North Star Regional...

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

It was the head ref's call, and it was final, but it was also incorrect. I refer you again to T16. How a broken field element that has affected the outcome of the match does not qualify as a broken field element that has affected the outcome in his judgment is beyond me. So while he is entitled to his judgment, I am entitled to my serious doubts about his judgment.

I interpret "ARENA fault" in T16 to mean that the field was broken, but not due to the actions of any particular robot.

If a specific robot can be blamed for a piece of the field coming loose, then that robot could actually be penalized under G10.

In the video that Jon posted, it seems pretty clear that one robot came along and push the gate off, then got caught on it. It was almost certainly accidental, so I'm happy that the robot didn't get a G10, but it definitely was well within control of the team.

The drivers are constantly going on and off the field to retrieve or place their robots, so they are aware that the gates are not locked in place. Perhaps teams just need to be more aware of which pieces of the field are more subject to dislocation.

[audietron]

Originally Posted by Tanis

The drivers are constantly going on and off the field to retrieve or place their robots, so they are aware that the gates are not locked in place. Perhaps teams just need to be more aware of which pieces of the field are more subject to dislocation.

A team should not have to go out of the way to put a ball into a goal just because a piece of the field is likely to come off. The gates come off often, yes and a driver knows that they should not slam into it but when just turning and grazing it causes it to fall off, There is a problem.

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by audietron

A team should not have to go out of the way to put a ball into a goal just because a piece of the field is likely to come off. The gates come off often, yes and a driver knows that they should not slam into it but when just turning and grazing it causes it to fall off, There is a problem.

Looking at the video again, it looks like the team caught the gap between the two sheets with their bumper, then drove forward and turned so that their robot was still moving into the gate at an angle. I wouldn't call that just a graze.

The other problem here seems to be that the drivers didn't notice the gate had come off. If they had seen that, they could have gone to the other goal to put the ball in.

I agree that what happened during the match was unfortunate. However, I agree with the ref in deciding that it was not a failure of the field.

[JeremyLansing]

Originally Posted by Tanis

Looking at the video again, it looks like the team caught the gap between the two sheets with their bumper, then drove forward and turned so that their robot was still moving into the gate at an angle. I wouldn't call that just a graze.

The other problem here seems to be that the drivers didn't notice the gate had come off. If they had seen that, they could have gone to the other goal to put the ball in.

I agree that what happened during the match was unfortunate. However, I agree with the ref in deciding that it was not a failure of the field.

I might not call it a graze, but I wouldn't call it a hard hit on the field either.
Part of section 2.1 in the game manual states "The ARENA is designed to withstand rigorous play and frequent shipping" I would not call this rigorous play by any stretch. I have seen far harder hit on the field that did not result in any noticeable effect. The fact that this field element did not stand up to what was in my opinion normal game-play indicates to me that it was a failure of the field due to a broken field component that affected the match outcome. To me, this is exactly the type of thing that T16 is there to prevent. G10 absolutely should not apply here as the blue box underneath clearly states "ROBOTS may push or react against any element of the FIELD." 2175 appeared to be "sidescraping" the field border to get their robot lined up with the low goal, something I have seen happen hundreds of times this year. What I haven't seen happen before is that panel coming off, which should have resulted in a T16 and a replay.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Tanis

I wouldn't call that just a graze.

cf. G10 and Sections 2.1 and 2.2.1. Certainly an appropriate action and certainly not appropriate for a G10.

Originally Posted by Tanis

The other problem here seems to be that the drivers didn't notice the gate had come off. If they had seen that, they could have gone to the other goal to put the ball in.

We all saw the gate come off, but no one was positive where it had landed on or off the field until we were stuck. I feel we shouldn't be looking out for all possible, invisible obstacles not described in the field spec, rather than focusing on playing the game.

Watch the video again, this time from 1:53. The bot pulls up to the ball, picks it up, and comes to a stop next to the gate. Then, in executing a pretty reasonable turn to face the goal, the corner snags the panel. It appears as if the velcro is not even attached in this case, since it immediately slides directly to the side (I doubt the velcro would shear like that from a bumper corner). It slides a foot or so before hitting the human player barrier and flipping onto the field.

When one robot breaks another, a foul is assessed for the damage. When one robot breaks itself, a foul may be assessed for violating other robot rules or leaving parts on the field that may become a hazard to other robots. When a robot breaks the field, a foul is assessed. But when the field breaks a robot, it's just "unfortunate."

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

It does not seem very productive to quiet the issue. I am not asking for a recall. Never once did I complain about how this affected my team. Fortunately, we had already qualified for the Championship. But some other teams were not so fortunate, and were very adversely by several questionable decisions by the refs, for which they showed no accountability. And I never said that 967, with our help, should have won the Semifinals. The opposing alliance played some amazing defense, though I challenge anyone to tell me that playing 2 on 3 in this is not a severe disadvantage. But you're suggesting they didn't even deserve a fair shot. And when a team of that caliber that has worked so hard all season and lost their chance at qualification to poor officiation, that is very unfortunate. It's not worth not arguing about after the fact. This sort of thing is bad for FIRST and I would like for it not to continue.

That is something I would never say, never have said, and would never suggest. If you look back a few posts, I stated that the results were unfortunate and everyone (which includes me) would have liked to see a clean game without this issue.


The gates have been the same way for at least 8 years - the bar locks in place, and the lexan sheet is hung on it. Also note that T16 states "If, in the judgment of the Head Referee..." The rule doesn't dictate specific situations or items, it gives the head ref the ability to replay a match if he feels its warranted. It's similar in concept to R08 - the LRI can rule a design or mechanism unsafe or causing an unsafe condition and make the team take measures to correct it, and it doesn't matter if the team agrees with the assessment or not. A good LRI will explain the issue to the team and work to get them to agree with the danger, but even if the team doesn't...

[JeremyLansing]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

The gates have been the same way for at least 8 years - the bar locks in place, and the lexan sheet is hung on it.

And in those 8 years, lots of things have changed. Just because things have always been that way doesn't mean they need to stay that way.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Also note that T16 states "If, in the judgment of the Head Referee..." The rule doesn't dictate specific situations or items, it gives the head ref the ability to replay a match if he feels its warranted.

You are correct, but that isn't the point. I cannot speak for anyone else, but in my estimation, the head referee's judgement was not correct. It certainly is true he didn't feel it was warranted, but I do, and so do several others. It would be preposterous for FIRST to include specific situations in T16. It would tie the hands of every head ref, and lead to even more problems. So it comes down to judgement. It depends on whether, in the Head Ref's estimation, a T16 needed to be called. I believe that estimation is not correct.

As you mentioned, everyone wants to see a clean game, hence why T16 is in existence.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

That is something I would never say, never have said, and would never suggest. If you look back a few posts, I stated that the results were unfortunate and everyone (which includes me) would have liked to see a clean game without this issue.

When you say that the events of the match were merely unfortunate and that the Head Ref was justified in making his decision, you are either suggesting that they did not deserve a fair shot, or you are suggesting that they got a fair shot. From what I saw, they did not get a chance to be beaten fair and square. If you think what happened was fair to Team 967, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[fr05ty27355]

I'd have to agree that this match should have been replayed. The guard coming off doesn't fall under G10, since it specifically states that robots are allowed to push or react against elements of the field. Although 2175 caused themselves to get stuck by continuing to drive onto the fallen guard, I don't feel that's reason enough to not replay the match. From the driver's perspective, I bet it was very difficult to see the guard, and when you only have 2.5 minutes in a match, you aren't exactly thinking through things thoroughly. The field should be built so that it can't easily fall apart. 2175 made it look as though a slight breeze could have knocked that guard off. Although these guards have been the same for a long time, drivers aren't (and shouldn't have to be) thinking about knocking these off (especially if they've never seen it happen before). I think this should serve as an example that these guards need to be redesigned. As far as field faults, I think it's safe to say that if a team launched a ball that hit the high goal and caused the goal to fall down, the match would be replayed. I see this situation as being no different, since an unintentional breaking of the field impeded a team's ability to score. I could see the head ref making the call he did for a qualification match, but not in eliminations. I have always felt that if something is in question during an elimination match, a replay should always be strongly considered. Usually these kinds of calls are made in qualifications to stay on schedule, but it's not justified to make a call for the sake of staying on schedule in eliminations. I'm very sorry that 967 and 4607 did not get to continue on for the chance to make it to the world championship.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

When you say that the events of the match were merely unfortunate and that the Head Ref was justified in making his decision, you are either suggesting that they did not deserve a fair shot, or you are suggesting that they got a fair shot. From what I saw, they did not get a chance to be beaten fair and square. If you think what happened was fair to Team 967, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

There seems to be some misunderstanding here... I never said the ref was justified, and if you go back and read my past 3 posts, you'll note that I've never actually said my opinion on the situation - I've merely pointed out what the rules say and what occurred.

The calls are what they are and the event is over. As a mentor, when my team suffers a disappointment or what they consider a "bad call", I see it as my job to help them get over it, move on, and get ready for whatever comes next. Whether thats another match, another regional, or starting prep for our offseason program doesn't really matter.

[Chief Hedgehog]

In every sporting match, nothing goes as planned. No matter the teams involved, no matter the venue.

I will be honest, I was heart-broken for my team, and my alliance after that match. I still am. To watch the match play out - it was heart-wrenching. It still is.

My team is still young - it is only our second year. To be able to compete in the elimination rounds of North Star two years in a row is quite a feat - to be able to have the same alliance two years in a row is unbelievable.

After last season, we knew that we must make a big jump to build off of last year's success. So we decided to make a practice-bot (Betsy) - and everything was working great... We did have major problems early on as we were unable to refit our superstructure to our competition Robot in proper fashion - and we found out that our PWM's were the source of our problems early on. But once everything was firing spot on - we were very dominant.

It breaks my heart to not be able to bring my seniors to St Louis... The role of the coach is not easy - it ends this way for so many. The coach has to live this type of emotional hemorrhage year after year - only a few get to walk away as Champions.

The officials made the call that they deemed best fit for the situation. Everyone can make the perfect calls from hindsight... but the officials have to do so in the moment. I respect the decision that was made - and we move on. And I thank the officials for a doing a great job at the North Star.

Again, I thank all that are involved in making FRC so popular in Minnesota. MN is a great place to build a FRC program - such great pre-season learning opportunities, a great infrastructure, great Inspectors (special thank you to Jon Stratis - you have been awesome the last two years), great volunteers, and great post-season opportunities...

I am grateful to coach in a community that backs us; I cannot thank XCel Energy, LPI, Darter Plastics, SEH, and all of our sponsors enough; I am very thankful for the opportunity to work with great mentors; most of all, I am thankful to work with the best group of students in Minnesota.

I coach my team to look for the opportunities in all situations - and FRC 4607 is hard at work making this year's robot more robust and potent than it was before - we look forward to the off-season events!

Good luck to teams 2177, 3042, and 4778 - I know you will represent MN well! Hopefully we can meet up at the MSHSL Tournament!

[Nemo]

Congratulations to all of the teams that are moving onto the Championship from North Star. They all deserve to go, and I'm sure the students and mentors on those teams have all worked very hard to get to this point.

Thanks to the hard working volunteers who make North Star a great regional.

It was great to work with all of the teams we had a chance to interact with, including our allies in the elimination rounds. It would have been interesting to see what would happen in the finals had we made it; all of the robots were getting beat up by that point. Our robot wasn't running at full power anymore; we had a bound up gear box on one side of the arm and possibly some worn out batteries causing things to run hot; we were draining batteries faster and running with less juice in the second half of our matches. So we were more and more vulnerable to defense. I think the alliance partners also were also experiencing some mechanical issues to add to the fun. We also blew a gyro to give some fun behavior in autonomous until we replaced it. This is the type of thing that happens all the time in elimination rounds, and it can go both ways. We know that pretty well after last year's finals in which 3928 (top seed and best robot at the event) had mechanical issues. It was great to see neutrino earn their first trip to the Championship, especially given their tough exit last year.

It was nice to see assists awarded for herding at this regional. It allowed one of my favorite matches ever to happen in Qualifier 80. We lost a chain and became immobile after autonomous, but the alliance switched strategies to have the remaining robots do two assist herding cycles. Then at the end, our partners pushed the ball to our stationary robot for a 3 assist high goal to end the match.

North Star is a great regional, and hopefully we can make it back there to compete again. Best of luck to all of the teams that are competing in the FIRST Championship and the Minnesota State Championship!

[SoMe_DuDe904]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

When you say that the events of the match were merely unfortunate and that the Head Ref was justified in making his decision, you are either suggesting that they did not deserve a fair shot, or you are suggesting that they got a fair shot. From what I saw, they did not get a chance to be beaten fair and square. If you think what happened was fair to Team 967, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Since 2008 (That year: KING TeC, Senior in HS) I've always remembered what my mentor said to me, "You can build the best robot in the world, but you need a bit of luck to win these competitions." That year, our robot crashed into the field at full speed and was disabled in match #3 of the finals in Wisconsin, leaving our teammate Team 93 to score solo for 2 minutes while we watched helplessly from the divers station.

What happened at North Star, and moreover seems to happen consistently at North Star is teams that "should win" expect to win.

No one here on the forums is saying that Team 2175 (winners of Northern Lights), Team 967, or Team 4607 deserved to lose or that the ref made the correct call. The ref made the call on the information that was available to him at that moment. Hind sight is ALWAYS 20/20. In 2011, there was a double red card at North Star that lead to an amazing upset (2177 was apart of the upsetting alliance). I can only imagine the backlash that created for their team and their alliance. (For those that don't know, a red card in elims = auto disqualification for the entire alliance (auto-win for the other), double red card = not a good situation).

WINNING IS NOT WHAT FIRST IS ABOUT. Gracious Professionalism is what we strive for here. we are all on the same team.

To 2175, 967, and 4607, if you guys believe a call was made incorrectly, then please use the proper channels to air your grievances. Don't take it out on the forums and more importantly the teams that played their hearts out, and gave it their all (likely including sweat and blood) to be where they are today.

Good Luck to those moving on to Champs,
To the Minnesota teams that qualify, see you at MSHSL!

Nate Vetter
KING TeC Alumni - 2169

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by SoMe_DuDe904

Since 2008 (That year: KING TeC, Senior in HS) I've always remembered what my mentor said to me, "You can build the best robot in the world, but you need a bit of luck to win these competitions." That year, our robot crashed into the field at full speed and was disabled in match #3 of the finals in Wisconsin, leaving our teammate Team 93 to score solo for 2 minutes while we watched helplessly from the divers station.

Was this a robot or field issue?

Originally Posted by SoMe_DuDe904

What happened at North Star, and moreover seems to happen consistently at North Star is teams that "should win" expect to win.

It is true that I expected Team 967 to win, based on their performance before and during elimination matches. Everyone has expectations, and these get upset all the time. I am not taking issue with the fact that they did not win. I am taking issue with the fact that they did not get a fair chance to win. I think this is a reasonable expectation.

Originally Posted by SoMe_DuDe904

WINNING IS NOT WHAT FIRST IS ABOUT.

You are correct. It is not about winning. But when officials reward the hard work of this team with results like this, and the FIRST community has this response, it makes me wonder what it is about.

Originally Posted by SoMe_DuDe904

To 2175, 967, and 4607, if you guys believe a call was made incorrectly, then please use the proper channels to air your grievances. Don't take it out on the forums and more importantly the teams that played their hearts out, and gave it their all (likely including sweat and blood) to be where they are today.

I and several others have already done so. My original post was made with the intent of informing the general public about the situation, as they did not seem to be informed (there was confusion in the stands immediately afterwards). Others did not seem to understand that there was an issue, so I stuck with it. I did not call out any of the teams on the opposing alliance for unfair play or malicious intent.

I am seeing the same trend across the country this season. Students and teams are being held accountable for their own honest and trivial mistakes as well as misfortunes out of their control, while FIRST is not responsible for mistakes on their end, in refereeing, field hardware, field software, inspection, etc. (Salient examples: Waterloo SF 1-3, Orlando QF 1, SVR SF 1-2, etc.) I don't like this. I would like it to change.

[mjc49]

In both tournaments we participated in there were tough decisions for Officials to make. Along with the field element being discussed from SF 1-3, our alliance had and autonomous high goal that clearly went through in QF 2-1 and bounced off something (a head) and came back into play. That really surprised me that it was ruled as not going through and the ball had to be cleared before a cycle could start. We got the short end of the ruling there and were on the other side in SF 1-3. The alliance of 967, 2175 & 4607 was excellent and their play when it was 2 on 3 was fantastic.

Does anyone know if FIRST reviews matches to help guide officials as the weeks go by? I was surprised that SF 1-3 was not replayed. That said, I watch pro football and there are similarly baffling calls each week where I believe officials interpret the rules incorrectly. Those folks are paid and are professional officials.