Missed Inbounder Assists

[Adam Freeman]

**Disclaimer** Not trying to call anyone out...just trying to understand.

While reviewing our match footage from the Waterford District F3 match, I noticed that one of our balls was only credited for (1) assist, even though it was passed out of 4994 in the red zone to 51, who had a possesion all three zones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...pDfBkQ#t=12 2

We specifically worked with 4994 to modify their robot to be able to pass the ball quickly out of their machine via their roller intake. Ball ball went in and out of their robot very quickly, but it was actively ejected from the robot by the intake spinning.

In the end, it's a moot point since we lost 130-95, so regardless of the additional assist it would not have changed the outcome of the match. But, I know that the fact that the lights were only showing (1) assist effected our strategy of where 51 scored that ball (low goal v. high goal). At the time the score was very close, and the difference could have been scoring in the low goal and starting another cycle v. trying to continue to score in the high goal.

It might be hard to tell in the video, since there are robots blocking the inbound but I can assure you the ball passed through 4994's robot. Is there a specific amount of time refs are looking for before a ball is ejected? Do we need to review our strategy with the appropriate refs so they know what to look for when we are trying to get a third assist with this type of machine?

I was told this was not the only time we were not credited for this assist in the elims. Although, this is the only video example I could find. Possible it was just an honest mistake by the refs.

I'd like to utilize this strategy in future competitions, and I want to make sure we are doing it correctly, to maximize our score.

[Steven Donow]

I would personally would consider this an assist, but would also like to hear other's opinion on it...at Northeastern when looking at possible 2nd picks before alliance selections we looked into doing similar things to a few teams in order to do a similar assist.

[MrForbes]

Wait till the green dot lights up before they get rid of the ball? Shouldn't be necessary, but it might be a good way to ensure the referee noticed the possession.

Being able do do things very quickly, means the things might not be seen. Apparently the referees have a lot of things to watch.

[Jay O'Donnell]

POSSESS: (for a ROBOT) to carry (move while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT), herd (repeated pushing or bumping), launch (impel BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or trap (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them) a BALL.

According to this definition of possess from the manual, it should've been counted as an assist, since they "launched" the ball, based on the definition of launch.

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Wait till the green dot lights up before they get rid of the ball? Shouldn't be necessary, but it might be a good way to ensure the referee noticed the possession.

Being able do do things very quickly, means the things might not be seen. Apparently the referees have a lot of things to watch.

This wouls seriously effect my strategy decision between running a 2 assist versus 3 assist strategy. We can run a ridiculouly fast 2 assist cycle. If I have to wait 5-10s (or more) for the lights to show that extra assist the extra 20pts isn't worth it.

[Chris Hibner]

The sad thing is if our robot's shooter didn't decide to start shooting high blooper balls instead of our normal low trajectory, we probably would've pulled out that match. We really need to figure out what changed in the afternoon.

[FrankJ]

This is a referees call. If it goes through the robot without the robot controlling it, I would not call it a possession. But then I am not calling your match. I would be happy either way as long as it was consistent.

[dougwilliams]

At 2:08? Wow that was impressively quick.

I think the problem is that you have to recognize that refs are human. To be honest, at a quick look you could have easily seen that and thought the human player inbounded and the robot didn't "catch it", or that the HP completely missed and it bounced off to the floor. (Looking at the video I do see that it went through the robot and the wheels spit it out and should be an assist as far as I can tell).

To make it more obvious and not have to wait an undue amount of time, I'd change slightly:

1- Have the HP inbound the ball and then have your driver enable the ejector wheels.

2- Inbound the ball, move a small bit and then eject.

Either should only add ~1second and make it more obvious it's a possession. An extra second would be worth the extra points to make it clear, and I agree waiting for the light 5-10 seconds is probably not worth it.

[mathking]

Having just refereed, my advice would be to go to the head referee before the match to point out that the particular robot being used does indeed eject the ball, so that the referees know to look at it.

For those who don't know, in teleop the near side (in front of the scoring table) referees can enter possessions, trusses, catches and scores. They are also the referees who can complete a cycle. Which is a different button from the score button. The far side referees can do possessions, trusses and catches. All four referees with pads can enter fouls. But to enter fouls you have to toggle between screens. As a result, at Queen City we tried to have the far side referees enter the fouls. The near side referees track the alliance shooting at the goal on their side while the far side referees track the alliance inbounding on their side. So if a far side referee is entering a foul they may be looking at their pad when the ball is put into play, and the far side referee can't always tell what happened. If they are expecting a quick inbound play they will be more likely to get it scored.

[waialua359]

Adam,
I think you understand it perfectly well and the strategy for 2 possession is the best there is on how to do it quickly.
As MathKing pointed out, I would suggest making sure the scorekeepers/refs understand what you are doing, especially during eliminations when the same strategy is being used by the same teams.

Over 3 events, we have seen so many missed assists in our matches, especially during qualifications. In our last 2 events, we earned 610 and 670 assist points with the field of teams available at our respective events, as it was a focal point for our team that we carefully watched for each and every match.

Hopefully at Championships, the reffing is more consistent. I'm sure as refs do more and more events, the chances of missed assists will occur much much less.

[mikemat]

What annoys me most about this situation is if that had been a red ball, there would have been a penalty, no questions asked. I know at our event refs were far more reluctant to call possessions on your own ball versus an opponents ball.

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

The sad thing is if our robot's shooter didn't decide to start shooting high blooper balls instead of our normal low trajectory, we probably would've pulled out that match. We really need to figure out what changed in the afternoon.

I think the same burden of responsiblity for the match outcome could be said about ensuring that our robot maintains power for the entire match.

Originally Posted by dougwilliams

At 2:08? Wow that was impressively quick.

To make it more obvious and not have to wait an undue amount of time, I'd change slightly:

1- Have the HP inbound the ball and then have your driver enable the ejector wheels.

2- Inbound the ball, move a small bit and then eject.

Either should only add ~1second and make it more obvious it's a possession. An extra second would be worth the extra points to make it clear, and I agree waiting for the light 5-10 seconds is probably not worth it.

Unfortunately, 4994 was having an issue with their intake motor locking up when it was not running when the ball was inbounded, so essentially our only option was to inbound and eject it very quickly.

My plan was to do it as quickly as possible with as little movement needed. I'm not sure if the "burden of proof" falls on the teams or the refs for these situations.

I know there were (3) refs on that end of the field. And none of them were inputting a score or a foul at that time, since we were defending 1718 at the time and they hadn't scored their ball...and I don't believe there were any fouls in this match.

I think we will specifically point out or strategy next time to the refs in that zone, so they are aware of what we are trying to do.

[dougwilliams]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

I'm not sure if the "burden of proof" falls on the teams or the refs for these situations.

Agreed, and not sure the burden falls on the team at all; but it wouldn't hurt in cases where you know it's not obvious.

Talking to the refs would be useful as the others have pointed out also.

[MrBasse]

That is a clear and perfect possession. But it might just be too fast for this game with everything the refs do. We had issues at St. Joe with similar things and even with auto balls still on the field counted when ejected in teleop for points. Damage inside the frame perimeter was almost never called even when large components were ripped off in plain view, or major damage is done way inside the frame (think 10-12 inches). Calls had to be super, super obvious even after five weeks of play. If you know it happened and your alliance knows it happened, you have to be sure that it is obvious enough for a ref who may or may not be looking at you to notice too.

With all that said, I love the way the game is playing now. Rules are called better, the game is about as rough as it should be, it is way faster than it was even two weeks ago, and hopefully everyone else can keep up with how it will run from now on.

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Over 3 events, we have seen so many missed assists in our matches, especially during qualifications. In our last 2 events, we earned 610 and 670 assist points with the field of teams available at our respective events, as it was a focal point for our team that we carefully watched for each and every match.

Glen,

You are SO correct, for both Qualifying and Eliminations! I tried to stress an assist first strategy for Quals this weekend, forgoing most truss/catch points just to try and get as many 2 or 3 assist cycles as possible.

We missed out on the #1 seed at Waterford by 20 assist points () . In hindsight every single little missed assist, blown strategy call, mis-aligned shot, etc... factors into my post-event analysis.

My guess is that each Division qualification ranking at Champs wil come down to the assist tie breaker as well. Typically the quality of reffing in MI is much higher than the quality at Champs, since most refs around here are working an event each week. They are usually very qualified by this time in the season.

We will definately be discussing our match strategy and alliance robot characteristics pre-match with the refs at Champs.