2016 Einstein

[bam-bam]

Really, the tiebreaker was put in place after 2010's tendency to result in ties. Ties are rather rare, and do warrant a replay in eliminations.

[The other Gabe]

I don't think ties merit a re-play. if the rules have been the same all season with the ties, why should it change at Einstein?

[bam-bam]

Originally Posted by The other Gabe

I don't think ties merit a re-play. if the rules have been the same all season with the ties, why should it change at Einstein?

If you were referring to me, I meant the 2017 season, not this year.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by bam-bam

Really, the tiebreaker was put in place after 2010's tendency to result in ties. Ties are rather rare, and do warrant a replay in eliminations.

If we ever get a game with as low of scoring as 2010 again, I would be in favor of tiebreakers to save time. For games with much higher scores, and much higher score variances, like this year, 2015, 2013, or 2012, I don't like the tiebreakers.

At the very least, the winner should be given one additional tiebreaker point so that it is clear to the audience who won.

[AquaMorph]

I rewatched the final match several times watching all the referees. Not once was a flag waved to call a penalty. Likewise, I did not see a penalty either. It looks like fair play from each alliance. I'm sure there was something I missed but I have not come across anything that says what the penalty was for. Does anyone know what foul was called?

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by AquaMorph

I rewatched the final match several times watching all the referees. Not once was a flag waved to call a penalty. Likewise, I did not see a penalty either. It looks like fair play from each alliance. I'm sure there was something I missed but I have not come across anything that says what the penalty was for. Does anyone know what foul was called?

Looks like the courtyard ref entered a blue penalty at 1:12 in that video. The ref had been watching 1405 for while. It appears to me that 1405 did not back away 6 ft and then wait 3 seconds before attempting to pin again. So the foul was probably G22 pinning.

[AquaMorph]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Looks like the courtyard ref entered a blue penalty at 1:12 in that video. The ref had been watching 1405 for while. It appears to me that 1405 did not back away 6 ft and then wait 3 seconds before attempting to pin again. So the foul was probably G22 pinning.

Yeah that appears to be correct. Thanks for clearly that up.

[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Looks like the courtyard ref entered a blue penalty at 1:12 in that video. The ref had been watching 1405 for while. It appears to me that 1405 did not back away 6 ft and then wait 3 seconds before attempting to pin again. So the foul was probably G22 pinning.

I was actually wondering about that. Naturally I don't want to start a thing, and I wasn't close enough to get a really good look, but it looked to me like our robot backed up the requisite amount. I find this evidenced by the fact that the ref seemed to halt her count and keep her hand up instead of finishing her count.

It looks to me that when we returned, 120 was clearly able to move, as they moved forward and then preceeded to turn and move out of the courtyard. Without interference from our robot, as we went to move to another robot.

I've never been trained as a referee, is there some kind of "intent to pin" that referees are supposed to look for? It looks even though we did return to pin 120, we never completed her process as they were clearly able to begin moving. Any thoughts from someone with more referee knowledge than I?

I'm extremely happy with this season, and our run at world's. I'm more so asking because if our driver was not entirely at fault, I don't want him to think he is. And I want to be able to tell him what to do better next year.

[jjkoletar]

Originally Posted by LeelandS

I was actually wondering about that. Naturally I don't want to start a thing, and I wasn't close enough to get a really good look, but it looked to me like our robot backed up the requisite amount. I find this evidenced by the fact that the ref seemed to halt her count and keep her hand up instead of finishing her count.

It looks to me that when we returned, 120 was clearly able to move, as they moved forward and then preceeded to turn and move out of the courtyard. Without interference from our robot, as we went to move to another robot.

I've never been trained as a referee, is there some kind of "intent to pin" that referees are supposed to look for? It looks even though we did return to pin 120, we never completed her process as they were clearly able to begin moving. Any thoughts from someone with more referee knowledge than I?

I'm extremely happy with this season, and our run at world's. I'm more so asking because if our driver was not entirely at fault, I don't want him to think he is. And I want to be able to tell him what to do better next year.

Text of the rule:

Originally Posted by G22

ROBOTS may not pin an opponent’s ROBOT for more than five (5) seconds. A ROBOT will be considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least six (6) feet. The pinning ROBOT(s) must then wait for at least three (3) seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again. Pinning is transitory through other objects. If the pinned ROBOT chases the pinning ROBOT upon retreat, the pinning ROBOT will not be penalized, and the pin will be considered complete.

• Blue bot drives in front of red bot. Though it's perpendicular, they're against a wall, so the referee starts her pin count. She counts off 4 seconds.
• As she's about to give her fifth "chop", the blue bot gets six feet of separation for a brief period. This is why you see her halt her count.
• At this point, now that you're six feet away, the red bot is no longer considered pinned. The thing is, you must wait three seconds before pinning that same robot again. Since you only had six feet of separation for about a second, and then go and kind of reenter the six feet around the robot you were pinning, she considers the robot to be pinned again, meaning you have now tried to pin that same robot again with 3 seconds of the pin being over, meaning you get a foul.

I know it's not a very strong call and that it decided literally the winners of FIRST Stronghold, but the thing is, if referees second-guess themselves because it's a really close match, then their calls could get less fair because they're worried that it could be a deciding factor. The only advice I can give is to, when you're ending a pin, literally go to the other side of the courtyard, or start T-Boning a second robot immediately after you backed away.

[pmcoburn]

My thought for future tie-breakers is that ties should be replayed ONLY during elimination rounds ONLY in the event that a robot could be eliminated as a result.

Scenario #1: Alliance R plays Alliance B in 1st game of an elimination round. Tie is resolved by tiebreakers.

Scenario #2: Alliance R wins 1st match of elimination round, 2nd game results in tie. Since this is a possible elimination game, it is replayed.

Scenario #3: Alliances split 1st and 2nd games, 3rd results in a tie. Replay.

This would NOT apply to qualifications, since no robots are eliminated during quals.

[JohnFogarty]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Looks like the courtyard ref entered a blue penalty at 1:12 in that video. The ref had been watching 1405 for while. It appears to me that 1405 did not back away 6 ft and then wait 3 seconds before attempting to pin again. So the foul was probably G22 pinning.

That's the strangest pinning call I've ever seen. The drivetrain of the "pinning" robot was perpendicular to the pinned robot for the majority of the count. That was not pinning. Pinning needs to be defined better so that calls like that don't happen. 120 could have turned and drove out of the corner whenever they wanted to find a different shooting position.

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

That's the strangest pinning call I've ever seen. The drivetrain of the "pinning" robot was perpendicular to the pinned robot for the majority of the count. That was not pinning. Pinning needs to be defined better so that calls like that don't happen. 120 could have turned and drove out of the corner whenever they wanted to find a different shooting position.

From my experience, pinning this year has been called for the simplest of things. Defense is incredibly potent this year, but with so many refs seemingly trigger-happy to call pinning fouls (and also the possibility of undeserved red cards due to flips), we didn't get to see very much of it.