocate in this discussion and am making no accusations whatsoever. We had this come into question at Mt. Olive, and unfortunately, since the ref didn't actually see the damage occur, it can't be called. Obviously, I can't speak for the refs at San Diego, but I empathize with them in that frame perimeter damage is one of the toughest things to call.

[TheMadCADer]

Originally Posted by Dave McLaughlin

All of the images loaded find for me, perhaps you're behind a firewall or something?

No firewall, about as plain of a home connection as possible.

Google Drive, Dropbox, etc. are all notorious for doing exactly this. They're great for sharing larges files between a small group of people, but for public sharing let's please try to use something functional.

[ThunderChief]

I have just posted another video of the Final-2 match at the San Diego Regional with a different angle. There is a clear view of the Human Player starting at 2:15 running from the freshly lit pedestral with the red ball. Then he hesitates at the corner like he his checking with the drivers. Then the infamous throw down the field. Interestingly, I don't see any referee waving a flag following that.
Close to the start of the match, at :28 you can clearly see 2485 spinning around. Then you can see what they say is their "belt, which drives our intake rollers, was snapped off" coming off. As they move away, the belt appears on the carpet and I zoom in on it at :32. (That blue blur is the BeachBots schooling everyone on how to drive in the Finals.)
The link to YouTube is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNvJydgBokU

[RallyJeff]

Originally Posted by mkausas

Both cases were protrusions into other robot's frame perimeters and one caused major damage to our robot causing us not be able to score for the rest of the match. When we went to the question box after the match with video evidence of what had happened we were told that the match score would not be reconsidered. It just confuses me how in such an important match the refs made such a controversial call yet didn't make any calls on two such obvious fouls...

Are they obvious? Not all protrusions into an opposing robot's frame perimeter are fouls.

With the March 4th game update, G28 changed: it now prohibits initiating deliberate or damaging contact inside the frame perimeter of an opposing robot. If "the actions of the damaged robot are the catalyst for the damage", there's no foul.

I wasn't at this match, so I can't say whether this is the case here. I'm just throwing it out as something to consider.

[sammas121]

We just got back from the Utah regional and the finals went about the same for us there as well. We were picked as a defensive robot on a strong alliance, (although we were seeded 5th we breezed through our quarter finals) and as such ran into a few difficulties. Right when our round was about to start our laptop had a blue screen of death, as we were walking out onto the field. We quickly rebooted the laptop (thats how we had fixed it earlier). When the laptop was rebooting they started announcing the teams and asked us if we were ready to compete so we yelled no! and made an "x" with our arms. The Technical Advisor then came and checked to see if we were almost ready and when he turned around one of the other refs on the sidelines told us we had to step behind the playing line so the match could start. Because the laptop couldnt finish rebooting we lost (because we were defense). We went and talked to the head ref and he said that we should have stayed in front of the line to distinctively demonstrate that we werent ready. (violating the other ref who told us we had to step behind the line) he also said that he had no recollection of us telling them that we werent ready, and when we pointed out that the Tech advisor had seen us and even come over he said that because we did step back he assumed we were ready for the match. During the next match of the semis another robot on our alliance got hit hard enough to crack the lexan ( inside of their frame so it should have been a technical which would have won it for us) when we went to the referee and showed him the lexan was cracked he looked at us and said "do you really want to do this" and then proceeded to say that because he had no recollection of the hit he couldnt call it a technical. When we then pointed out that it was cracked he said that he did not trust our honor system and that we may have just cracked the lexan earlier and were only showing it now. While I do appreciate the refs and their volunteer time, i wonder what we shouldve done in that situation. We have always been taught to follow the refs and so it was rather confusing when we were told we should have disobeyed the ref (by staying over the line, which couldve resulted in a technical). Also it was confusing to us when the lexan cracked because before when that problem happened they told us we had to leave the robot on the field and show the refs, so when we finally did this they did nothing. Your thoughts??

Originally Posted by sammas121

...Right when our round was about to start our laptop had a blue screen of death, as we were walking out onto the field. We quickly rebooted the laptop (thats how we had fixed it earlier). When the laptop was rebooting they started announcing the teams and asked us if we were ready to compete so we yelled no! and made an "x" with our arms. The Technical Advisor then came and checked to see if we were almost ready and when he turned around one of the other refs on the sidelines told us we had to step behind the playing line so the match could start. Because the laptop couldnt finish rebooting we lost (because we were defense).

It sounds to me like there was a major breakdown in communication between you, the FTA, the head ref, the scoring table, and the emcee. The FTA should have signaled to the scoring table not to start the match. The head ref should have seen the FTA at your driver station, and known not to start. You should have been pounding on the window to get the head ref and emcee's attention to not start. The head ref and FTA should have had a better channel to communicate with each other. And finally, the emcee should have been paying attention to the FTA, head ref, and scoring table to know when it's ok to start.

So there are quite a few problems here, but know that there were actions you could have taken to prevent the problems.

During the next match of the semis another robot on our alliance got hit hard enough to crack the lexan...when we went to the referee and showed him the lexan was cracked he looked at us and said...that because he had no recollection of the hit he couldnt call it a technical.

You didn't state whether the opponent was inside your frame perimeter causing the damage, or if it was just a really hard bumper-to-bumper hit. But no matter, if a referee didn't see it happen, they can't call it. Bringing a damaged part of your robot to the question box won't help you get a call. Like I said, if we didn't see it, we can't call it, and we have no way of knowing if that part you brought happened in the last match, or one that you keep on your cart for such situations. I know that's not what you wanted to hear, but the referee not calling it after the match was the correct thing to do.