Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by MasterChief1732

I dont know what the specific rule is but you will notice that each time 48 backed up from the rack 1114 went with them. Therefore its just like two robots pushing eachother in the middle of the field. The timing for each pin was more like 7-8 seconds and that means that they did not need to move back three feet for three seconds, its only when its for 10 seconds. This could be due to certain refs. Example: when a robot gets pinned for 5 seconds and the robot doing the pinning backs away the refs usually stop the count and begin a new one if they pin them again.

The rule actually states that the robot that is doing the pinning has to back off 3 feet for 3 seconds before it can go back to pinning.

[Nick 1523]

First of all i was actually there on the field and saw the whole match. What actually happened was (and it's kinda hard to see on the recording but) we (1523) were supposed to play defense while the our partners scored on the rack. While 1114 was being pinned up against the rack their coach was yelling the count for pinning and he got to 10 before they let up and when they backed away it was not for 3 seconds which as i believe is the required amount. As a result of this pinning, backing off and pinning again 1114's arm got wedged up in between the tube and spider leg and was snapped at the joint. 1114 then backed up and broke the wire connections which were the only things left holding the arm on. Now that I look back on it, they probably should have stayed put so as to not get a penalty for "littering the field" but that wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway. There were definitely some bad calls also including the removed keeper which was obviously passed the stinger (or at least it looked that way from behind the driver's station). Over all I'm happy we did as good as we did and I don't hold any grudges or anything... Well that's pretty much what happened and even though we tried to protest it the judge said that it was "not excessive roughness" and the rest is history.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Originally Posted by MasterChief1732

If you watch the robots carefully, 1114 was never pinned against the rack for 30 seconds. Team 48 backed off every once in a while and towards the end 1114 was sideways against the rack and could have driven away. It is unfortunate that thier arm came off and there was a scoring problem, but what happened cannot be changed.

By the original wording of the rules, you are (partially) correct; any small amount of backing off before the 10-second mark ended the count. (I've called it that way myself, however much I didn't like it.) However, at the drivers' meeting on Thursday, it was stated that the pinning count would not stop until the pinning robot had backed off a full 3 feet for a full 3 seconds, which I'm quite sure was not the case. Also, the orientation of the robot is immaterial; pinning a robot sideways is still pinning, which is defined as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border".

Originally Posted by MasterChief1732

The result of this match should not end in ill feelings towards other teams since we all know this is just a game and there is always next year.

"It's just a game" is not a catch-all excuse for inappropriate (and here I am wording myself very carefully) behaviour. And while we will most certainly be back in full force next year, that's no reason that we should be denied a fair chance at the big prize (well, second biggest prize) this year.

[shamuwong]

As a former driver myself, I can understand how 48's drivers continued to plow into 1114 until the arm broke off. The rack is rather hard to see through, especially with the ringers that were put on. I will not agree or disagree with any of Karthik's points, as I did not witness some of them myself. I was, however, standing right by the field, as part of the pit crew.

The greatest disappointment to me, however, was the incosistent or lack of refereeing on the Curie field. The 10 point penalty for aggressive play by 48 was only called after many complaints to the head referee, who blamed 1114's arm breaking on "poor design". And in the middle of our talking with the head referee, she left in order to ref the next match, effectively making any chance of a replay or change in the outcome impossible.

Say what you want about referees. Sure, they're volunteers. They can make mistakes. But every team that goes to nationals pays several thousand dollars on the robot itself, transportation, and entry fees, and countless hours of work and practice to get to Atlanta. To have it all squandered because of volunteers who don't know the rules and make inconsistent calls is absolutely ridiculous. I can appreciate their volunteering and all, but that doesn't make our complaints invalid. And then, to have the audacity of blaming the design of a robot in order to cover up for the fact that the head ref wasn't doing her job? I was stunned.

I have witnessed this too many times in Atlanta. In 2005, one of the volunteers working the autoloader stared at the field while one of our alliance partners waited for 20 seconds for them to load it. We were told to deal with it. In 2006, all three of the opposing alliance robots crossed the line to play defense, and no call was made. And now, this year, ringers weren't counted and destruction of robots was dealt with by a slap on the wrist, only after several complaints. It's no longer fun. It's just disappointing.

[KTorak]

Disclaimer: I was not at the event, I only saw video of the said action and I am going solely based off the rules. ALSO, I cannot tell who was on which side of the field. If 48 was performing defense on the opposing alliances side of the field, seeing and/or maneuvering may have been very difficult through the rack and with the intense game play.

First, as of approx. 1:09 on the google video here, 1114 appears to be attempting to hang a game piece.

My first Rule to point out is G39, which states:

<G39> Pinning - While on the carpeted field surface, a ROBOT cannot pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border) for more than 10 seconds. If a ROBOT has been pinned for 10 seconds, the TEAM with the pinning ROBOT will be told by a referee to release the pinned ROBOT and back away approximately 3 feet for a minimum of 3 seconds. Once the pinning ROBOT has backed off by at least 3 feet for 3
seconds, it may again attempt to pin its opponent, and if successful, the 10 second countwill start over. If a referee determines that this rule has been violated, a 10-point penalty will be assessed for each violation. Note that a ROBOT attempting to HANG a GAME PIECE on the RACK will be immune from a "pinning" violation as long as it is clear that the ROBOT is continuing to attempt to HANG the GAME PIECE.

From G39, we can conclude that as it appears, 1114 was attempting to score a game piece and therefore, immune from the pinning rule. IF 1114 would have dropped the game piece and stopped attempting to score, they would have been subject to the normal 10 second pinning rule.

Also, let me point out a another rule. Rule G35 states:

<G35> Intentional ROBOT - ROBOT interaction - 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 all cases involving robot-to-robot contact, the head referee may assess a 10-point penalty and/or the ROBOT may be disqualified. However, Rack 'n' Roll is a highly interactive game, and some appropriate contact is allowed
under the following guidelines:  Any contact within the BUMPER ZONE is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed, long distance ramming. If TEAMS choose not to use bumpers, and their ROBOT contacts another ROBOT such that simultaneous contact occurs both in and out of the BUMPER ZONE, then this contact is considered within the BUMPER ZONE.

While we do not know 48's intentions, the contact was in the bumper zone AND was not ramming, therfore the contact was legal. However, if they clearly demonstrated that their strategy was to disable 1114 (such as high speed ramming and contact OUTSIDE the bumper zone), they would have at least a 10 point penalty assessed, and possibly a DQ.

To prevent a conversation style post, i'm gonna edit this one.

Originally Posted by rourke

Someone may beat me to this post, but you've misinterpreted the rule here. It means that if 1114 was trying to place a ringer, it could not be called for pinning 48 in the course of that action. Not the other way around.

Is there any FIRST clarification on this rule? From what I have seen, the rule has seemed to apply to a robot pinning a robot this is attempting to score. Not a robot that is attempting to score pinning a defensive robot.

[rourke]

From G39, we can conclude that as it appears, 1114 was attempting to score a game piece and therefore, immune from the pinning rule.

Someone may beat me to this post, but you've misinterpreted the rule here. It means that if 1114 was trying to place a ringer, it could not be called for pinning 48 in the course of that action. Not the other way around. 48 was clearly not trying to score a ringer at the time.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by MasterChief1732

If you watch the robots carefully, 1114 was never pinned against the rack for 30 seconds. Team 48 backed off every once in a while....

I agree with this, and the video shows it. I think what Conor said earlier is accurate though - both the refs and our drive team failed to interpret the pinning rule correctly. Per what he told me, the coach was going off the counts of the ref, who incorrectly timed the activity and threw no flags. The count should reset after 3 seconds of backing off, but the ref reset it prematurely. I would say that each pin was typically well short of 10 seconds in length, but the cumulative effect of all the pinning intervals was well in excess of the acceptable length of time. But none of the drive team was aware of that while the match was being played.

Given the rules, I feel the pinning penalty that was ultimately applied was more than justified. Some will tell you I said that much more than that was expected, and they would be correct.

Jay and others, thank you for your observations, but I'd ask that you'd be a lot more patient before assigning malicious intent to anyone - especially if you are assigning it in general to an entire FIRST team. Please consider the overall audience you are speaking to when making these claims. If I were an outsider browsing these forums, I'd ask why the heck I'd want to get involved with this crazy program if this were the first thing I read about.

[Vogel648]

It was a design flaw, not saying that the ramming was legal or anything like that, but it was a design flaw. Honestly, your arm should be able to hold up to the point where you tip over or be designed to fail in a way that is simple to repair(such as: shear pins).

[MasterChief1732]

Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie

By the original wording of the rules, you are (partially) correct; any small amount of backing off before the 10-second mark ended the count. (I've called it that way myself, however much I didn't like it.) However, at the drivers' meeting on Thursday, it was stated that the pinning count would not stop until the pinning robot had backed off a full 3 feet for a full 3 seconds, which I'm quite sure was not the case. Also, the orientation of the robot is immaterial; pinning a robot sideways is still pinning, which is defined as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border".

Even though they did not back up for the required amout of time 1114 moved with 48's robot and during that amount of time there was free movement of both robots, therefore the count ended after each backup of team 48. If 1114 stayed where they were the case would be different, but since they moved with 48 away from the rack I think they had the freedom of movement.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by rourke

Someone may beat me to this post, but you've misinterpreted the rule here. It means that if 1114 was trying to place a ringer, it could not be called for pinning 48 in the course of that action. Not the other way around. 48 was clearly not trying to score a ringer at the time.

Steve is 100% correct. If we were ever between the rack and 1114 as they were trying to score, they could pin us there until doomsday if they wanted to.

[waialua359]

as emotions settle down, lets remember why we do this?? A great learning opportunity for schools, communities and most of all, the students.
There were a lot of other issues that teams can complain about, like scheduling of matches. Why offer a rookie all star award or highest seeding when many of them got a "free" ride with veteran teams? Why is it that I can never be partners with the teams right next to us in the pit? Shouldn't it be purely random? I can speak from an experience where a robot that couldn't do anything really can move its way up to a highly competitive regional as a #2 seed???
The design of the game where all the robots fought to get to one area in the middle to score lent itself to this situation with defense. Perhaps, like Dave Lavery mentioned to us about the 2005 tetra game, we need to have more different areas of scoring and loading locations than robots to help prevent a clog of robots fighting for scoring/positioning so that this sort of thing cant happen. That was their intent that year in creating an offensive, scoring game.

I know that this wont make the emotions change, but Im sure many have expressed their support in saying that it was an unfortunate accident and no one purposely wished anyone harm, including our team.

[Vogel648]

Also, I believe rourke is correct, let us parse the wording.

Note that a ROBOT attempting to HANG a GAME PIECE on the RACK will be immune from a "pinning" violation as long as it is clear that the ROBOT is continuing to attempt to HANG the GAME PIECE.

Note that the Robot is attempting to hang a game peice. They are "immune" to a pinning violation. I assume that immune means that they will not be called on them. The robot being discribed is clearly the one scoring as the last one states that it is as long as it is continuing to attempt to hang.

[Steve W]

Please refrain from placing blame. Your grandmothers are watching ( I am almost that old). Facts only please or I will commence shutdown sequence.

[BRosser314]

Ive had some bad experiences with FIRST and wrong decisions or wrong calls, but i feel that Curie field was really possesed, not only in out match, but as Freenchie said even in the finals with Hot and ELITE

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Vogel648

It was a design flaw, not saying that the ramming was legal or anything like that, but it was a design flaw. Honestly, your arm should be able to hold up to the point where you tip over or be designed to fail in a way that is simple to repair(such as: shear pins).

Umm, okay.

The failure was a stress failure, the tube was actually stretched and torn apart, not twisted. Yes, an aluminum tube was ripped apart.

Also, during the push, the arm held up enough and ended up twisting the rack 40 degrees, before it actually failed. Yes, it twisted the 330 pound rack 40 degrees. I'm not saying our arm was bullet proof, but saying a 3 foot lever arm needs to withstand at least 200 pounds of pushing force is ridiculous.

As for simple to repair, we had our spare arm on the robot and ready to compete in 15 minutes, just in case the ruling was overturned.