Team UPDATE - 2014-03-25

[Joe Ross]

Adds the no Einstein timeouts as announced on Frank's blog today, and announces the optional C++ update discussed here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=126102

Game Manual
General Announcements
C++ Update

We’ve identified a bug in the C++ code that causes an issue for teams using the SmartDashboard with C++ which results in their code locking up unexpectedly. The bug has been fixed and included in an update posted here. This update is strongly recommended, but not required. This update also includes a fix for the match time in the Driver Station class to reflect the 2014 timing, teams currently using GetMatchTime() with a workaround may need to update their code.

5.6 Championship Additions and Exceptions

At the 2014 FIRST Championship, Teams are split into four (4) Divisions: Archimedes, Curie, Galileo, and Newton. Each Division plays a standard Tournament as described in Section 5.3: Qualification MATCHES, Section 5.4: Elimination MATCHES, and 5.5: Tournament Rules, with the exception of Section 5.4.1: ALLIANCE Selection Process and Section 5.4.2: BACKUP TEAMS, to produce the Division Champions. Those four (4) Division Champions proceed to the Championship Playoffs, on the Einstein FIELD, to determine the 2014 FRC Champions.

There is no provision for BACKUP TEAMS at the Championship.

There is no provision for TEAM TIMEOUTS during the Einstein Tournament; however there will be an automatic FIELD TIMEOUT between each Einstein MATCH (i.e. Einstein MATCHES will be scheduled to accommodate a six (6) minute gap between MATCHES).

[Pat Fairbank]

Well, that was a letdown. I guess earth-shattering changes are reserved for Thursday evenings now.

[Kearse]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank

Well, that was a letdown. I guess earth-shattering changes are reserved for Thursday evenings now.

Agreed, I'm surprised that the issues of Waterloo SF 1-3 weren't addressed. I was at least hoping to see a modification to G14 in this update. How can I -unintentional or not - cause another alliance to incur more penalty points than I receive for damaging them? I can't see the sense behind allowing these situations to occur any further.

What's to stop a team from "accidentally" breaking something off an opposing robot in any given match? If it's going to give them a net gain in points then nothing but goodwill and the inability to actually make it look "accidental" is what's stopping them. Obviously it's not the ethical thing to do but it shouldn't even be an option if you ask me.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Kearse

What's to stop a team from "accidentally" breaking something off an opposing robot in any given match? If it's going to give them a net gain in points then nothing but goodwill and the inability to actually make it look "accidental" is what's stopping them. Obviously it's not the ethical thing to do but it shouldn't even be an option if you ask me.

In 2008, we went to the VCU regional and lost in the semifinals in 3 matches.
In one of the matches, a defender hit our partner Team 401 and they fell over. Because they fell over on its side, they got a penalty because they exceeded the maximum (cant remember the exact dimension) they could be extended horizontally.
We lost that match as a result.
Its been so long, but at that time, I was pretty upset.

Its too bad rules cant account for silly penalties like this based on the situation.

[Gregor]

Disappointing.

[donkehote]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Disappointing.

Agreed
Very disappointed. I guess the game is working as intended. Oh well, there's always next week.

[CLandrum3081]

Originally Posted by donkehote

Agreed
Very disappointed. I guess the game is working as intended. Oh well, there's always next week.

Or a couple days from now, if we're "lucky".

[Brandon_L]

My feelings towards this update.

Ladies and gents, prepare to find your students in random parts of the building in tears after you get knocked out of elims over pure stupidity. That was one hell I thought I wouldn't have to go through again, but GDC 2014 continues to surprise me.

What happened to raising the bar? Now we're going to see a ton of well built machines with stupid threaded rods sticking up in vulnerable places or acrylic panels. Is this the way you want the game to play? Because that's how it played last week.

[eddie12390]

Originally Posted by Kearse

Agreed, I'm surprised that the issues of Waterloo SF 1-3 weren't addressed. I was at least hoping to see a modification to G14 in this update. How can I -unintentional or not - cause another alliance to incur more penalty points than I receive for damaging them? I can't see the sense behind allowing these situations to occur any further.

Is there any chance you could describe what happened in SF 1-3?

[nathannfm]

Originally Posted by eddie12390

Is there any chance you could describe what happened in SF 1-3?

Someone broke 1114 in such a way that a part of their robot was extending more than 20 inches outside their frame perimeter. This got them a technical foul, the team that broke them only received a foul. That difference of 30 points decided the match and eliminated the 1114 alliance.

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by nathannfm

Someone broke 1114 in such a way that a part of their robot was extending more than 20 inches outside their frame perimeter. This got them a technical foul, the team that broke them only received a foul. That difference of 30 points decided the match and eliminated the 1114 alliance.

To be fair, there is a little more detail than that. The other robot was 1241 who was in the act of picking up their own ball. 1114 attempted to defend them from doing so, and collided with them.

http://www.watchfirstnow.com/archives/89874438

Collision happens at 1:12 in the video. You should watch the 10 seconds prior to the collision for context.

The other side of the argument is that 1241 was given a 20pt penalty for just trying to pick up their own ball because 1114 happened to break due to the collision.

There is a YMTC discussion where people are invited to try and break down a similar situation, and provide analysis of how penalties (if any) should be assessed:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=128131

In particular, after reading the scenarios that Brandon_L had to deal with this season, I'd love to see his analysis of the YMTC above.

Another notable thing about the match is the amazing blue 3-assist low-goal bounce-out that happens at the end of the match (around 2:25 in the above video), which would have sealed the victory for blue - penalties or not.

It's relevant because I think there's an impression that this was supposed to be a one-sided match that easily should have been won by 1114's alliance, when in actuality, the match itself (minus penalties) was extremely close and could have gone either way. This would be surprising to a lot of people who don't know just how good 3683 and 1241 are.

Back on topic, I wish the rules could have dealt with these types of situation in a cleaner, more straightforward fashion, but I'm willing to give the GDC some slack here, because I don't have a good handle yet what those changes should be!

[pfreivald]

Thank you, Mr. Lim, for those points. I watched the match, and while the penalty did decide the match, I agree that 1241 getting a penalty at all is no more and no less egregious than 1114 getting a technical foul...

...and it was indeed a very, very close match regardless of the penalties.

[Chris is me]

How can anyone say 1114's tech foul is "no more or less egregious" than the regular foul? While 1241's foul was clearly unintentional, they did break the letter of a (dumb) rule on their actions. 1114 broke a rule because of somebody else's actions with really no way to prevent it. What was 1114 supposed to do? Why is it okay for another robot's actions to break you and then get a net gain of points for doing so? The GDC clearly is aware of this, why did they all sit around and go "yup, we should let that keep happening"?

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

Back on topic, I wish the rules could have dealt with these types of situation in a cleaner, more straightforward fashion, but I'm willing to give the GDC some slack here, because I don't have a good handle yet what those changes should be!

I'm trying to think through this as well. Any chance we can attempt to offer the GDC some help here?

For instance, does G24 even need to exist? Why can't putting a robot on the field that willfully employs an anti-R3b strategy just result in a DQ? (I'd argue doing this deliberately is a Red Card offense similar to strategic G12, but it could stay the G24 tech foul if 'willfully' was added.) Or just make the G24 wording like G26, "ROBOT may not intentionally...exceed 20 in. beyond its FRAME PERIMETER." What secondary problems would either of these changes create?

Is there anything to do about G28? The addition of "initiating" is good. Should it remain deliberate or damaging? What, specifically, are the issues with this currently for both robots?

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

How can anyone say 1114's tech foul is "no more or less egregious" than the regular foul? While 1241's foul was clearly unintentional, they did break the letter of a (dumb) rule on their actions. 1114 broke a rule because of somebody else's actions with really no way to prevent it. What was 1114 supposed to do? Why is it okay for another robot's actions to break you and then get a net gain of points for doing so? The GDC clearly is aware of this, why did they all sit around and go "yup, we should let that keep happening"?

These are just areas of the rules that the GDC seems to overlook in addition to most of the FRC community.

FIRST needs to update these rules about perimeter limits and size constraints to include that actions take by other robots causing a robot to come in violation of these rules will not be penalized unless the actions by the robot helped to actively contribute to said violation.