[moderated] 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

[Swan217]

I disagree - we had a few entanglement calls on Curie. Oddly enough, most were between two allied bots. I do think that we might have called more though.

There were a few borderline calls. I DO believe the referees made the right call on them, and I think all in all, the referees did an awesome job in the face of adversity. I am still in doubt of the "intent" of the rules being overlooked by the letter of the law, however. Dean said at the beginning of the season that we shouldn't look at the rules as lawyers, and yet I fear that that is exactly how some calls were made, just in the interest of "making the easy, fair call." Dean DID say that the game wasn't intended to be fair.

I think we may have given too many warnings, called things too conservatively sometimes, in the interest of the Letter of the Law. I think that the idea of "intent" to damage is a weak bridge to cross, and who wants to stand out by making that call? Ex. There is a team that is restricting another robot from moving, but it isn't "pinning" in the literal sense, because it's not against the edge of the playing field. My opinion is that I'd like to be able to keep the game moving by making the aggressive robot move away. Aggression and intent and all of those vague ideas are very conservative, and I think that the calls should be made more looking at the actual actions of teams.

I'm not saying call every entanglement issue that happens, but maybe more calls should be made when a robot is in OBVIOUS danger of non-natural damage. There was very little call for agressive defense in this year's game. If a team is successful at what it's designed to do, then there should be NO cause to be aggressive towards other robots.

Disclaimer: I am not bashing refs, nor the calls we made. I am exhibiting my opinions in hope that next years rules are made clearer and simpler, with no weak words.

P.S. I do believe that the rules, and the game in general, were a VAST improvement over previous years. Now we're just "raising the bar" so to speak for the rules and games for coming years.

[Edit]P.P.S. - I woulda put money on us Curie refs to be the first to be moderatedly bashed. Looks like I did a better job than I thought

[RBrandy]

OK... My feelings on the situation.

There is NO way we are going to be able to anything about this. So complianing about it is not going to do anything. Team 93 was a little bitter at the calls (or lack there of) but, looking back, we had an awesome year. I know I had a good time. 469 had a great robot, and a great defence. To bad they accidently got caught in us. Congrats to all the teams just for being at the Championships. It was the best yet.

[Ryan Dognaux]

I'd like to just throw in a few cents here...

Our team drafted 469 at the Midwest Regional and not once did they display any ungracious play of the game. In fact, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have stood a chance I've always respected Las Guerillas as a gracious and strong team, and I think it's just crazy to think they would intentionally do anything to harm another team's robot. Team 469 has a great robot and a great team, and I'd hope they'd continue to do what they do regardless of what others think of them.

[Zzyzx]

As a representative of Team 492 and a friend of RyanMcE, I would like to say a few words.

RyanMcE is our club's founder and main alumni mentor. He does get emotional about the club and does not enjoy losing, like most people. He is an excellent mentor and teacher, and he has donated much of his time to see our team succeed.

While I disapprove of his downright destructive comments and publishing private messages, I would also like to point out that he is human, and is too capable of sadness, happiness, and anger.

I may personally apologize to anyone that either I or RyanMcE or our team in general that has any hard feelings with our team, but RyanMcE does have a right to his own opinion.

Throughout my life, I have tried to be fair and insightful, trying to be the best person I could be. For this conflict, I have attempted to remain neutral, which I hope I have done. But RyanMcE as a person is knowledgeable, kind, gracious, and worthy of respect; again, I would like to say I do not agree with the way he expressed his opinion, but I do believe he is still a worthy mentor and still a good friend.

I hope that both RyanMcE and those who he offended may someday forgive each other, and that we as people remember the reason FIRST was founded. FIRST is only the beginning.

[dtk]

Ok, first of all just so everyone knows the position I am speaking from. I was the on field coach for Team 469, but more than that I have been mentoring this team since 2001 after helping to start the team 2000. I have had a large part in determining the team philosophies and interpretations of gracious professionalism. While many people agreed prior to the matches about strategy we would implement the ultimate responsibility lies with myself. It is because of these things that I can’t help but feel as though any accusations of unfair play are directed at me personally. I will, however, attempt to leave those feelings out of my following statements.

There are, as I see it, two issues in question here. The first being what was the intention of our actions, and the second were the referees decisions correct given the situation? While I can only speculate on what led to the final referee decisions I can with certainty address our intentions. I also think only semifinal 1.2 is legitimately worth discussing, and that any negative perceptions about the first match have only surfaced based on the results of the second match.

It was, as many have pointed out, our strategy to cover the basket with the arm of our robot and a big ball. After we failed to get the big ball the decision was made to attempt to block the drop with our arm alone. We wanted to pull up square to the front of 93’s bot and use the arm to fold up the front flap and cover the remaining opening while at the same time getting our robot under the drop as well. Due to the visibility and time issues we didn’t get into our planed position and attempted to cover the basket from where we were. The intention here was one-dimensional; block the basket.

After the drop we attempted to lift the arm and back away. Only the arm was stuck and didn’t raise. Once we realized that the robots were stuck together we proceeded to “jiggle” both the base and the arm of the robot in order to get free. During this period of the match we were aware of 93’s precarious position and consciously avoided tipping them over. The intent during this phase of the match was again one-dimensional; get free.

It is my opinion that our intentions were at all times within the spirit of the rules, FIRST and of competition in general. I guess this is obvious but I would never endorse any actions that I did not feel were within the scope of acceptable play.

The question left is the referee decisions. A referee approached me twice during the semifinal match against the 93, 492, and 157 alliance. The first statement was in the first match regarding the damage caused to the mobile goal. I was told that we were initially penalized for damaging the goal, but that that decision was reversed because we were pushed (tipped over) into it.

The second was during the second match when the ref stepped into our driver area. He told me to back off, and take it easy. This was I think in reference to the appearance that we were intentionally holding onto team 93. I told him we were stuck and already trying to do everything we could to get free. Just a side note here, I’m fairly certain we were stuck on the flow control fitting on the pneumatic cylinder.

I wont speculate or question the referee’s final choice. All I can say here is that I respect the referee’s decision and the difficult choice they had to make, and that none of us wanted to win in such a way. I also want to thank the numerous posters who have respectfully discussed this issue and hope this helps to explain our point of view.

Daniel Kimura

[Alex Golec]

Our team's strategy was never to damage other robots or to destroy the field, both of those cases were caused by competition with other robots. Nationals was great this year, especially watching all the other great teams play.
93 was a difficult team to go against, but it was not intentional entanglement because we did not grab at the fabric to latch onto 93, it got caught on our arm while we were playing defense. 93 got put back on its wheels after a while and the match continued. I do not know if any part of 93 was badly damaged, maybe the fabric a bit torn, but in the end of the match our gripper was bent up - 93 was tough to beat.
When you say "let the flame war begin" I do not agree. it is not in the spirit of FIRST to argue and insult each other.

[jgannon]

I don't think they broke that movable goal on purpose, particularly since it was THEIR OWN goal. As far as the rule itself, I think it's intended to keep you from breaking things on purpose. Team 47 (Chief Delphi) accidentally ripped one of the poles out of a movable goal with their claws during the qualifying rounds, and they weren't penalized for it at all. Why? Because it was an accident. (It actually worked out to their disadvantage, as they ended up lifting the pole into their hopper.)

[DougHogg]

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for people who have lost to get upset and start to find fault with everyone but themselves. Reminds me of a book about Tiger Woods. In his youth, if he missed a shot, he would sometimes get angry and throw his club on the ground. His father would ask him, "Who shot that shot? Was it the tree? Was it that bird?".

I watched the final matches and didn't see any rule violations. To me, 469 played brilliantly. In fact, in the pits after the event, our whole team went over to their pit and applauded them.

True, they got caught on 93, but 93 was easy to get caught on.

As for tipping robots, I didn't see teams deliberately tipping anyone. True, I didn't see all the matches, but what I did see was teams playing the game fairly.

In football, if a player is headed for the end zone with the ball, you are allowed to tackle him/her. In FIRST, teams are allowed to prevent other teams from hanging or capping, etc. as long as they don't deliberately try to tip, damage or entangle the other robot.

In the Galileo quarter finals, we were beaten by the aggressive defense of Team 177. Everything they did was within the rules. They were the only team who stopped us from hanging (other than Team 64 who handed us our only qualifying loss by blocking the bar). My response to Team 177 is: Very well played!, great match! (Last year, however, Team 177 repeatedly pushed their hook against the top of our tower, tipping us over the side of the arena, and in that instance, the referee turned off their robot. We have a video of that match.)

This year, FIRST tried to simplify the rules, and simple is good. However I think that in some areas (such as entanglement), we need to build up a body of guidelines over time as other sports do. That refinement helps to clarify things.

There were a couple of questions that relate to this issue in the Q and A system.

ID:
ID: 840
Section: 4.4.3
Status: Answered
Date$@#Answered: 2/24/2004
$@#
Q:
May we tow another robot around, such as a disabled one, given it is done safely? Does this count as entanglement?

A:
You may tow an alliance partner's robot. You may also tow an opponent's robot provided you do not impair its ability to break free. The rules regarding entanglement, damaging, and pinning robots apply.

ID: 257
Section: 5.1
Status: Answered
Date$@#Answered: 1/20/2004
$@#
Q:
Can the robot push and pull other robots?

A:
Yes as long as you do not damage the opponent or the field.

In my opinion, getting caught in 93's net and ripping it would not be a violation of this rule as the net could not be called "robust" and obviously could easily be caught in.

Originally Posted by [b

KenWittlief[/b]]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

After 6 weeks you should know how your own robot will perform against rammming, crashing, bumping etc. But that does not mean that all other robots will be as robust as your own.

Originally Posted by [b

KenWittlief][/b]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

It is possible (but unlikely) that the refs ruled that none of these incidents were intentional and were thus fully protected by the rules of the game. Removing these rules just makes the situation worse.

Originally Posted by [b

KenWittlief][/b]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?

If you take out the words "intentional" the competition would not be what it is today. Drivers would be scared into not playing the game (and utilizing their robots) to their full capability. For example, a completely un-GP team creates a robot that barely sticks together. Everytime they're touched, the bot falls apart and the team wins by default. This is an extreme, but extremes must be taken into account.

It also removes most of the willingness and need to make a robust robot. Our team puts robustness at the top of its priorities in building the 'bot. With any machine, shouldn't robustness be super-important? FIRST would not be supporting this at all if it prohibited all damage.

Finally, don't forget that this is also a spectator-friendly competition, no one wants to see robots avoiding contact in fear of "the law."

[RyanMcE]

Dang. I was having so much fun, and then someone levelheaded like zzyzx comes along reminding me that I really shouldn't be flaming people even its its fun for a little while. I'd like to thank him for his valiant efforts to defend me. But I already spent the time to reply with this ludicrous message, so I thoughtI would post it anyway, after makng a few changes to take out the purely inflamitory parts.

Once again, people, realize that this is just writing. It won't bite you or change the way you have to think. On the other hand, I hope it changes the way you think anyway, becuase I have a legitimate point here even if some people fail or refuse to see it. And in case you don't like reading between the lines, the point is that FIRST, seems to foster a culture where inconvinient rules are ignored by teams and referees. I provided multiple real-life examples, the most brazen of which is the 2002 tether issue, but this 2004 bully issue I think is another form of the same fundamental problem.

In the mean time, I have put my repuation on the line by being inflamitory from the get-go (just read the first post and see how many replies there are to it in under a day). But it seems that this was a pretty good tool to get people to provide real responses to the issue instead of some goofed-up edited-for-content don't-offend-anyone replies. It was also instrumental in helping me get over the pent-up emotion from the loss (I tend to carry this stuff inside). So I'd like to thank those of you who put up with it, and ask those of you who can't see past a little bit of biting commentary to take a chill pill.

All I ask (as you continue to degrade my reputation for posting this) is that you don't hold this against my team (zzyzx is a much better example of what our team is like than I am) and to hold everything I say or do solely against me. If you can't do that, then a little bit of introspection might be a good idea.

And finally to team 469, its drivers, coach, and mentors: I'm sorry that I felt the need to say such things about you, but that doesn't change the fact that I felt the need, and it doesn't change the fact that I will remain outspoken when I think I see a need for improvement. You guys had what was clearly an excellent game plan, as evidenced by how far you got in the finals. But that doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion, your team and other teams like yours used FIRST's reluctance to enforce inconvient rules to your unfair advantage. While many teams like ours took off us took off sharp spikes, and took pains to avoid damaging other robots, you guys consistently vigorously interacted with other robots. In fact, you bent our arm in the match we played against you. This is fine and dandy. But when your agressive play leads to something like entanglement, I think the rules should be enforced. When the rules are not enforced, or are enforced inconsistently, the entire legitimacy of the rules are called into question, which I feel is not a good thing for FIRST in general.

Now, on to the post which I was replying to:

Originally Posted by JVN

First off,
I do NOT appreciate having PRIVATE comments I have made, posted publicly.

Then don't leave the comment while degrading my very public reputation. Everyone can see that, so why shouldn't they also see your reasons for marking me down?

Originally Posted by JVN

Secondly,
I'm not ignoring the problem.
I watched the matches you specified, and I feel the same way as Chris Hibner. If we saw it that way, there is a dang good chance that is how the refs saw it. So that is how they called it.

I agree, if the refs had seen it another way, they would have made the correct call. But that doesn't make the way you and Chris saw things is more legitimate than the way I and others saw things.
In fact, I believe that your continual refusal to acknoledge that inconsistent enforcement and total unenforcement of rules throughout several years is ignoring the problem.

Originally Posted by JVN

Remember, ref calls and interpretation are FINAL.
You have now attacked 469. You went as far as saying they didn't deserve to be in the finals. Now you're whining about some negative rep?

I remember. What I said about 469 is more or less that, in my opinion, their play was malicious. Its quite possible that I am wrong, I am not a mind reader and 469 vehemently denies any wrongdoing of this sort. But their pleas of innocence bring to my mind a driver of a tank who crushes a pedestrian trying to cross a road and then claims he was merely trying to stop the pedestrian from getting to the other side. So what if you didn't mean to entangle? Nobody means to entangle, because it results in disqualification. Just as noone tries to do out of bounds, because that too results in disqualification. But what 469 did do very purposefully was put its claw into a place that caused what was clearly entanglement. What I am saying, and what no amount of calls for me to retrat my statements will do, is that if I had been a referee, I would have called this as entanglement on 469. And the failure of the referees to do this is what I consider to be a bad call. Clearly there are differing opinions on this, so why much you call for me to retract a very valid statement?
And I'm atually excited that this post is getting so much attention, even if it casts a negative light on me, because some people at least are realizing that there is a problem, and that is more important than some clicks on a check mark.

Originally Posted by JVN

I've gotta say, I saw a lot of difficult calls being made, and overall I was VERY happy with the officiating this weekend. I thought the refs were absolutely AWESOME.

I'm happy for you. As for myself, I didn't have any problems all the way through qualifications with anything I saw, including our match against 469. But to say that because the problem isn't universal it isn't really a problem is just another way of ignoring the problem.

Originally Posted by JVN

I was also very impressed with 469, and the quality of their drivers and strategy. I think they earned every W they got.

Then clearly you don't agree with the math of 35+50-10=75. But yes, they built quite a fine robot. In the words of one of our drivers, it did everything that out robot did, but better....
UPDATE! According to a new post by someone more knowledgeable than I, the decision to deduct 10 points was reversed, so the final score was indeed 85-80 with our alliance on the lower end. Of course I guess this means referee decisions aren't really final, unless its convinient for them to be final. Which is another indication of the root problem. FIRST seems to encourage the selective enforcement of convient rules. Since this is the case, why not drop the pretenses of having those rules in the first place and let all teams compete on equal grounds instead of having some teams back off for fear of a reprisal that will never come, while other teams, well aware that an inconvient call won't be made, goes ahead with a strategy that is against the spirit of FIRST.

Originally Posted by JVN

I watched the video of the matches you speak of.

So did I.

Originally Posted by JVN

Based on these things I've gotta say... you're WAY off base in your post. You should consider immediately appologizing to team 469, and the Galileo Referee crew.

I appreciate the volunteers that make FIRST happen, including the referees. But once again, you are fishing for additional ways to ignore the problem. A bad call is a bad call if it is made by a veteran professional basketball referee or a first-time volunteeer FIRST referee. I don't hold any gruge or ill-will towards those that made the call. What I am looking for is a change to the system that encourages referees to look the other way when it is convinient, like in 2002 with tethers, and this year with tipping and, apparently, entanglement. I will not apoligize for saying things the way I see them, an I would not expect you to apoligize for calling me "WAY off base" either, since that is your very legitmate (if wrong) position.

Originally Posted by JVN

John

~Ryan

P.S. - Since you requested it:

In another couple unabashed lowerings of y very public reputation, JVN wrote: "Feel free to post this publicly: I do NOT appreciate my private messages being made public, and will negative rep anyone who does. Have a nice day."
And in a similar incident, 2000vfr800 commented "Post this..."
Finally, Mike Soukup summed it up well by saying "posting private messages in a public form = no class, shame on you". For future reference, Mike, that comma should be a semicolon.

[RyanMcE]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

The biggest problem I see is that each year the refs are told to "really enforce" certain rules. Normally these rules deal with human interaction. Last year the refs were really harping on the human player not going into certain places, not dropping the bins on their side, etc. I thought it was a bit too much focus on something that didn't influence the game (or safety) so much, except for HPs jumping over the rail.

This is an example of the systemic nature of the problem. Only some rules are really rules, and finding out which rules can be broken without consquence is a great way to win the competition (as in 2002 with tethers and this year with tipping and entanglement). Either enforce the rule or drop the rule altogether. Anything else leads to problems like this.

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Pushing, bumping, and ramming will happen. The repeated ramming that is going un-penalized is getting a bit absurd. Teams are playing within the rules actually given to them (since the written words are vague, at best. Read "INTENTIONAL" - what a joke). I am a big fan for defense, but not battlebots. I guarantee that if a team gets penalized (I mean points actually deducted) for ramming they will not do it again. How many times did it take you losing by 5 points to tell your driver to stay at least 6 inches away from the corral?

I agree - a little bit of enforcement could go a long way, but since FIRST doesn't want to offend anybody, they end up letting bullies, rule-benders, and outright cheaters have their way.

Dittos on 1-4. I am not advocating having all robots to leave each other alone. I am advocating enforcing the rules in a consistent manner.

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

-Paul

~Ryan

[RyanMcE]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

I think some people are a bit confused. Ryan (the person who started this thread) is NOT from team 93. In fact, no one from 93 has even posted yet. IIt would be interesting to hear their point of view since they have competed with and against 469 for many years.

And Ryan, since you are making private remarks public, I will save you the trouble: You MIGHT have a legitimate beef, HOWEVER your bitterness is getting in the way. If you want people to address the real problem then strip away all the unnecessary bitterness and contempt and try again.

-Paul

Thanks for saving me the trouble!

What Paul says is very important. Please, please, please don't think badly of team 93 because of my post. They have been totally publically gracious and professional. In fact, don't think badly of the team that is so unfortunate to have to put up with me either. They have been nothing if not gracious and professional. Think badly only of me! And think very badly of me for letting my bitterness and contempt leak over my posts like fresh lemon into filthy water. But then, don't ignore the problem because you disagree with my method of getting lots of people to read the post and have a fun time at the same time.

[gail]

In response to an earlier comment that "intent" should be taken out of the rules, I strongly disagree. Intent is often the deciding factor in FIRST, just as in the real world.

Can you penalize a team who breaks a field component as a result of being pushed by another robot? Can you penalize a team for breaking a field component when something goes haywire on their robot? Or when they get a ball stuck under them and it pops? The answer to these question should be "no" because they did not intend to break the field component. FIRST anticipates these problems and tries to design components that can take a beating.

Teams that continually break a field component such as a ball because of a design problem (something sharp sticking out of their robot) deserve a warning and usually get one. The refs are excellent at making these calls.

As for entanglement, if a robot is designed with a net and another robot comes by with the purpose of preventing balls from entering that net, and in the process gets entangled with them, which robot should be penalized? The one who was designed with an entanglement problem, or the one who stuck their arm inside them, not to get entangled, but to prevent balls from dropping in?

Let's examine the implications of each call. If you write a rule which penalizes the robot with the net then other robots could win simply by getting entangled, even if done intentionally. This hardly seems equitable. If you penalize the robot that is playing defense against them and inadvertently gets stuck on them, then you effectively eliminate all defensive actions directed at that robot. This means all other robots on the field can have aggressive acts committed against them, but this one cannot for fear of disqualifying the aggressor. Is this equitable when the rules specifically state robots should be robust and designed to expect contact?

Now if a robot goes out with the SOLE intent of damaging a field component or getting entangled with another robot this is a different story and one which should not be considered lightly.

Any rule must be written to examine the "intent" of the teams. The refs are in a perfect position to assess the "intent" by watching round after round, asking pertinent questions and listening to the responses before making a decision. It is not for us to second guess their decision.

[Ricecube401]

As 469's "Sharpshooter" or whatever the human player is called, I've seen a bunch of things when not missing the goals completely.

The quarterfinals against 93 and their alliance was interesting to watch from my POV, and while many consider that our drive team is an irresponsible, malicious and crazy bunch, our intentions were pure in the fact that what we performed was a defensive manuver carried out under pressure and frantic yelling by our esteemed drive team coach.

It was never our intention to use "chomp-chomp" to be entagled into 93's net, but at the time, we considered it the best defensive play we could muster against them. besides, the net was designed with the knowledge that entanglement would be an issue. I don't feel any regret for what happened.

So no, we're not crazy or intentionally trying to demolish all robots in our way, and we are not even UNINTENTIONALLY trying to demolish everything...

And come on, don't bag on our arm operater either, she did a good job with the coach hassling her about something that was so hard to see.

The whole drive team is down with the procedure and we acted within the rules. I suppose some teams don't like our strategy, which is at times hard-nosed and rough, but we came to play and do the best we could. people might be offended by our arm, but we utilized that 4 lb wonder well enough to stay legal and fit with our versatility.

As far as the Team is concerned, we should not be apologizing about our arm, our robot, our strategy and our field team, cuz' this is what we are.

Our drive team is not evil either, and they never meant no harm. That's probably why I was the Human player.

[BFreund]

As a frustrated member of team 93, I must say this just sucks. Im not talking about the plays or the calls that were made or not made. Im talking about the feeling of having such an awesome robot and seeing the national championship within reach and fallign short. In the heat of the competition, I was furious. How could 469 do this? I wanted to point fingers and place blame. Well, I've cooled down since then, and so has most of our team. I realise that its all in the past and we can't change it. Whether or not 469 was trying to disable us or not we'll never know. What I know is that they were gracious professionals in semifinals match 1.2. They could have ripped their arm down and out of our robot and tipped our bot over. But, in the spirit of FIRST, they made sure we were on all fours before retreating. I thank them for that. They beat us and moved on and took second place. Way to go. Hopefully, no one holds any grudges and next year we'll have all cooled down. Seeing how it's my last year in FIRST, good luck next year team 93, and all other teams as well.


Brandon