FRC Blog - My Bad Call

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by Foster

I have a question, what does the form / card look like for timeouts and substitutions?

You get 2 small slips of paper (like, newspaper coupon sized). One says "BACKUP COUPON", the other says "TIME-OUT COUPON".

The wording might be slightly different, but I just looked at a pair of them on Saturday.

[Chris is me]

I'd like to join the chorus of posters in commending Frank for an excellent decision and a gracious admission of mistake. It takes quite the person to own up to something like this, publicly. What a guy.

Originally Posted by S.P.A.M.er 17

I tried to post this in a comment on the blog, but it set of the SPAM filter for some reason. I was planning on posting it here anyway.

"This mistake was caught, and handled in an efficient amount of time. It is a good when people catch their mistakes, and explain their reasoning. Just an explanation would have been a great start to helping the teams involved, but extending the wildcard was a full remedy, and a great decision. The question I now have is; why hasn't something similar happened for the Orlando events? A controversial call was made in Orlando, and it could have affected one team their spot to championship. Why are you picking and choosing certain controversial calls to not only address, but also remedy and not others? Those teams deserve an explanation for what transpired, especially since they have given theirs."

I am happy that 1323 now has a bid for championship, and FIRST definitely went down the right road to fix the situation. But as I said in my comment, why are they picking and choosing what to address? This is HQ's second questionable call of the season, and since they decided to address this one, why shouldn't they have to address the first one?

A difference in these scenarios is that while 1323 was a match or two away from qualifying via wild card, the Orlando alliance had to win the semis and the finals to qualify. There were 4-6 matches in the way of the 233 alliance qualifying, but just two in the way of 1323 qualifying. In the past FRC HQ has been more willing to do this when the mistake alone could have cost them a trip to the Championship, while we have no way of knowing if the 233 alliance would have won in the end.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

A difference in these scenarios is that while 1323 was a match or two away from qualifying via wild card, the Orlando alliance had to win the semis and the finals to qualify. There were 4-6 matches in the way of the 233 alliance qualifying, but just two in the way of 1323 qualifying. In the past FRC HQ has been more willing to do this when the mistake alone could have cost them a trip to the Championship, while we have no way of knowing if the 233 alliance would have won in the end.

HQ adjudicating which transgressions get freebies and which don't is a slippery slope - one which invites public discussions about which teams have been *more wronged* by game and/or administrative blar beyond their control.

I'd prefer HQ focus their efforts on minimizing the controllable root causes that lead to such transgressions occurring. That is the kind of "freebie" I think all teams would genuinely appreciate!

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Thanks to Frank and FRC HQ for doing what they could to "try and make it right" for 1323. I'm not going to lie, I was more upset than I have ever been at an FRC event leaving SVR Saturday afternoon (including after Einstein 2012). While this update doesn't completely wash out the bad taste in my mouth, it was definitely the right thing to do for 1323.

I'm really excited for 1323 to be coming to champs. Their robot and team is just plain awesome and they will make some noise in whatever division they end up in. Go Madtown!

[D.Allred]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

A difference in these scenarios is that while 1323 was a match or two away from qualifying via wild card, the Orlando alliance had to win the semis and the finals to qualify. There were 4-6 matches in the way of the 233 alliance qualifying, but just two in the way of 1323 qualifying. In the past FRC HQ has been more willing to do this when the mistake alone could have cost them a trip to the Championship, while we have no way of knowing if the 233 alliance would have won in the end.

For Orlando, I feel that acknowledgement of the situation and improving the inspection process to address future misunderstandings are more important than a remedy for the affected teams.

(I see Travis already handled it...)

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by BigJ

You get 2 small slips of paper (like, newspaper coupon sized). One says "BACKUP COUPON", the other says "TIME-OUT COUPON".

The wording might be slightly different, but I just looked at a pair of them on Saturday.

When I was Field Supervisor @ Boston I custom made my own tickets for the teams. The Time Out Card featured a Clock. The Robot Replacement Card had a Kitsy Cute Robot on it and the Battery Card had a charge logo on it. They were all made separately on card stock and fairly large so they were easy to tell apart.

[Reanna]

Originally Posted by Foster

I have a question, what does the form / card look like for timeouts and substitutions?

This is what they looked like at SVR apparently, quoting Chinmay from the top of page 3 of the SVR thread:

Originally Posted by Chinmay

Edit: this is apparently what they look like http://imgur.com/iHFx9gU so not the easiest thing to mess up, but im sure it is hard to keep track of them when robots are having problems and students are stressed.

[plnyyanks]

Originally Posted by BigJ

You get 2 small slips of paper (like, newspaper coupon sized). One says "BACKUP COUPON", the other says "TIME-OUT COUPON".

The wording might be slightly different, but I just looked at a pair of them on Saturday.

Here's a screencap of the new version (previously, the lines for robot to be replaced an initial weren't there). They look pretty similar, especially pre-revision.

[Foster]

Thanks for the info on this. I had figured they were easy to confuse, only a one word difference.

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

When I was Field Supervisor @ Boston I custom made my own tickets for the teams. The Time Out Card featured a Clock. The Robot Replacement Card had a Kitsy Cute Robot on it and the Battery Card had a charge logo on it. They were all made separately on card stock and fairly large so they were easy to tell apart.

Sounds like a good idea. Then the ref and the submitter can look at the picture and say "what does that mean to YOU?"

----

I don't have a dog in the fight, but I can see people coming out of the shadows saying "well we had a bad call in Qual 21 and we would have won and that would have moved us up 7 spots in the ranking and the number one seed would have chosen us and we would be going to worlds...."

+1 for Frank, did some research, talked to all the participants and made the best repair he could. Sorry team xyz you missed on getting off the wait list, but who knows, maybe you are now #1 on the 2015 wait list.

[scooty199]

A great response from Frank. Great news for 1323 as well.

Hate to mention that negative side, but Travis does raise a point that selective addressing of issues can lead to a very slippery slope, and sets a bad precedent.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by scooty199

A great response from Frank. Great news for 1323 as well.

Hate to mention that negative side, but Travis does raise a point that selective addressing of issues can lead to a very slippery slope, and sets a bad precedent.

This isn't a new thing though.

All the way back in 2008 the entire finalists alliance at SVR were given Champs spots.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

HQ adjudicating which transgressions get freebies and which don't is a slippery slope - one which invites public discussions about which teams have been *more wronged* by game and/or administrative blar beyond their control.

I'd prefer HQ focus their efforts on minimizing the controllable root causes that lead to such transgressions occurring. That is the kind of "freebie" I think all teams would genuinely appreciate!

While I agree with the latter paragraph, I have to take some exception to the former; policies that remove adjudication (that is, judgment) lead to ridiculous things like second graders getting suspended for chewing their Pop Tarts to look like pistols.

"Zero-tolerance" polices are zero-thought policies specifically because they strip the adjudicating body of the ability to apply judgment and reason to the situation, and that makes them bad policy.

So yes, HQ should do everything they can to minimize all situations wherein such calls have to be made in the first place, but when those transgressions occur, the use of judgment to arrive at the most desirable (or least undesirable) outcome is not a slippery slope, it's necessary for sane and reasonable policy.

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

Originally Posted by Foster

I don't have a dog in the fight, but I can see people coming out of the shadows saying "well we had a bad call in Qual 21 and we would have won and that would have moved us up 7 spots in the ranking and the number one seed would have chosen us and we would be going to worlds...."

The difference is that in Qual 21, the head ref would have been the one that made the call, the team could have gone to the question box, and things would have been addressed then. When things come straight from HQ (like in Orlando and SVR), it is a little different. You do not get a chance to argue your point; the facts are given to HQ (by someone who might not have the facts completely straight) and then the gavel comes down to give the decision.

HQ calls were made in both situations, and in SVR's case, it was acknowledged as a mistake and remedied (A wildcard handed out, and a change in the backup coupon system). I would like to see something similar happen for Orlando. Not necessarily a wildcard being distributed, but FIRST acknowledging something went wrong, and how the plan to prevent it from happening again (as D.Allerd and Travis said).

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by S.P.A.M.er 17

The difference is that in Qual 21, the head ref would have been the one that made the call, the team could have gone to the question box, and things would have been addressed then. When things come straight from HQ (like in Orlando and SVR), it is a little different. You do not get a chance to argue your point; the facts are given to HQ (by someone who might not have the facts completely straight) and then the gavel comes down to give the decision.

HQ calls were made in both situations, and in SVR's case, it was acknowledged as a mistake and remedied (A wildcard handed out, and a change in the backup coupon system). I would like to see something similar happen for Orlando. Not necessarily a wildcard being distributed, but FIRST acknowledging something went wrong, and how the plan to prevent it from happening again (as D.Allerd and Travis said).

Except nothing went wrong in the Orlando situation on HQ's side. The robot's competed illegally and were, rightfully, red carded. That's the rules from HQ's perspective. Now, as to whether they were told it was ok or not... that's an entirely different issue but is NOT at HQ's level. It's at the level of the LRI.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Except nothing went wrong in the Orlando situation on HQ's side. The robot's competed illegally and were, rightfully, red carded. That's the rules from HQ's perspective. Now, as to whether they were told it was ok or not... that's an entirely different issue but is NOT at HQ's level. It's at the level of the LRI.

So its ok for a LRI to be wrong?

What sounds worse: a LRI knocks a team out or HQ knocks a team out?