The Fraud of FTC Worlds - How FTC & FIRST have failed me forever.

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Blake, I 100% agree.


I know there was talk in some earlier FRC threads about a "Putting teams FIRST" section in the volunteer manuals, but I think that needs to extend to FTC as well. Some of the volunteer behavior I witnessed and heard about at North Super Regional and Championships is in no way acceptable, and ultimately that comes down to us needing to train our FTC volunteers better, and making sure volunteers are in positions that fit their temperament. We collectively need to raise the quality of our FTC events, especially at the Super Regional level.

As someone who volunteered as an FTA at the super north regional, I'm curious as to what behavior you are referring to.

[FTC5110]

Originally Posted by gblake

Folks,

When I read the OP, I come away with the poster focusing on the decision not to replay the match, and not on the initial mistake.

Discussing the ins, outs, ups, and downs of volunteer or professional refs is a distraction from the point I think the OP wanted to make. In the story he told in his post, no one disagreed explicitly about whether or not the penalty assessment was a mistake.

Instead, I think the root of his frustration that the match wasn't replayed (or that a corrected score wasn't recorded) when all four teams involved agreed a mistake had been made.

The assumption (that might be 100% wrong) folks have been making, is that the FTC folks in charge of keeping things moving along, decided they preferred advancing into the next matches, over a replay or other adjustment of the recorded (but wrong) result of the match being discussed.

Moving the conversation back onto the topic of event-schedule-vs-correctness might be more valuable than rehashing the referees-are-human topic.

Blake

As one of the teams on red alliance (not playing in that match) we were stunned that a replay wasn't granted. All 4 teams wanted it and from what we could tell observing the match only 1 ref called the penalty but was blatently wrong. There were 4 refs for a 12'x12' field, it's not like FRC where it's hard work trying to see what's going on. For those of you not participating in FTC this incorrect call was a 370 point swing literally gifting a win to blue.

Probably the most uninspiring moment for us since starting with FIRST in 2009. If scheduling was the reason a replay wasn't granted someone needs re-think why they're involved with this because they've failed in the most basic function - inspiring kids. No one in the stands would have cared about missing 5min of lunch break or only waiting patiently 25min for closing ceremony to begin.

Fail on so many levels.

[The Lucas]

In my experience, after the initial sting of losing on a controversial ref call seems overwhelming. However, after that passes they become some of my favorite stories to tell. One in particular became a feel good story and my team became good friends with one of our opponents (we were already good friends with some of the other ones). Since your opponents agreed that the match should be replayed, perhaps when you meet at Worlds next year to talk and bond over this shared experience.

Originally Posted by ksafin

The Story:

This story is regarding FTC Edison Division Semi-Finals match 3. We, ERX, are paired with Cougar Robotics, going against an alliance including Masquerade and Tesla. The record is 1-1, so a third match is forced.
Here is a video of the match, please feel free to forward to the tele-op period at https://youtu.be/5d3UuzGS5Lk?t=301.

Pay attention to Tesla's robot on the bottom left of the field as it manipulates the 90cm goal. Pay special attention to where we, ERX, and Cougars robots are. If you go to 5:20 (https://youtu.be/5d3UuzGS5Lk?t=319) and wait four seconds, you'll see Tesla drop their 90cm goal by moving up their intake.

If you watch till the end of the game and look at the tubes, I think you'll conclude that it's obvious that the red alliance won the match.

Here's where it starts. Our team cheers, excited about the match. I go to the bathroom and come back to see the score posted on the board. 855 - 600, Blue alliance wins.

My mind was boggled. What happened? How could this have happened?
As it turns out, the dropping of the 90cm goal was blamed on the red alliance. We were given a major penalty and the blue alliance was credited with a full 90cm goal.

Did the red alliance drop the goal? No. It's obvious in the footage. Here's where I add the fact that YES, I'm fully aware that video footage and replay is not allowed to be shown to referees to contest a call.

I watched the video and I think there is some nuance to the situation that needs to be explained, especially to the largely FRC crowd posting on this thread. It is a judgement call, not clear either way. I am familiar with FTC rules, but I am not a ref (hardware inspector locally, not at Worlds).

<GS14> Robots may not tip over ANY Rolling Goal (deliberately or accidentally). If this occurs, the offending Alliance
will incur a Major Penalty.

This rule requires that for every rolling goal tipped, a major penalty must be called on one alliance. The refs must determine which alliance was most responsible for causing the tip, it doesn't matter if the robot is directly in contact with the goal. If both alliances are to blame, one must still receive a penalty. If the goal is an opposing goal to the robot responsible, then the opposing alliance is credited with a full goal.

I am going to break this down by timestamp of the video and use the standard YMTC Redabot and Blueabot to replace team names:

5:03 Redabot first makes contact with Blueabot while Blueabot is placing a Blue goal in the Blue Parking Zone. Contact continues back and forth around the Blue Parking Zone. Blue drive team is gesturing (appears to be complaining about the contact).

5:18 Blueabot is lifting their intake near the Blue Goal, video is obscured by legs so it is hard to see what they are doing (possibly trying to pick up a ball on the base of the goal).

5:21 Redabot hits Blueabot on its way to the center goal. Announcer indicates End Game, clock is not visible to confirm when exactly when it started.

5:22 Redabot and Blueabot (not in contact with each other) move away from the Blue Goal and Blue Goal tips toward them. Once again the view is obscured by legs (it would be nice to see a recording from the camera guy, looks like he had a good angle).

Now is the YMTC moment, which robot caused this tip more? I think it is clear that both robots were involved. Most FTC calls depend on the timeline of events (and possible future timelines in the case of blocking), you can't just look at the snapshot.

My judgement from the replay:
Most likely Blueabot got its intake caught on the ball or the rolling goal base while attempting to pick up the ball. When Blueabot drove away, this contact on the base or the ball caused the tip. It does not appear to be caused by Blueabot moving their intake upward as OP suggests (would have tipped the opposite way initially if that was the case). Redabot did contact Blueabot during this process so they could have caused Blueabot to become stuck on the goal, and thus cause the tip. Redabot moved away so Blueabot could have tried to lift its intake if it was stuck. I think it is about 75% Blue's fault and 25% Red's Fault so I would call a Blue Major Penalty based on this replay.

Now what did the Refs see?

The nearest ref (suspenders) seems to be looking to the right (away from the goal) at the contact. Possibly the Ref is considering a Blocking or Pinning call on Redabot. Redabot is in a high risk position (contacting Blueabot while Blueabot is in contact with a field element in their parking zone) and time (End Game). The ref may not see Blueabot attempting to pick up the ball and only look at the contact, then see the goal tip.

The Head Ref is in that corner temporarily, but appears to be also focused on the contact then re-positioning to the center goal for end game when the goal tips (re-positioning at unfortunate times causes missed calls in all sports, including the recent infamous World Cup biting incident). He then appears to be ready to call a Block on Blue if the Red Ball doesn't score.

Ref across the way doesn't appear to see the goal until it is fully tipped. Then some gesturing and talking to the ref on that corner.

If none of the refs saw the goal start to go down or Blueabot attempting to pick up a ball off of the rolling goal (kind of an odd thing to attempt and hard to see from an overhead angle) then they are basing their call on: Redabot hits Blueabot (when Redabot needs to be careful to avoid contact), then Blue Goal tips. It is not all that surprising refs decided to give the mandatory major penalty to Red. In FIRST and sports, refs often err on the side of the offense when unsure and a penalty must be called (see basketball charging and football pass interference).

Originally Posted by ksafin

We were aware of this, and despite telling them a wrong call was made, we knew we wouldn't get much out of this.

We appealed to the gracious professionalism in the students from Tesla and Masquerade. We showed all of them the video. They all agreed - the call was wrong. We didn't tip over their goal. They did.

After some haggling, we got them to agree to talk to the referees with us. We went to head ref. Not just ERX. Not just cougars. We all went. All four teams from the match. The entirety of both alliances went to the referees. All four teams said the call was wrong. We weren't even asking for an adjustment of the score. We were asking for a rematch.

The answer? No. Why? My understanding was that it was to save time. They couldn't spare 5 minutes to correct an enormous injustice. They were saving face and saving the tournament five minutes by completely shafting our alliance. We spent 7 months developing this robot and getting to this stage to be shut out for the purpose of saving five minutes.

Not to mention - four teams, opposite alliances, all agreeing on the false call and asking a ref for a rematch? That's an enormous show of gracious professionalism, and I couldn't respect them more for that. It was amazing. And we were told no? Make your own judgement about what degree of ungraciously professional that is.

After we have haggled the head ref in excess of ten times trying to get this correct without avail, we were giving up. They were told to proceed to the other field to set up for division finals. We asked them to protest and refuse to go to the field and set up. They would have to give us a rematch.

<G14> Matches are replayed at the discretion of the Head Referee and only under the following circumstances:
a. Failure of a Field Element that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
b. Loss of control of a Robot due to a VERIFIABLE failure of the tournament-supplied FCS computer, FCS
software, USB Hub, or Gamepad that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
c. Loss of control of all four Robots due to a failure of the Field’s wireless router that was likely to have
impacted which Alliance won the Match.
Unexpected Robot behavior in itself will not result in a Match replay. Team-induced failures, such as low battery
conditions, processor sleep time-outs, Robot mechanical/electrical/software failures, Robot communication
failures, etc. are NOT valid justifications for a re-Match.

Clearly, none of the these 3 replay conditions apply to this situation. So if you don't expect the ref to look at your video because T1 prohibits it, why would you expect a replay when G14 prohibits it?
No one is ever happy when a match is decided on a ref call. It is a bad way to win, a terrible way to lose, and a tremendous burden on the refs. This was a judgement call within the rules, not a miscount or some other clearly verifiable mistake (I have lost an FRC final on one of those). Replay is not an option under the rules, so unless those rules change the only option is to continue the tournament for all the remaining teams and spectators. The advancing teams protesting would not cause a replay, only 2v0 Finals matches which would diminish the event for more participants.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Is that actually in the FTC rules? (FRC rules don't apply to FTC.)

Yes, T1-a

[FTC5110]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

My judgement from the replay:
Most likely Blueabot got its intake caught on the ball or the rolling goal base while attempting to pick up the ball. When Blueabot drove away, this contact on the base or the ball caused the tip. It does not appear to be caused by Blueabot moving their intake upward as OP suggests (would have tipped the opposite way initially if that was the case). Redabot did contact Blueabot during this process so they could have caused Blueabot to become stuck on the goal, and thus cause the tip. Redabot moved away so Blueabot could have tried to lift its intake if it was stuck. I think it is about 75% Blue's fault and 25% Red's Fault so I would call a Blue Major Penalty based on this replay.

Now what did the Refs see?

Probably something close to what the camera man and emcee saw.
http://livestream.com/accounts/13199388/FTC-Edison
Teleop starts around 2:03:00 on the 4/25 stream.

Red clearly not in contact as blue perform risky operation to retrieve ball on the goal base. Emcee says they need to be careful with the goal because it's perched on a ball. Happened just before endgame period.

Oddly the head ref told us he didn't see what happend and yes that's him in the corner at the moment it happened.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by dodar

And in which of my post was I publicly shaming any ref or volunteer?

If you want to play that game, in which post did I accuse you of publicly shaming a ref or volunteer? My point is that we should be tactful of when we make the scrutiny of volunteers a public matter. There are internal and private methods to deal with volunteer concerns. Bring it up with the VC or RD rather than with CD.

[DavidGitz]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Nobody is above scrutiny. There's a difference between scrutiny and public shaming, however.

I believe this is what they were referring to.

[Conor Ryan]

If this happened in FRC, Frank would step in with a blog post about how human error is part of the game. Especially since both alliances agree on what the outcome should be. I wonder why FTC doesn't do that.

If I were in a situation where I made a wrong call that effected match outcomes and I had the ability to escalate the issue just to talk about it, I would explore the opportunity and at least provide some closure for teams.

[driesman]

All - Our team has experienced first hand issues with bad calls and the need to keep the "show" moving over-riding what should be replays in the name of fairness. This is of particular importance in the semi-finals and finals. A miss-call in the qualification rounds affect teams much less since a) there are other qualification rounds b) scouting prevents a single bad game from affecting the ultimate outcome of the competition.

A delay of 5 min to re-run a match is little price to pay for a fair competition.

With all this said, I viewed the recorded video stream from FIRST. See:

http://livestream.com/accounts/13199388/FTC-Edison
(Video labeled Edison Championship 4/25/15)
Time stamp: 02:04:45ish.

This is shot from a different perspective. You can see 4251 striking the back of the 5026 just prior to the tube falling. Do I believe that this was the cause of the tub falling? NO- hard to believe that there was enough momentum exchange between the two bots. However, I do see why the ref's made the call they did.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by DavidGitz

I believe this is what they were referring to.

That post does not accuse Dodar of shaming individuals, it points out that scrutiny is not synonymous with publicly calling people out.

[MattRain]

Originally Posted by Conor Ryan

If this happened in FRC, Frank would step in with a blog post about how human error is part of the game. Especially since both alliances agree on what the outcome should be. I wonder why FTC doesn't do that.

If I were in a situation where I made a wrong call that effected match outcomes and I had the ability to escalate the issue just to talk about it, I would explore the opportunity and at least provide some closure for teams.

This whole event felt like FTC was the red-head-step-child of FIRST, or that we were on the back-burner. I'm not surprised anymore by FIRST acting this way. Its been multiple things that have created this. I really would like to see FTC have someone like Frank that sees what's happening to the teams, and tries to fix it. Our coaches have been very annoyed at how FTC was run this year, along with being at a different location. The whole event this year felt like another Super Regional to us. This year has been, by far the worse setup that FIRST has done with FTC.

(I understand cant complain to much though, as we were part of the Winning alliance.)

[smart1]

These sort of things make me very upset, when it happens to us or any other team in eliminations. There just is no accountability, we are told basically to use our "GraciousProfessionalism" and get over it . I feel them not being aloud to look at video evidence is ridiculous for how much teams spend to get to these competitions. Do I expect refs to be perfect no I expect them do the right thing or in case of video be allowed to look at it.

[gblake]

I have often ref'ed VRC matches.

Asking the refs to review video is a very bad idea.

The worst situation would be attempting to review random footage on random playback devices offered at random times by random people. Great Ceasar's ghost! What a nightmare that would be.

A bad situation would be having to instrument the fields with video equipment, keeping that equipment's lines of sight unobstructed, then retrieving the footage, isolating the incident(s), wishing that the point of view was better, spending time staring at the footage, running it back and forth, and discussing it, and then maybe (or not) having a clear ability to revise the outcome of a match.

As a ref, I would instead recommend revising the rules to include a quick double-check with the teams of all scores/penalties before they become set in stone. During that check, any protests (by the students at the field can be heard by the refs. Head refs decisions are final.

Then we/you move on...

When I wrote my earlier post here, I was unaware that the FTC rules forbid replays to correct anything (including scoring/penalty mistakes (if one actually does occur)) other than the three circumstances listed in the rules. So... Dear OP - There was no "Fraud of FTC Worlds" because of the event staff deciding not to replay that match. The four teams involved in that match asked the FTC event staff to violate FTC rules, and they got the exact answer that they should have expected.

Blake

[MattRain]

Originally Posted by gblake

. So... Dear OP - There was no "Fraud of FTC Worlds" because of the event staff deciding not to replay that match. The four teams involved in that match asked the FTC event staff to violate FTC rules, and they got the exact answer that they should have expected.

Blake

There was not a violation of rules here. Read them. The fact that the refs did not want to replay a match to stay on schedule is just wrong (Even though its not in the G14 rules, I know). I have run as head ref in some Arizona qualifiers, and this is just plane wrong. They teams came together to show that it was wrong. They were ignored. End of story. I agree with the OP that they should have had a replay of the match.

Over the 5 years that we have been to Worlds, we have run into problems of this factor. Field communications dropping, us holding the controllers buy the cords, and the robots still running..... all of the issues came back to us, saying they would not replay the matches.... it has happened every year, and is just plane wrong. We had extra time sitting around before awards and such that could have been used to replay a 5 minute match that really could have changed the ranking/game.

[Kpchem]

Originally Posted by MattRain

There was not a violation of rules here. Read them. The fact that the refs did not want to replay a match to stay on schedule is just wrong....

As quoted earlier in this thread, it would have been a violation of G14 to replay the match.

Originally Posted by 2015 FTC Manual

<G14> Matches are replayed at the discretion of the Head Referee and only under the following circumstances:
a. Failure of a Field Element that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
b. Loss of control of a Robot due to a VERIFIABLE failure of the tournament-supplied FCS computer, FCS software, USB Hub, or Gamepad that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
c. Loss of control of all four Robots due to a failure of the Field’s wireless router that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.

None of those events occurred, and therefore the head referee could not replay the match according to the rules laid out in the 2015 manual. Video replays are not allowed as per <T1-a>, and there is no clause for "all the teams agree the call was blown". Whether or not there should be is a discussion unto itself, but there was no way for the head referee to grant a replay under the 2015 rules.

Having watched the match recording several times, I can understand how Red could possibly be seen as at fault for pushing Blue into a position where they tipped the goal, especially with the proximity to the End Game and because the goal was in the Blue Parking Zone. I have been the head referee for Colorado FTC for the last several years and I can't say that I know what call I would have made in that situation, it's an incredibly close call in an incredibly high-stress environment. OP, I'm sorry that this happened to your team and you feel slighted, but I don't know that the unequivocally wrong decision was made.

[T^2]

Originally Posted by Kpchem

I don't know that the unequivocally wrong decision was made.

Of course the unequivocally wrong decision was made. An injustice was committed against these teams. The people in charge made a decision that may have been in line with the letter of the rules, but was immoral. If the written laws are immoral, then it is one's duty to ignore them. Blind obedience to the law is the very hallmark of fascism.