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

[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