Make FRC History: WVROX

[1629GaCo]

#1 seed of 340,1629, and 291 lost the first match of elims 165-163

[1629GaCo]

The lower seeds have won 3 of 4 matches. I did not get to see one match as my feed dropped. q2's coming up.

[1629GaCo]

#1 seed won the second match big, the match ended and they have decided to replay q 1-2 for some unknown reason. I guess the "controversy" was that a truss shot went into the goal and then the volunteer gave the ball back to the HP who put the ball back in play while another ball was put into play back at the driver station. So hence the replay??? Even though the second ball stay in possession of a robot and never advanced down the field.

[Brian Maher]

Alliances:
1) 340(1), 1629(2), 291 (20) (QF) (dat upset)
2) 4954 (3), 1325(7), 4505(23) (W)
3) 2614(4), 4265(6), 888(21) (QF)
4) 132(5), 356(8), 4080 (22) (QF)
5) 1249(9), 3492(16), 1708 (19) (?)
6) 3504(10), 3260(15), 2641(18) (?)
7) 686(11), 1731(14), 4924 (24) (QF)
8) 4467(12), 3193 (13), 2655 (17) (?)

[1629GaCo]

#1 seed lost

[EricDrost]

Are the results from the qualification matches going to be posted anywhere?

I'd be VERY interested to see how stats like "Descending OPR" compares to "Seeding Results" with the very large sample size of matches that are accrued over 24 hours.

Estimated:
24h * 60m/h * 1 match/9m * 6 teams on field * 1 TOF/24 teams = 40 matches/team

Assumptions: 9 minute turn around time, no breaks, hours still contain 60 minutes after you've been playing with robots for 24 hours straight.

40 qualification matches per team (estimated) is unprecedented, and could be a good indicator of what would happen to seeding at a regular season FRC event with an increased sample size of matches.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

Are the results from the qualification matches going to be posted anywhere?

I'd be VERY interested to see how stats like "Descending OPR" compares to "Seeding Results" with the very large sample size of matches that are accrued over 24 hours.

Estimated:
24h * 60m/h * 1 match/9m * 6 teams on field * 1 TOF/24 teams = 40 matches/team

Assumptions: 9 minute turn around time, no breaks, hours still contain 60 minutes after you've been playing with robots for 24 hours straight.

40 qualification matches per team (estimated) is unprecedented, and could be a good indicator of what would happen to seeding at a regular season FRC event with an increased sample size of matches.

All I have is this, from Justin Montois' facebook page http://i.imgur.com/4Y0SSSE.jpg

[EricDrost]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

All I have is this, from Justin Montois' facebook page http://i.imgur.com/4Y0SSSE.jpg

Ah, not quite 40 but 26 is still more than double a standard district event. The fact that seeds 7-12 all have the same record is pretty interesting, I expected fewer ties than a standard event.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

Ah, not quite 40 but 26 is still more than double a standard district event. The fact that seeds 7-12 all have the same record is pretty interesting, I expected fewer ties than a standard event.

Because it is random pairings and not something like comparing current rank to match teams it's not that crazy that all the records settle together.

[ThunderousPrime]

Originally Posted by 1629GaCo

#1 seed lost

With out knowing a majority of teams at the event or watching the matches (the NASA stream would not work for me ) I would assume that this was another death by serpentine. 1511 Also went to a 24 team offseason event (Beantown Blitz) where we as the the 8th seed upset the 1st seed in part due to death by serpentine.

For those not familiar "death by serpentine" the term refers to top seeded alliances where the captain and first pick are great robots but the second pick is not resulting in upset elimination matches. This is especially prevalent at small events, which this event was, (24 teams) because there is simply not enough teams to allow a deep draft with better robots making elims. As a result the lower seeded alliances present legitimate challenges because matches can end up with 2 great robots and a poor robot vs 3 medium robots. This especially hurts in aerial assist with pt bonuses more assisting.

Also I hope some or all of the matches are archived I would love to see them.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by 1629GaCo

#1 seed won the second match big, the match ended and they have decided to replay q 1-2 for some unknown reason. I guess the "controversy" was that a truss shot went into the goal and then the volunteer gave the ball back to the HP who put the ball back in play while another ball was put into play back at the driver station. So hence the replay??? Even though the second ball stay in possession of a robot and never advanced down the field.

If that is the case, then I would agree on a replay. Here's why.

I'm assuming that the event was played under standard FRC rules. Under standard FRC rules, any robot scoring a ball must be between the truss and the goal. Thus, there should have been a no-goal, hand the ball back to the HP, DO NOT light the pedestal. Error on the ref's part, or the HP's part. (I'll get to the potential foul points in a moment.) But if you're under IRI rules, if you make a low goal on a truss shot you get the points. Error on the volunteer's part.

And about those fouls: For taking a ball off of an unlit pedestal, technical foul. For entering it into play, another technical foul, and the ball is field debris. Not pretty.


Because you now have a no-goal that was treated as a no-goal by one "end" of the field and as a goal by the other end of the field, the head referee would have no choice but to huddle up, get some clarity from the refs and possibly the reset, and then call for a field fault. Field faults are by definition replays under T16 if the outcome of the match was affected (and this one sure could have been). I'd go with a good call to replay that one.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by ThunderousPrime

With out knowing a majority of teams at the event or watching the matches (the NASA stream would not work for me ) I would assume that this was another death by serpentine. .

You are likely correct, but with 2 ball autos and how easy it is to retro fit a robot to deflect a ball (and get the 3rd assist), the only real difference between the 17th and 24th robot comes down to defensive ability, which isn't super significant at most events.

[orangemoore]

So...Who Won?

[Fletch1373]

Originally Posted by EricH

If that is the case, then I would agree on a replay. Here's why.

I'm assuming that the event was played under standard FRC rules. Under standard FRC rules, any robot scoring a ball must be between the truss and the goal. Thus, there should have been a no-goal, hand the ball back to the HP, DO NOT light the pedestal. Error on the ref's part, or the HP's part. (I'll get to the potential foul points in a moment.) But if you're under IRI rules, if you make a low goal on a truss shot you get the points. Error on the volunteer's part.

And about those fouls: For taking a ball off of an unlit pedestal, technical foul. For entering it into play, another technical foul, and the ball is field debris. Not pretty.


Because you now have a no-goal that was treated as a no-goal by one "end" of the field and as a goal by the other end of the field, the head referee would have no choice but to huddle up, get some clarity from the refs and possibly the reset, and then call for a field fault. Field faults are by definition replays under T16 if the outcome of the match was affected (and this one sure could have been). I'd go with a good call to replay that one.

We were playing with a slightly modified version of the standard rules. Truss-shot goals were allowed for this event(Source, I was at the scoring table for about 23 hours of it...). The reason for the replay was simply due to shear confusion. The refs dropped the ball(not literally) by not catching it happening at the time and stopping it. The field reset crew dropped the ball(again, not literally) by not realizing what should've happened instead of what did happen. I'm not here to point blame, just to clarify it a little. I'm sure you could understand how tired everyone was, and beyond that, it was a first year event, which took on a lot of rookie volunteers. While there were many of us with extensive FIRST experience, there was also a significant number of people that were just getting their feet wet, and I applaud them for that. It's unfortunate that it happened, but the replay was the correct course of action, and I believe it was well executed.

[Fletch1373]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

Assumptions: 9 minute turn around time, no breaks, hours still contain 60 minutes after you've been playing with robots for 24 hours straight.

We were running 10-minute matches and had quite a few breaks in the schedule(lunch, dinner, midnight break, etc.).