G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester

[who716]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Did you play last year's game at all? The mood of the head ref definitely played a huge factor. Heck, whether assists were counted depended on where on the field it occurred with some refs not counting assists and others counting them.

I'm sure I could find examples of this going back many years. FIRST's rules are not, never have been, and never will be perfect.

Mmmmmm........

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

An email from Kevin Ross (PNW Chairman) stated that this practice would not be permitted in our week 2 event and that we were expected to strictly abide by the limit. I have also gotten word (indirectly) from the head ref of that event that the 60 second time limit will be enforced.

So week 2 teams are supposed to strictly abide by the 60 second limit. So, once (the previous match ends/previous teams exit the field/a team enters the field/sets their robot down/field reset completes) the team has 60 seconds to (finish setting up/exit the field/be behind the alliance wall). Glad Kevin Ross has cleared that up.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

So week 2 teams are supposed to strictly abide by the 60 second limit. So, once (the previous match ends/previous teams exit the field/a team enters the field/sets their robot down/field reset completes) the team has 60 seconds to (finish setting up/exit the field/be behind the alliance wall). Glad Kevin Ross has cleared that up.

This is another disaster waiting to happen - a classic over reaction. Are all refs gonna start the count at the same time? What are the criteria for starting the count? This is the reason the 60 seconds was in a blue box to begin with - so the ref could exercise discretion, wisdom and GP.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I'm sure I could find examples of this going back many years. FIRST's rules are not, never have been, and never will be perfect.

2012 and 2013, those rules were perfect, completely undebatable objective scoring, no subjectivity to it. This years game is pretty good about objective scoring, but a lot of the other rules are awfully subjective and up to the refs.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by themccannman

2013

Protected LOADING ZONE rules. G18-1 vs. G30.

[Jared]

Originally Posted by themccannman

2012 and 2013, those rules were perfect, completely undebatable objective scoring, no subjectivity to it.

That's not really true. In 2012, the protected loading zones and bridges had some controversial calls. The definition of a bridge (troll bots!) and grasp/grapple/grab (118's bridge mechanism) were "subjectively" interpreted.

In 2013, there were several calls that upset people relating to interfering with climbing. IIRC, a team fell off the tower and gave another alliance a penalty when the other alliance did not cause the fall.

[Anteprefix]

Originally Posted by Jared

That's not really true. In 2012, the protected loading zones and bridges had some controversial calls. The definition of a bridge (troll bots!) and grasp/grapple/grab (118's bridge mechanism) were "subjectively" interpreted.

In 2013, there were several calls that upset people relating to interfering with climbing. IIRC, a team fell off the tower and gave another alliance a penalty when the other alliance did not cause the fall.

Trust me, we remember that incident quite well.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

... FIRST's rules are not, never have been, and never will be perfect.

No doubt true and true of most any game, contest or contract. It is nearly impossible to write a set of rules that are perfectly unambiguous to every party. Subject the rules or criteria to a bunch of genius nit-picking engineers and it is often not pretty!

Many times I've been part of proposal teams where the engineers, younger versions of myself included, get way too pedantic. Some times common sense is the way to go - ask the customer (in this case the GDC) how they intended the game be played or the contract be bid. In this case Frank has spoken for FIRST and spoken wisely (in my opinion).

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by wireties

No doubt true and true of most any game, contest or contract. It is nearly impossible to write a set of rules that are perfectly unambiguous to every party. Subject the rules or criteria to a bunch of genius nit-picking engineers and it is often not pretty!

Many times I've been part of proposal teams where the engineers, younger versions of myself included, get way too pedantic. Some times common sense is the way to go - ask the customer (in this case the GDC) how they intended the game be played or the contract be bid. In this case Frank has spoken for FIRST and spoken wisely (in my opinion).

I prefer to think of myself, my students, and all the other teams as the customer... because you know, the giant stacks of cash we give FIRST every year.

The "Team Experience" is very important, and the fact that we pay so much to compete makes it harder to let things slide.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I prefer to think of myself, my students, and all the other teams as the customer... because you know, the giant stacks of cash we give FIRST every year.

The "Team Experience" is very important, and the fact that we pay so much to compete makes it harder to let things slide.

^THIS^

Frank gets it; Team Experience. If the volunteers think that the Team Experience will be enhanced by counting the timer at some arbitrary time and counting 60 seconds, then they don't get it. I hope the week 2 volunteer leaders at each event are smarter than this.

If not, then I have some questions:

1. When does the 2 minutes start?
2. What if field reset people are in the way?
3. What if the person timing the 60 seconds isn't using a stop watch?
4. What if my robot doesn't get on the field until 30 seconds after your robot? When does the time start then? Are there multiple time keepers?

We are asked to understand the intent of a rule so I ask the same of the volunteers. We do not want unnecessary delays because of setting up potentially gangly robots. A stop watch is not necessary.

I am really interested in what Frank and the rest of the GDC intended for this rule.

Someone really needs to go through match footage and look at how much time teams took last year. I bet the average was more than 1 minute from the time the robot broke the plane of the field border and the time the last drive team member left the field.

Paul

[EricH]

How I preferred to enforce the rule at IE:

If you were the last team setting up on my side of the field, I'd be standing nearby watching. Nothing like a striped shirt watching you to indicate that maybe you need to move faster.

We never did call anybody though--one or two teams did take a while, but no call was made (particularly if they'd had a really fast turnaround). That might be because we were pretty much on schedule throughout the event.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I prefer to think of myself, my students, and all the other teams as the customer... because you know, the giant stacks of cash we give FIRST every year.

The "Team Experience" is very important, and the fact that we pay so much to compete makes it harder to let things slide.

In a real sense, of course, you are correct. We are all paying FIRST but then large components of FIRST are volunteers.

But that is not how the game itself is played. Our "customer" gives us a set of design criteria on the first Saturday and we have 6+ weeks to design, construct and test a product. In the context of the game, FIRST and the GDC is the customer.

On the higher plane (where we are paying big $$$), Frank has spoken for FIRST promising just what you ask for. Maybe it is time to move on?

[MikeE]

Originally Posted by Steve Kaneb

The manual has been updated to explicitly allow this (I remember it being implicitly allowed at previous competitions).

Although teams should supply their own tether.

[ratdude747]

Glad to see the tethering update, I remember at Indy a red card was given for such (I was the scorekeeper who had to enter it).

IMHO (my opinion alone), it was a somewhat lame red card to be given, but G14 was G14, cut and dry. Live and learn, the rules take few exceptions.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Along similar lines...Transport Configuration.

I'm curious how it was enforced and implemented in other areas of the country. In South Florida- teams were permitted to exit Transport Configuration once they reached the on-deck queue boxes.

Will this be the norm? Is this how it was done in other venues?

-Brando

First, what Jon Stratis and Paul Copioli said.

At the MAR event where I am LRI, if we are running behind I will ask to allow teams to exit Transport Configuration in queue, where there is little risk to the general public. But if all is running smoothly*, then it'll be enforced pit to field....keeping the team experience in mind. No need for Transport Configuration Police.

*Yeah, when will that ever happen?