Go to Post Mentors: Don't give up folks, your efforts are not in vain. The kids get something out of it whether we get acknowledgment or not. - Swampdude [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-05-2014, 13:02
buchanan buchanan is offline
Registered User
FRC #2077 (Laser Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Wales, WI
Posts: 66
buchanan is just really nicebuchanan is just really nicebuchanan is just really nicebuchanan is just really nice
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri View Post
the analyses (at least the one I linked), aren't saying that more foul points were scored this year
It didn't say so, but it is indeed the case:
Code:
Match type Q
Year	Total Points	Foul Points	% Foul
2012	 255330		 19194      	  7.5%
2013	 778520		 41320      	  5.3%
2014	1576037   	188080     	 11.9%

Match type E
Year	Total Points	Foul Points	% Foul
2012	 92904     	 3876       	  4.2%
2013	242568    	 9031       	  3.7%
2014	404948    	33670      	  8.3%

Match types Q & E
Year	Total Points	Foul Points	% Foul
2012	 348234    	 23070      	  6.6%
2013	1021088   	 50351      	  4.9%
2014	1980985   	221750     	 11.2%
This is from the same data referenced in the other post. The raw point totals don't really matter due to different scoring rules and different number of matches counted, but percentages may be directly compared.

Every way I've broken it down, foul scoring was a significantly bigger factor in the 2014 data set than it was in 2012 and 2013 ones.
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-05-2014, 13:02
Caleb Sykes's Avatar
Caleb Sykes Caleb Sykes is offline
Registered User
FRC #4536 (MinuteBots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 1,044
Caleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carol View Post
Let me ask a theoretical question. If a ref sees an action which could be a foul, but they need to check with the HR or another ref who had a better sight angle, would you, as a team member, prefer the ref to immediately enter the foul, only to delete it after the match if it was incorrect, or not to enter the foul, and add it after the match after checking?

Yes, in a perfect worlds all fouls are immediately caught and interpreted correctly, but we don't live in a perfect world with professional referees.
I think that the referee in question needs to make their best judgement call at that moment, and not wait until the end of the match to check with the head referee. If another ref had a better sight angle, then both refs should communicate at that moment (thumbs up/thumbs down) which I have often seen them do. After match corrective measures should be few and far between. Each referees need to take ownership of their own calls, not wait around until the end and force the head referee to make a call/no call on a situation that he didn't even see.

On another note, if the ref is unsure of whether something is a foul, their default call should be no foul, just like in every other sport.
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-05-2014, 13:42
mathking's Avatar
mathking mathking is offline
Coach/Faculty Advisor
AKA: Greg King
FRC #1014 (Dublin Robotics aka "Bad Robots")
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 634
mathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri View Post
I understand the point about potentially biased methodologies, but the analyses (at least the one I linked), aren't saying that more foul points were scored this year--they're at least attempting to speak to the consequentiality question.

Good catch on 2011; I'd blanked on the coin flip. Not just the towers malfunctioning, but the refs-as-garage-door-sensors. Another real- to post- scoring agreement without a view of reality. Albiet I personally saw a lot more problems in 2011 than 2014 (the later certainly non-negligible), which is pretty impressive considering 2011 was so much easier to spot unless someone really pushed the window. Fortunately, once I assumed it was an end-match coin flip, it didn't much affect strategy. (Honestly, it was a coin flip by the end anyway, so the failures were mostly just annoying.)

I still can't grasp the argument that 2013 was hard to keep track of, though. Even if the real-time was bad at the event, the math was easy and you only had to tally at the walls, as opposed to tallying assists everywhere for both balls.
My point about isn't that anyone's methodology was bad or biased. Just that a question like "was this foul consequential?" is a hard question to answer statistically. It is pretty clear to me that the fact that fouls were a bigger percentage of the total points is evidence that points to fouls being more consequential this year than the last two. A comparison of fouls to margin of victory might be better, but then again I can think of some reasons why it might not. But there are probably some better ways to attack the question, but most of those would require knowing when fouls occurred. But I am still noodling around trying to find a good way to approach the issue.

As for 2013, I (and my team) found it frustrating that there were many matches where the final score was dramatically different than what was on the scoreboard at the end of the match. I don't know that our strategy was necessarily changed all that much, but twice we thought we had wins and lost, and one thought we lost when we won.

I am not arguing that Aerial Assist was without flaws. In many ways I think the flaws were more irritating to me than they might have been because there were some simple fixes that could have greatly improved things. I took a team to Crossroads and the Championships, and I was a referee at Queen City, so I saw the game from two different perspectives. I think the single biggest issue was having the referees both calling fouls and scoring the match. Two dedicated scorekeepers would have greatly improved game play. If the referees didn't have to toggle between screens and were only calling fouls their would have been far fewer missed assists and the like. A close second as far as issues was the pedestal. I think the game would have been better if there was a foul for entering a ball into play before the other was scored, rather than having to depend on a sometimes glitchy pad to pedestal system.

As for 2011, I think the perspective on how annoying the towers were depends on whether your team got short changed. I had two friends whose teams lost a match (or two) that would have left them top 8 in which their minibot clearly reached the top first but was not credited with a score. If your team didn't make eliminations or were eliminated in that way, it would probably make you less favorably inclined to the game as a whole.
__________________
Thank you Bad Robots for giving me the chance to coach this team.
Rookie All-Star Award: 2003 Buckeye
Engineering Inspiration Award: 2004 Pittsburgh, 2014 Crossroads
Chairman's Award: 2005 Pittsburgh, 2009 Buckeye, 2012 Queen City
Team Spirit Award: 2007 Buckeye, 2015 Queen City
Woodie Flowers Award: 2009 Buckeye
Dean's List Finalists: Phil Aufdencamp (2010), Lindsey Fox (2011), Kyle Torrico (2011), Alix Bernier (2013), Deepthi Thumuluri (2015)
Gracious Professionalism Award: 2013 Buckeye
Innovation in Controls Award: 2015 Pittsburgh
Event Finalists: 2012 CORI, 2016 Buckeye
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2014, 13:20
Siri's Avatar
Siri Siri is offline
Dare greatly
AKA: 1640 coach 2010-2014
no team (Refs & RIs)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,603
Siri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Siri
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carol View Post
Let me ask a theoretical question. If a ref sees an action which could be a foul, but they need to check with the HR or another ref who had a better sight angle, would you, as a team member, prefer the ref to immediately enter the foul, only to delete it after the match if it was incorrect, or not to enter the foul, and add it after the match after checking?

Yes, in a perfect worlds all fouls are immediately caught and interpreted correctly, but we don't live in a perfect world with professional referees.
Personally, I prefer it signaled and not entered. Reffing, I typically end up half-hearting the signal (some kind of a flag point with coach eye contact, rather than an aggressive wave). It's subconscious, but recently a few of coaches that know me have noted it's a nice 'this might be coming your way' warning. I like the signal approach as a coach myself, but fortunately in my case a 'signal' from one of you guys can be a grimace or hitting the radio button. My druthers resolution? Have an official signal and/or a button (because we all so love buttons) that calls it up on the projector. I prefer the former, but I could see the latter for the crowd. Make it a driver's meeting topic.

I can't believe I've never talked about this before. This is why Carol rocks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking View Post
I am not arguing that Aerial Assist was without flaws. In many ways I think the flaws were more irritating to me than they might have been because there were some simple fixes that could have greatly improved things. I took a team to Crossroads and the Championships, and I was a referee at Queen City, so I saw the game from two different perspectives. I think the single biggest issue was having the referees both calling fouls and scoring the match. Two dedicated scorekeepers would have greatly improved game play. If the referees didn't have to toggle between screens and were only calling fouls their would have been far fewer missed assists and the like. A close second as far as issues was the pedestal. I think the game would have been better if there was a foul for entering a ball into play before the other was scored, rather than having to depend on a sometimes glitchy pad to pedestal system.
First, I look forward to any analysis you do decide on. You've clearly got a very strong handle on the complexity of the question, and you have my apologies as I feel like I've been unintentionally adversarial about it.

Queen City - Queen City was the same week a 2nd of 3 ref gigs, and while I would've loved more refs, we were never toggling screens if we were a scoring ref. (Actually, I never did this, thouh at NYC we had 8 refs.) If I was a foul ref, I'd sit on the possession screen to cross-check, and only flip to the foul screen after I'd signaled one and was otherwise clear--no robots in my zone of responsibility, and my cycle either had all 3 assists already or at least wasn't about to end. Otherwise, we'd radio for entry. I had a truss ref come over and punch fouls for one or both of us a couple times. How was it done a QC? Different places I reffed or played under had better ideas for different tasks, but there didn't seem to be a lot of cross-event consistency even in logistics.

Pedestal - yes, there were a lot of things that worried me about the rules on kickoff (and since), but they seemed to have trade-offs. The pedestal on Kickoff Sunday was my first 'what the heck is the point of that?' moment. The trashcan's only purpose in this game was to make coaches mad at refs, make refs feel bad, upset the audience, raise the responsibility and failure rate of field reset, induce replays, slow down game play, and make dead balls suck more for all parties. So, in retrospect it actually had a pretty expansive purpose. If I never have to spend hundreds of dollars staring at an unlit trashcan again, it'll be too soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking View Post
As for 2011, I think the perspective on how annoying the towers were depends on whether your team got short changed. I had two friends whose teams lost a match (or two) that would have left them top 8 in which their minibot clearly reached the top first but was not credited with a score. If your team didn't make eliminations or were eliminated in that way, it would probably make you less favorably inclined to the game as a whole.
Yes, I would presume that this is true of any game. (It's why I keep scores in my head--not that that helped with the Towers, but it did for 2013.) Unfortunately I can't think of any quantitative dataset that would allow us to check things like this, so I've tried to shift my anecdotal assessment at least from 'did I hate this?' to 'how many did I see?'
__________________
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2014, 13:49
mathking's Avatar
mathking mathking is offline
Coach/Faculty Advisor
AKA: Greg King
FRC #1014 (Dublin Robotics aka "Bad Robots")
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 634
mathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri View Post
Personally, I prefer it signaled and not entered. Reffing, I typically end up half-hearting the signal (some kind of a flag point with coach eye contact, rather than an aggressive wave). It's subconscious, but recently a few of coaches that know me have noted it's a nice 'this might be coming your way' warning. I like the signal approach as a coach myself, but fortunately in my case a 'signal' from one of you guys can be a grimace or hitting the radio button. My druthers resolution? Have an official signal and/or a button (because we all so love buttons) that calls it up on the projector. I prefer the former, but I could see the latter for the crowd. Make it a driver's meeting topic.

I can't believe I've never talked about this before. This is why Carol rocks.

First, I look forward to any analysis you do decide on. You've clearly got a very strong handle on the complexity of the question, and you have my apologies as I feel like I've been unintentionally adversarial about it.

Queen City - Queen City was the same week a 2nd of 3 ref gigs, and while I would've loved more refs, we were never toggling screens if we were a scoring ref. (Actually, I never did this, thouh at NYC we had 8 refs.) If I was a foul ref, I'd sit on the possession screen to cross-check, and only flip to the foul screen after I'd signaled one and was otherwise clear--no robots in my zone of responsibility, and my cycle either had all 3 assists already or at least wasn't about to end. Otherwise, we'd radio for entry. I had a truss ref come over and punch fouls for one or both of us a couple times. How was it done a QC? Different places I reffed or played under had better ideas for different tasks, but there didn't seem to be a lot of cross-event consistency even in logistics.

Pedestal - yes, there were a lot of things that worried me about the rules on kickoff (and since), but they seemed to have trade-offs. The pedestal on Kickoff Sunday was my first 'what the heck is the point of that?' moment. The trashcan's only purpose in this game was to make coaches mad at refs, make refs feel bad, upset the audience, raise the responsibility and failure rate of field reset, induce replays, slow down game play, and make dead balls suck more for all parties. So, in retrospect it actually had a pretty expansive purpose. If I never have to spend hundreds of dollars staring at an unlit trashcan again, it'll be too soon.

Yes, I would presume that this is true of any game. (It's why I keep scores in my head--not that that helped with the Towers, but it did for 2013.) Unfortunately I can't think of any quantitative dataset that would allow us to check things like this, so I've tried to shift my anecdotal assessment at least from 'did I hate this?' to 'how many did I see?'
I don't think you have been particularly adversarial about it. I feel like I have been the adversarial one, though that isn't my intention. In any event, I am still noodling around with modeling ideas, but all of them will likely need to wait until after June 21 when the Central Ohio Robotics Initiative is over. Between the end of the school year, track season, the FRC Ohio Championships and hosting the CORI event I just don't have the energy to focus on much else.

I had the same thoughts about the pedestal on kick-off day. I told one of the mentors I know "I hope the pedestal lights don't turn out to be 2014's version of the minibot towers." We are changing the rules for CORI. Not having to watch the pedestal should also make refereeing easier.

At QCR we tried as much as possible to (after autonomous) have the near side referees do all the scoring entry and the far side referees do all the foul entry. We had a bunch of post match huddles, but most of the time those did not result in scoring changes. When they did it was not always added fouls. I would say that the most common change was adding assists. A lot of the time we would hit a second or third possession followed by a score and submit it quickly and one possession would not register. Almost every time a team came up and asked us about a missed assist we either said "Yes we know, it is being corrected" or "Team xxx didn't get into the white zone before they took the truss shot." At our event I am trying to recruit four scorekeepers who will watch just for possessions, trusses, catches and goals as well as a complement of referees.
__________________
Thank you Bad Robots for giving me the chance to coach this team.
Rookie All-Star Award: 2003 Buckeye
Engineering Inspiration Award: 2004 Pittsburgh, 2014 Crossroads
Chairman's Award: 2005 Pittsburgh, 2009 Buckeye, 2012 Queen City
Team Spirit Award: 2007 Buckeye, 2015 Queen City
Woodie Flowers Award: 2009 Buckeye
Dean's List Finalists: Phil Aufdencamp (2010), Lindsey Fox (2011), Kyle Torrico (2011), Alix Bernier (2013), Deepthi Thumuluri (2015)
Gracious Professionalism Award: 2013 Buckeye
Innovation in Controls Award: 2015 Pittsburgh
Event Finalists: 2012 CORI, 2016 Buckeye
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2014, 17:29
AnonymousMarvin's Avatar
AnonymousMarvin AnonymousMarvin is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 23
AnonymousMarvin is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

I think that in the case of realtime scoring of fouls, the refs should just make the best judgment call on the field, and if another ref saw the same thing but had a different opinon on what should be assessed, then a post match huddle should insue. But unless another ref saw something different or had reason to question, the foul should be signalled then immediately scored, or not scored if it indeed it wasn't a foul.
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2014, 18:25
M. Lillis's Avatar
M. Lillis M. Lillis is offline
Registered User
AKA: Michael Lillis
FRC #0177 (Bobcat Robotics)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: South Windsor
Posts: 168
M. Lillis has a spectacular aura aboutM. Lillis has a spectacular aura about
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

Realtime scores will change an alliance's strategy in a match. It is a product of the matches being so short. This is not like a football game, where you can do one play and stop to think about your next action, based on what happened on the last down. I think that the GDC needs to look into the effect of penalties on a match. 50 pt penalties can change who wins a match. 5-15 yards in a football is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but in the moment it changes your next play.

Just like football has rules that change coaches challenges under 2 minutes, maybe FRC needs rules about the value of penalties in the last 30 seconds. Make technicals 50 pts for the first few minutes. Then in the final 30 seconds decrease the value of a technical to something more manageable, like 30 pts. This makes penalties more manageable, based on the time left on the board.
__________________
Driver 2012-2014
Official Record: 82-44-0 (1.86 W/L)
2014 Elimination Record: 18-2
2014 CT State Championship Winner
2014 New England District Championship Winner
2014 Hartford District Winner
2014 Granite State District Winner
2013 CT State Championship Winner
2013 Connecticut Semi-Finalist
2012 Connecticut Semi-Finalist

www.BobcatRobotics.org
  #23   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2014, 18:31
Gregor's Avatar
Gregor Gregor is offline
#StickToTheStratisQuo
AKA: Gregor Browning
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,447
Gregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Lillis View Post
Just like football has rules that change coaches challenges under 2 minutes, maybe FRC needs rules about the value of penalties in the last 30 seconds. Make technicals 50 pts for the first few minutes. Then in the final 30 seconds decrease the value of a technical to something more manageable, like 30 pts. This makes penalties more manageable, based on the time left on the board.
Not that everyone agrees with the value of the penalty points (see: Spanking the Children), but the reason they exist to get rid of the situation where "taking a foul" is advantageous. If offering different foul point values at different times in the match, it could create a situation of intentionally taking a foul for net gain.
__________________
What are nationals? Sounds like a fun American party, can we Canadians come?
“For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity.” -Jean Dubuffet
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein
FLL 2011-2015 Glen Ames Robotics-Student, Mentor
FRC 2012-2013 Team 907-Scouting Lead, Strategy Lead, Human Player, Driver
FRC 2014-2015 Team 1310-Mechanical, Electrical, Drive Captain
FRC 2011-xxxx Volunteer
How I came to be a FIRSTer
<Since 2011
  #24   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2014, 20:51
Caleb Sykes's Avatar
Caleb Sykes Caleb Sykes is offline
Registered User
FRC #4536 (MinuteBots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 1,044
Caleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor View Post
Not that everyone agrees with the value of the penalty points (see: Spanking the Children), but the reason they exist to get rid of the situation where "taking a foul" is advantageous. If offering different foul point values at different times in the match, it could create a situation of intentionally taking a foul for net gain.
This is absolutely true. The problem with this year's game was that the penalty value required to avoid certain behaviors varied with the number of ASSISTS the opponent had. 50 points worth of fouls are needed when the opponent's ball has 3 assists on it, but no more than 20 are needed when there are no assists on it. A better way of assigning penalties this year would have been:
FOUL value = 10*(# of ASSISTS that the opposing alliance currently has)
TECHNICAL FOUL value = 20 + 10*(# of ASSISTS that the opposing alliance currently has)

Given, this would have made the game even more complex, but I think the grand majority of teams would have preferred this since it likely would have reduced the penalty points considerably. Also, some values would have to be worked out for autonomous and autonomous balls.
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2014, 21:19
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is offline
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 19,730
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkling16 View Post
FOUL value = 10*(# of ASSISTS that the opposing alliance currently has)
TECHNICAL FOUL value = 20 + 10*(# of ASSISTS that the opposing alliance currently has)

Given, this would have made the game even more complex, but I think the grand majority of teams would have preferred this since it likely would have reduced the penalty points considerably. Also, some values would have to be worked out for autonomous and autonomous balls.
That would actually be a pretty cool idea, for something like this. (GDC, I know you're reading CD. If something like Assists is done in future, please consider this carefully.)

Now, here's the thing: The refs would have to enter the foul quickly. No waiting until the end of the match, and hopefully no scores in between calling and entering. That's kind of the tricky part. A button to enter the foul on the scoring screen would work--dunno why this wasn't incorporated in the first place other than maybe lack of room.

That said: I really like this one. FMS already tracked assists automatically, why not allow it to vary fouls based on assists? One tweak is that I'd have a "base" foul score--thus, if no possession established, or in automode, it still hurts. Let's say that the base foul score is 10 points. The other is that I'd call fouls based off of one alliance's assists, and technical fouls off of all assists on the floor at the time--that is, both alliances' assists. (Translation: Commit a technical at the wrong time and OUCH! to the OUCH!--I can see something like a 70-point foul being possible there.)
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2014, 22:13
dmaciel10123 dmaciel10123 is offline
The Everything Guy
AKA: David Maciel
FRC #3525 (The Nuts and Bolts of Fury)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Waterbury, Connecticut
Posts: 100
dmaciel10123 is an unknown quantity at this point
The current score really does change the entire strategy that an alliance plays by. There were numerous times during strategy talks that we'd have a backup plan in case we started falling behind or if we got a good lead.
__________________
  #27   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2014, 23:53
AnonymousMarvin's Avatar
AnonymousMarvin AnonymousMarvin is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 23
AnonymousMarvin is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

I agree fouls do change strategy in the middle of a match, and its always a good idea to have a back up plan,but if the refs just made the call on the feild and then either they log that foul or have somebody do it for them and the call stays then that would have significantly changed some of the matches. Because of the inconsistancies in the way the fouls were called on the field, the way they were logged, and the way they were scored you could never really know for sure wether or not something was or wasn't a foul. This year fouls played an even more important roll than recent years in changing the outcome of a match. The problem rested in the number of points award for each foul, the numbera were way to high. For example in orderto make up one technical foul you needed a 3 assist cycle with a truss just to break even woth that penalty. The points awarded for fouls should never have been that high to begin with.
  #28   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2014, 07:40
GaryVoshol's Avatar
GaryVoshol GaryVoshol is offline
Cogito ergo arbitro
no team
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 5,726
GaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

A twist on Carol's question:

Most refs can decide if something was a foul or not. But what about that sliding scale - was it a foul or a tech foul? - for those many infractions we had this year where both penalties were possible. Would you rather the ref entered the tech foul and it was downgraded after talking to the head ref, or enter the foul and it was upgraded later?

In the ideal world, we would decide that during the game. But this year while I was talking to one of my refs during the match, we missed a score and the pedestal didn't light for a significant time. Oops - replay.
__________________
(since 2004)
  #29   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2014, 16:22
BrendanM's Avatar
BrendanM BrendanM is offline
Lead Mechanic / Electrician, CAD
FRC #0250 (Dynamos)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: May 2014
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 15
BrendanM is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Fouls that "Didn't Affect the Outcome of the Match"

I wholeheartedly agree with everything said on this thread. At the same time I would also like to point out how incredibly difficult it would be to count fouls as they occur in a match. As others have said; the refs had a huge amount of work to do for the 2014 games. There were rules that called for subjective decisions and others that needed a lot of situational attention. If there was even more to give the refs their penalty accuracy would drop tremendously. For example: at one of the competitions my team went to, there was a last second 40 point shot that changed the outcome of the game. Great, whatever. But they forgot to count it. It took about 45 minutes just for the refs to agree on weather or not it actually happened. Point is, there's only so much detail that can go into score counting as the game is being played.
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2014, 18:28
dmaciel10123 dmaciel10123 is offline
The Everything Guy
AKA: David Maciel
FRC #3525 (The Nuts and Bolts of Fury)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Waterbury, Connecticut
Posts: 100
dmaciel10123 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonymousMarvin View Post
I agree fouls do change strategy in the middle of a match, and its always a good idea to have a back up plan,but if the refs just made the call on the feild and then either they log that foul or have somebody do it for them and the call stays then that would have significantly changed some of the matches. Because of the inconsistancies in the way the fouls were called on the field, the way they were logged, and the way they were scored you could never really know for sure wether or not something was or wasn't a foul. This year fouls played an even more important roll than recent years in changing the outcome of a match. The problem rested in the number of points award for each foul, the numbera were way to high. For example in orderto make up one technical foul you needed a 3 assist cycle with a truss just to break even woth that penalty. The points awarded for fouls should never have been that high to begin with.
That's the reason that the question box is there. If a foul is called on a team that really shouldn't have been a foul, the team can and should question it so the refs can gather and discuss it. But at least warn the team that there is a foul that may be called on them so they can adjust based on that.

As for the foul points, I believe it was said earlier that the high points are there to provide encouragement to not commit a foul.

If I recall correctly, there was never a foul called against my team this year except one in Hartford, but because I questioned it there was a rematch. But there were a lot of fouls called against alliance members that they never questioned, even at Worlds. A part of the fouls system relies on teams being willing to question it when something is called on them, but some students just seem to be intimidated by the refs.
__________________
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi