[moderated] 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

[RyanMcE]

We never had the chance to go up against 494 and have our wires cut, but we did have to face 469 three times throughout the championship event, including twice in the Galileo semifinals.

Please take a look at this video. My question is, if this isn't purposeful entanglement, what is? Clearly, 469 took their hook into 93's basket and got it stuck. Even the announcer noticed the clear entanglement and talked about it. Yet no call was made. I noticed that on Galileo at least, very few calls were ever made.

I do not mind agressive play - I think it makes the game much more exciting. But those that play agressively have to accept the onsequences of their actions as well. Pushing is fine, but when you get entangled, your robot should be disqualified. If FIRST wants its referees to be respected, the referees need to respect the rules:

"<G32> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. Accidental tipping over of a robot is not considered damaging and may be allowed at the discretion of the referees. Intentional stabbing, cutting, etc., is illegal. If a breach of this rule occurs, the team will be disqualified for that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team being disqualified from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event."

Admittedly, I am bitter, and my views are biased - so let me know if you think 469 should have been disqualified in this situation.

Now for the next case study: Galileo Semifinal 1.1. Once again, going up against 469, and one again their agressive play takes out one of our robots. I didn't actaully see it happen (and the video fails to show exactly what happened), but I think it was a legitimate takedown (ie, unplanned, if not unintentional).

However, after the match (which ended with our alliance loosing by 5 points), I asked the referees if our oponents had any penalties, and was told that the oposing alliance had a 10 point penalty deducted. I was then amazed by the score, because that meant that they had scored nine (9!) balls, which was more than I thought they had. Well, after reviewing the video, the oposing alliance looks like they have only seven (7!) balls, plus the hanger, minus the 10 point penalty. This comes to 75 points to our 80. But instead, the reported score was 85 points to our 80. The penalty WAS NOT ASSESSED and the result of the match changed.

Furthermore, in that match, 469 destroyed one of the poles of a mobile goal. Please refer to rule <G25>: "If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal or damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal, that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified."

The question is, does the word intentional apply to both clauses or only the first? Depending on how you read the rule, 469 should ahve been disabled for breaking the mobile goal, and perhaps even disqualified for their continuous agressive behavior. But once again, no call was made.

Now, I am in general a laissez-faire person. I don't mind refs letting the game go on. On the other hand, when rules are blatantly ignored and penalties are completely missed, then the referees are not doing thier jobs, volunteers or not. I have learned over the last three years of FIRST (with the notable exception of 2001, where the problem was non-existant due to the highly innovative game) that despite all the talk of gracious professionalism, teams that ignore the rules and/or beat up other robots are highly rewarded due to inconsistent rule enforcement and spineless referees.

In 2002, an explictly disallowed type of tether was used to edge out a victory against us in the PNW regional finals. In 2003, when an adult mentor on the oposing alliance touched the controls in the PNW regional finals, the match was replayed instead of the team being disqualified. And in 2004, overagressive play and clearly purposeful entanglement ruled the day.

Here is another post that shows the problem. And just to show that the problem is widespread, one more story from the 2004 PNW regional in Portland Oregon. For the third time in as many years in the PNW regional, 492 was in the finals. This time, however, luck was on our side and team 753's robot broke down, allowing us to clinch the victory. (Before they broke, we tied, lost, and had three false starts).

At the time, I felt bad for winning that way. Then I reviewed videos and realized the 753 got what was coming for them. Throughout the competition, they had been - as far as I can tell intentionally - pushing over other robots. When we went up against the basket bot in the PNW regional, we made sure to push them out from under the ball release, then we went on our merry way. 753 went one step further: faced with the basket bot, 753 hapily pushed them over without any pretense of trying to do otherwise. Now, they built a fine robot (until it broke, I guess) but where in the worlde is the enforcement of <G32>? Again, for your perusal: "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed."

In the finals, I found that I didn't mind when 469 lost, becasue I thought they had illigetimately made their way there in the first place.

Let the flamewar begin...

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

Please take a look at this video. My question is, if this isn't purposeful entanglement, what is? Clearly, 469 took their hook into 93's basket and got it stuck. Even the announcer noticed the clear entanglement and talked about it. Yet no call was made. I noticed that on Galileo at least, very few calls were ever made.

I do not mind agressive play - I think it makes the game much more exciting. But those that play agressively have to accept the onsequences of their actions as well. Pushing is fine, but when you get entangled, your robot should be disqualified. If FIRST wants its referees to be respected, the referees need to respect the rules:

"<G32> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. Accidental tipping over of a robot is not considered damaging and may be allowed at the discretion of the referees. Intentional stabbing, cutting, etc., is illegal. If a breach of this rule occurs, the team will be disqualified for that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team being disqualified from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event."

Admittedly, I am bitter, and my views are biased - so let me know if you think 469 should have been disqualified in this situation. ...

I just watched the match. I guess you clearly saw a different match than I did. 469 put their ball grabber in 93's basket in an attempt to block all of the balls from falling into it. This was OBVIOUS. Yes, they became tangled, but it clearly wasn't intentional. In fact, I thought 469 did a very gracious thing: in the fight to become untangled, 93 flipped in its side. All 469 had to do was take their hands off their controls and they would have won the match (because 93 could not do anything). Instead, 469 drove forward, righting 93 and putting them on their feet again.

Their strategy was clearly not to intentionally damage, entangle, or tip 93. If you were at the Great Lakes Regional and saw when 67 put a ball in 1241's hopper before the balls fell, you would have clearly recognized the strategy. 469 didn't have a ball to put in 93's hopper, so they used their big claw instead. It's unfortunate that it got tangled. (As a note, in past year's 93 could have been subjet to a DQ since netting was considered an entaglement hazard, so you can argue on either side.)

Now for the next case study: Galileo Semifinal 1.1. Once again, going up against 469, and one again their agressive play takes out one of our robots. I didn't actaully see it happen (and the video fails to show exactly what happened), but I think it was a legitimate takedown (ie, unplanned, if not unintentional). ...

Wow... talk about seeing the world thought filtered lenses. It appeared to me that 93 was the aggressor on this play. 469 was trying to hold the moveable goal under the ball dump and 93 was trying to push them out of the way. It simply looks like they flipped over during the battle for position under to ball dump. Anyway, it seemed clear to me that 469 was there first and that 93 initiated the contact. Furthermore, BOTH robots flipped over (not just 93). 469 was just able to re-right themselves.

...Furthermore, in that match, 469 destroyed one of the poles of a mobile goal. Please refer to rule <G25>: "If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal or damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal, that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified." ...

Once again, the lenses are filtering pretty heavy. Did you notice during the video that when 93 flipped, 469 flipped as well? Also, did you notice that 469 flipped INTO to movable goal? It seems that flipping into the movable broke the pole. Do you really think that they flipped INTENTIONALLY into the goal so they could break a pole?

However, after the match (which ended with our alliance loosing by 5 points), I asked the referees if our oponents had any penalties, and was told that the oposing alliance had a 10 point penalty deducted. I was then amazed by the score, because that meant that they had scored nine (9!) balls, which was more than I thought they had. Well, after reviewing the video, the oposing alliance looks like they have only seven (7!) balls, plus the hanger, minus the 10 point penalty. This comes to 75 points to our 80. But instead, the reported score was 85 points to our 80. The penalty WAS NOT ASSESSED and the result of the match changed. ...

This is legitimate gripe. However, you should have asked the refs this before leaving the playing field. Perhaps the one referee you talked to was not informed correctly. Either way, complaining about it here isn't the right thing to do. You have recourse within the rules, but once you leave the playing field, the results are final. If you did not pursure your recourse within the structure of the rules, that is your team's fault - don't complain about it here.

Depending on how you read the rule, 469 should ahve been disabled for breaking the mobile goal, and perhaps even disqualified for their continuous agressive behavior. But once again, no call was made.

There is no rule DQ'ing a team for "continuous aggressive behavior." If they break one of the rules you mention, they would have been DQ'ed. When I watch the video, it appears pretty clear that none of their "infractions" were intentional.

[Alex Cormier]

i dont want to start bad mouthing the alliance that beat the alliance i was in but.... most of the stuff they had done to my alliance was totally uncalled for and should have got them a DQ.


thats all im in for....

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'll toss in some spare change on this argument, and say that I don't think G32 was being enforced much in the finals either. I am uncertain which robot it was, but atleast one of the robots was clearly designed along Battlebots lines. it was low to the ground and had a wedge at the front that ran almost right on the ground. Presumably this could be argued as a way of getting balls out of the way, but it also was perfect for tipping robots, and everytime I saw this robot get into a shoving match, the opponent went over, or nearly did so. I can't see how this robot wasn't designed and used with tipping in mind.

[rees2001]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I'll toss in some spare change on this argument, and say that I don't think G32 was being enforced much in the finals either. I am uncertain which robot it was, but atleast one of the robots was clearly designed along Battlebots lines. it was low to the ground and had a wedge at the front that ran almost right on the ground. Presumably this could be argued as a way of getting balls out of the way, but it also was perfect for tipping robots, and everytime I saw this robot get into a shoving match, the opponent went over, or nearly did so. I can't see how this robot wasn't designed and used with tipping in mind.

I really hope you are not talking about HOT (67). Their robot was a long wedge and could easily have been used as a weapon of mass destruction BUT, we played with them in 2 different competitions an I never once saw them attack a robot with the wedge. More often it was used to shed off attackers or push balls to the player station. On numerous occasions they were attacked & the wedge simply protected their excellent robot. I would say they were the most classy and well run team we have ever had the chance to play with.

We also got the chance to play against 496 on Einstein. They play a tough match. They have a well designed robot and use all of its strengths.

Next year when you build your robot just remember, build a robot tough enough to play with them, or get out of their way.

[KenWittlief]

I have to agree with Ryan to some extent - putting their hook over the other teams netted basket did not appear to block any balls that I could tell, and it ended up getting entangled

I think after spending 6 weeks building these machines hands-on most drivers have a pretty good understanding of what will get entangled, how hard you can ram someone before you break them, how hard you can push a bot before it will tip over

I saw a LOT of matches this year with bots getting rammed, pushed over, knocked over, disabled and seriously damaged, and I never once heard an announcer say the team was disqualified

does anyone have information to the contrary? Clearly many bots have been tipped and damaged this year - if no team was disqualified for these actions at any regional, then you might as well delete those rules from the manual

its not a rule unless its inforced - or maybe they should take the 'weasle words' like 'intentional' out and state that any action that CAUSES damage or tipping will result in disqualification?

seriously, can you drive your car down a city street at 80mph then tell a judge, "I wasnt speeding intentionally...." and be exhonorated? in the real world its results that are judged, not what was going through your head at the time - you bang into someone elses car and damage it, it doenst matter if you did it intentionally or not, you still have to pay the price for your actions.

no matter how well you build your bot, if someone else builds their stronger and keeps ramming you, ramming you, ramming you - sooner or later something is going to break - its only a matter of degree.

some will break or topple the first time they are hit, other will hold out for more abuse - but why is it being allowed at all?!

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I'll toss in some spare change on this argument, and say that I don't think G32 was being enforced much in the finals either. I am uncertain which robot it was, but atleast one of the robots was clearly designed along Battlebots lines. it was low to the ground and had a wedge at the front that ran almost right on the ground. Presumably this could be argued as a way of getting balls out of the way, but it also was perfect for tipping robots, and everytime I saw this robot get into a shoving match, the opponent went over, or nearly did so. I can't see how this robot wasn't designed and used with tipping in mind.

That was HOT (67), and they played very fairly throughout the competition (they were in our division). A wedge is a valid defensive strategy for moving another robot by taking away their traction and transfering it to you; you don't have to flip them to do this.

I agree with Chris on all the points of the video interpretation - 469 was well within the rules in all their maneuvers that I saw in the 2 examples you posted. Time to get over it and move on.

[MikeDubreuil]

After watching the match I don't think any rules were broken.

RyanMcE, 93 has made an excellent offensive robot. The only way to stop them from scoring many points is to deffensively shut them down. 469's method was to stop balls from falling into their net. Unofortunately, at the same time there became entangled in your net material.
The argument could be made that the net material was a bad choice because 93 should have known teams would attempt to block their mechanism. Then they could potentially become lodged in something with a high probablibily of getting caught up in (netting).

It's unfortunate, but a lot of the best offensive teams get shut down by agressive defense. If you want to see an example check out almost any of team #47s matches. The first minute usually involves teams attempting to push them around.

[RyanMcE]

First, thanks for the pulic reply so people can see the different sides of this issue.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

I just watched the match. I guess you clearly saw a different match than I did. 469 put their ball grabber in 93's basket in an attempt to block all of the balls from falling into it. This was OBVIOUS. Yes, they became tangled, but it clearly wasn't intentional.

Wheee... Ok, to block the balls from falling is legitimate, but the claw need not be in the basket to do this - above teh basket works fine. What is OBVIOUS to me is that the claw was INTENTIONALLY put into the basket by the drivers of 469, then before lifting it out, INTENTIONALLY drove backwards.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

In fact, I thought 469 did a very gracious thing: in the fight to become untangled, 93 flipped in its side. All 469 had to do was take their hands off their controls and they would have won the match (because 93 could not do anything). Instead, 469 drove forward, righting 93 and putting them on their feet again.

Yay, now its GRACIOUS to get your own robot out of an entanglement that you created! If 469 ha not driven forward, they would have been effectively disabled (trying to drag 93 all over the field). It was hardly in the interests of 93 that they drove forward to try to get out of the entanglement that they created, even if the end result was also better for 93.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Their strategy was clearly not to intentionally damage, entangle, or tip 93. If you were at the Great Lakes Regional and saw when 67 put a ball in 1241's hopper before the balls fell, you would have clearly recognized the strategy. 469 didn't have a ball to put in 93's hopper, so they used their big claw instead. It's unfortunate that it got tangled.

Actually, it was quite fortunate for them. And I guess we're both mind readers now, since we both seem to know what 469 intended to do. Nevertheless, I saw consistent agressiveness in 469 (which I like) but consistent non-enforcement of rules (as I interpret them) when that agressiveness led to entanglement and damaging other robots (as in the case of 494 as mentioned in the thread linked to above).

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

(As a note, in past year's 93 could have been subjet to a DQ since netting was considered an entaglement hazard, so you can argue on either side.)

Since last year's rules apply to this competition, this is clearly germaine......

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Wow... talk about seeing the world thought filtered lenses. It appeared to me that 93 was the aggressor on this play. 469 was trying to hold the moveable goal under the ball dump and 93 was trying to push them out of the way. It simply looks like they flipped over during the battle for position under to ball dump. Anyway, it seemed clear to me that 469 was there first and that 93 initiated the contact. Furthermore, BOTH robots flipped over (not just 93). 469 was just able to re-right themselves.

As I was saying, I didn't see it happen, and the video didn't show it, so its hard to tell what exactly happened. What I do know is 469 had a history of ungracious behavior (once again, in my view, clearly not the referee's). I also said, you may recall, that I thought this was legitimate from the information I had.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Once again, the lenses are filtering pretty heavy. Did you notice during the video that when 93 flipped, 469 flipped as well? Also, did you notice that 469 flipped INTO to movable goal? It seems that flipping into the movable broke the pole. Do you really think that they flipped INTENTIONALLY into the goal so they could break a pole?

No, I don't really think that 469 intentionally broke the goal. But do you really think I said that? This is what I said:

Originally Posted by Ryan McElroy

The question is, does the word intentional apply to both clauses or only the first? Depending on how you read the rule, 469 should ahve been disabled for breaking the mobile goal, and perhaps even disqualified for their continuous agressive behavior. But once again, no call was made.

I mentioned that this one is interpretation of rules. The question is: Does "If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal or damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal, that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified." mean
1. ""If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal or intentionally damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal, that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified." or does it mean
2. "If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified." and "If ROBOTS damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified."
I wrongly assumed this was clear, but I find it interesting that you only quoted the first part of that point and not the second part that I had to quote myself.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

This is legitimate gripe. However, you should have asked the refs this before leaving the playing field. Perhaps the one referee you talked to was not informed correctly. Either way, complaining about it here isn't the right thing to do. You have recourse within the rules, but once you leave the playing field, the results are final. If you did not pursure your recourse within the structure of the rules, that is your team's fault - don't complain about it here.

Ah, but we did pursue recourse; why do you assume we did not? Our alliance captain went to the head referee immediately after the match and asked about the call. Unfortunately, by the time the (wrong) score was posted, all the balls had already been cleared out of the goals, the flags picked up, the goal replaced, etc... So what real recourse did we have? Referee's decisions are final, wether they be right or wrong, and that is that. I accept that. But to think sweeping it under the rug like no mistake was made is better than bringing it up on these forums is ludicrous. I think this is a wonderful place to have this discussion.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

There is no rule DQ'ing a team for "continuous aggressive behavior." If they break one of the rules you mention, they would have been DQ'ed. When I watch the video, it appears pretty clear that none of their "infractions" were intentional.

Not all infractions have to be intentional, Chris. Nobody ever tried to break the ball chute plane, but those penalties were still assessed. Nobody tried to touch the controls early, but those penalties were still assessed. And as for your first statement, please consult the rules before saying that. Once again, rule <G32>: "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. Accidental tipping over of a robot is not considered damaging and may be allowed at the discretion of the referees. Intentional stabbing, cutting, etc., is illegal. If a breach of this rule occurs, the team will be disqualified for that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team being disqualified from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event."
That to me looks like a rule against "continuous aggressive behavior" that results in other robots getting damaged. There are similar rules about the field.

The real point of this thread (other than blowing off some steam at once again being screwed by rules not being enfored) is to try to show that there is a trend of rules not being enforced over a number of years (see my original post), and to get a some momentum behind the idea of actually enforcing rules. I have probally done a terrible job at this because I am still bitter. But pretending that there is no problem because you don't like me doesn't make the problem go away.

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Clearly many bots have been tipped and damaged this year - if no team was disqualified for these actions at any regional, then you might as well delete those rules from the manual

its not a rule unless its inforced - or maybe they should take the 'weasle words' like 'intentional' out and state that any action that CAUSES damage or tipping will result in disqualification?

no matter how well you build your bot, if someone else builds their stronger and keeps ramming you, ramming you, ramming you - sooner or later something is going to break - its only a matter of degree.

You're going to disqualify a team everytime their opponent gets tipped over? Great - I'll start mounting my motors and battery at the top instead of at the bottom.

You're going to disqualify a team everytime their opponent's robot get's damaged? Great - I'll start making my chassis out of glass and balsa wood.

Let's distinguish between "ramming" and "pushing". If a robot backs up and continually slams into their opponent with firm structure that's ramming. If I've got more traction than you do and I move you down the field that's pushing. If I've got bumpers to absorb the energy I would argue that that's not ramming either.

If this was so blatent, why weren't there any wedgebot tanks in the finals? Because to win the game you had to herd, double and hang. Team 67 made it to the finals because they could do all 3, not because they were flipping robots.

<R10> Teams are expected to design and build robots to withstand vigorous interaction with other robots. See The Game section of the manual.

This is the engineering principle of "robust" - we could have added all kinds of cool mechanisms to our robot if we didn't have to worry about tipping or getting broken. That's part of the requirements, in fact when we start brainstorming every year we list "simple" and "robust" above everything else in selection of our configuration.

[KenWittlief]

I think the only way this type of situation is going to be resolved is for FIRST to bite the bullet

acknowledge that FIRST HAS become a battlebots event to some extent

and to create reasonable rules to deal with it and make it fair

nobody can design a robot that can be hit or rammed on any square inch of its surface at any time with any given amount of force and not be toppled or damaged - every bot will have a soft spot somewhere

in sports where body contact does occur, there are rules - you cant punch a quarterback in the face and then say, 'Hey, whats the matter, if you cant take it you shouldnt be out here'

and even in boxing and martial arts sports, there are body parts that are off-limits

it would be very easy for FIRST to implement a bumper requirement, and then impose a penalty for any bot that hits, pushes or rams another bot outside its bumber zone (hitting above the belt :^)

but I think the problem is, FIRST is pretending its still 1998, when bots rarely ever touched each other - and expecting this problem to go away with a sprinkling of GP talk

its not going away - it needs to be dealt with headon.

[KenWittlief]

Let's distinguish between "ramming" and "pushing". If a robot backs up and continually slams into their opponent with firm structure that's ramming...

ok, thats ramming - I saw this happen many many times this year, with bots getting knocked over and with bots damaged to the extent that parts literally flew off the field

and no DQs were announced - were they called? I dont know - I would think if you want to discourage this type of agression you would make a point of announcing that team XYZ was DQ for inflicting damage or tipping.

like other sports I consider defense being faster or stronger and getting BETWEEN your opponent and the goal - getting their before they do and keeping them away

I dont consider it defense if you run up behind a basketball player or a fieldgoal kicker and slam into them as hard as you can while they are trying to make a shot - its not allowed in other sports, why is it allowed in FIRST?

And where is the spec for how much force or impact your bot must be able to withstand in a match? saying it must be robust is weasle-words - no matter what you build I guarentee you I can build something stronger and put an impact point on my machine, find your weak spot and take you out on the field

then all I have to do to defend my actions is point to the 'robust' words in the manual, and tell you its your fault your bot couldnt take a little rough play.

is this what FIRST has come to?!

[RyanMcE]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I think the only way this type of situation is going to be resolved is for FIRST to bite the bullet

acknowledge that FIRST HAS become a battlebots event to some extend

and to create reasonable rules to deal with it and make it fair

...

its not going away - it needs to be dealt with headon.

Yes! Someone who can see past the bitterness to the real intent of the post. I think that what I am talking about is a systemic problem with FIRST, and that it needs to be dealt with as opposed to pretending that everything is ok as bullies duke it out for the championship.



I have also noticed that my reputation has suddenly gotten quite a bit worse. Here are some of the reactions that I think are legitimate and should be seen:

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

I disagree with your opinion about calling out 753 in Portland. They played aggressive, but did not intentionally tip anyone. It would have been called. Also, another head ref would've wimped out on the 6 minute timeout for 753, so don't complain.

Thank you Andy, for enforcing the rules. It is legitimate to disagree with me on the intentions of 753, and I think the PNW regional was in general well-called. But I think it is very interesting that you admit that most other head referees would not have stuck to the 6 minute limit. Why not? Is it because the rules are largely ignored when it is convinient? This is another example of the exact problem I'm trying to point out!

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Aaaah ... GP at its finest. Thank You, I was a referee on Galileo and I believe we GOT IT RIGHT. Your post was DEFINITELY bitter and biased, and inappropriate. I WILL respond publicly, without flame.

I respectfully DISAGREE. And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the two referees with whom I conferred about the penalty (assigned to the far side of the field from our players station) were wrong, and there was no penalty. But they said there was a penalty, and they said it was assessed. And yes, I am biased (I want my team to win; do you not want the same?) and I am bitter (having lost three years in a row to people who, in my opinion, were intentionally streching and/or breaking the rules).

Originally Posted by JVN

Referee calls are final.

Whoa, high-repuation people have taken notice of this post. And they have promptly ignored the problem. I agree, they are final. I am not asking that the taped be reviewed and the results of the match changed. I am asking for an overhaul of the system that encourages rules to be ignored when it is not convienient to enforce them. Another shout out to Andy who had the balls to stick to 6 minutes for both our alliance and the opposing alliance when we took the timeout.

Originally Posted by Clark Gilbert

...

What no comment? Just unabashed reputation degradation? :-)

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

Wheee... Ok, to block the balls from falling is legitimate, but the claw need not be in the basket to do this - above teh basket works fine. What is OBVIOUS to me is that the claw was INTENTIONALLY put into the basket by the drivers of 469, then before lifting it out, INTENTIONALLY drove backwards.

469's drivers are 48 feet away, looking through two stationary goals and other robots driving around the field. I think it is forgivable that their first move is to start driving away (especially if they couldn't see that their claw is tangled on 93).

Yay, now its GRACIOUS to get your own robot out of an entanglement that you created! If 469 ha not driven forward, they would have been effectively disabled (trying to drag 93 all over the field). It was hardly in the interests of 93 that they drove forward to try to get out of the entanglement that they created, even if the end result was also better for 93.

469 would have happily been disabled if it also meant 93 was disabled. Afterall, it appeared that their entire strategy was to play defense and nullify 93. The entanglement would have achieved this objective of nullifying 93. However, they took the high road and put them back on their feet for a fair battle.

Actually, it was quite fortunate for them. And I guess we're both mind readers now, since we both seem to know what 469 intended to do. Nevertheless, I saw consistent agressiveness in 469 (which I like) but consistent non-enforcement of rules (as I interpret them) when that agressiveness led to entanglement and damaging other robots (as in the case of 494 as mentioned in the thread linked to above).

To me it was clearly obvious what 469 was doing. It was a near replay of the 67/1241 match up until 469 dropped the big ball (watch the video: you will see 469 take the big ball off of the red movable goal, then drop it. They pause for a second figuring out what to do and then do the next best thing - block the hopper with their claw).

As I was saying, I didn't see it happen, and the video didn't show it, so its hard to tell what exactly happened. What I do know is 469 had a history of ungracious behavior (once again, in my view, clearly not the referee's). I also said, you may recall, that I thought this was legitimate from the information I had.

I don't know what history you know of, but I think most teams that go to the competitions around the midwest would agree that 469 is one of the most gracious teams around.

Not all infractions have to be intentional, Chris. Nobody ever tried to break the ball chute plane, but those penalties were still assessed. Nobody tried to touch the controls early, but those penalties were still assessed. And as for your first statement, please consult the rules before saying that. Once again, rule <G32>: "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. Accidental tipping over of a robot is not considered damaging and may be allowed at the discretion of the referees. Intentional stabbing, cutting, etc., is illegal. If a breach of this rule occurs, the team will be disqualified for that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team being disqualified from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event."
That to me looks like a rule against "continuous aggressive behavior" that results in other robots getting damaged. There are similar rules about the field.

What the rule states is this: if you intentionally damage/tip/stab/cut/etc. you will be DQ'ed for the match (it was ruled that 469 did not do this). Repeated offenses (intentional damage/tipping/cutting/etc.) could result in being DQ'ed from the remainder of the tournament. This rule does not say that repeated aggressive play will DQ you from a match. It says that repeated DQ's from breaking G32 will get you kicked out of the tournament. 469 was never called once for breaking G32. Therefore, they couldn't have repeated offenses.

But pretending that there is no problem because you don't like me doesn't make the problem go away.

Hold on. Who said I don't like you? I just watched to video and gave an unbiased opinion. It's just that what I saw doesn't agree with what you saw.

So far, the arguements Ive seen is that people "played too rough"

469 and many others played some tough defense during the elimination rounds and all through the weekend. I don't see any problem with that linked match at the top of this thread...469's drivers tried to get away and they both ended up on the ground, so basically it was a total freak accident...why would a referee call something on a freak accident? 469 played tough, but not maliciously and thats why they made it as far as they did. I don't see any arguement against 469 here in what they did and the refs made the right no call and that should be that. FIRST warned you that these robots should be made tough...they said that with good reason and many of the successful teams over the weekend proved their statement true.