Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?

[waialua359]

"The greatest disappointment to me, however, was the incosistent or lack of refereeing on the Curie field. "
I hate to tell you this, but its been like that for a WHOLE lot of regionals than just Curie at championship.
Ex. #1: robot in starting position must be behind white line but not necessarily the keeper being held. Referees in two regionals we attended enforced it exactly the opposite.
Ex. #2: Our arm broke in a NJ regionals finals match. Where was that 3 second rule?
Ex. #3: Ramps cannot be deployed outside the home zone and exceed the 72 x 72" rule. Why were penalties not consistently called?

The responsibility of understanding game rules MUST apply to referees also as much as they hold teams to it. Referees like in sports dictate behavior in matches being played. Simply stating a rule is not enough.

[KTorak]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm going to justify my belief by challenging the wording. When the GDC uses the term violation, it does not appear to mean penalty to me. Had they said the team hanging a game piece would be immune from the pinning penalty, i'd follow what is being said 100%. However, the choice of violation makes it seem like a team committing the pinning against them would be immune as well, or simply no action would be taken for robot-to-robot contact.

[PatrickN]

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).

I dont see why it would be necessary to design an arm such that you're expecting it to fail at some point. I wasn't at the championships but I was at GTR and I saw the Waterloo regional and these guys basically have a giant "Kick me" sign taped to their robot... If the opposing alliance has at least one moving robot chances are there's going to be some defence played. Considering this has been going on for several years I'd expect these guys to make a design that they feel would stand up to a fair amount of rough play.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by KTorak

I'm going to justify my belief by challenging the wording. When the GDC uses the term violation, it does not appear to mean penalty to me. Had they said the team hanging a game piece would be immune from the pinning penalty, i'd follow what is being said 100%. However, the choice of violation makes it seem like a team committing the pinning against them would be immune as well, or simply no action would be taken for robot-to-robot contact.

This was clarified in a team update, Q&A and the driver's meeting. It was made very clear that it was legal for a team to pin somone while scoring. It did not mean that a scoring team is allowed to be pinned. But I do agree, this was not very clear in the initial version of the rules.

[Jonathan Norris]

Originally Posted by KTorak

I'm going to justify my belief by challenging the wording. When the GDC uses the term violation, it does not appear to mean penalty to me. Had they said the team hanging a game piece would be immune from the pinning penalty, i'd follow what is being said 100%. However, the choice of violation makes it seem like a team committing the pinning against them would be immune as well, or simply no action would be taken for robot-to-robot contact.

This was discussed heavily at the beginning of the season, and i believe the GDC has addressed this wording many times in their forum. This rule is not up for questioning, sure it is not worded properly but the understanding by most (if not all) is that this applies to the offensive team attempting to score.

[KTorak]

Thanks for the clarification on that rule. I'm assuming the discussion occurred at the ATL drivers meeting, in which I was not in attendance because 1023 failed to qualify for the event. However, I am surprised that I missed that GDC update/ruling. Does anyone care to point me in the direction on where it was clarified? I can't believe I went off my own judgment all season without an issue (though 1023 RARELY plays defense).

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Nick 1523

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).

The referee was completely correct in removing the keeper - it was partially supported by the foot, the leg and the 1114 gripper. This is clearly visible in the video clip in the first post of this thread. I was on the floor at Curie (right where Dean Kamen addressed the crowd), and my immediate reaction was that it didn't count.

Per the definitions in the game manual (7.1.2):

HANGING: a GAME PIECE is considered HANGING if its’ weight is fully supported by a SPIDER LEG and it has been released by the POSSESSING ROBOT. A GAME PIECE is not considered HANGING if it is supported by the SPIDER FOOT.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by Joel J.

I'm on 1114's side on this one.. not only because of the fatality suffered by their robot, but because of how consistently poor the calls were by the refs this weekend.

You're not the only one, Joel, people seem to be having difficulty forming an objective opinion on this match and the reffing. The fact that their arm broke off has absolutely nothing to do with DQing 48 or not. 1114's arm got caught in the rack while they were trying to score with someone playing defense on them.
As a driver who has played some defense this year I would have done the exact same thing as 48's driver. If you're trying to defend against someone who is just about to score but hasn't yet placed and released the ringer you're a bad driver if you DON'T keep pushing

Originally Posted by Karthik

Fact: After the arm snapped off, 48 stopped playing defense on 1114, making it seem like they knew what had happened

Just because they knew what happened doesn't make them guilty! It may be hard to see from behind the rack and across the field, but sounds travels fine and I'm sure they hear the crack and saw the arm dangling from the ringer...
They stopped playing defense on 1114 because playing defense against a bot that can't score isn't much use. Or would it be more "graciously professional" to pretend like they still did?

Originally Posted by Karthik

Fact: Team 48 was booed by a large section of the Curie stands (1114 was not part of this group) when they were announced for their next match. I have never seen this at FIRST event before, and I think it says a lot about how upset people were about this incident.

Again, people feel so badly for 1114 because they're such a grade A+ team and would likely have been Curie champs (and then who knows what).
This section of the stands obviously failed to see things objectively here. 1114 = good guys; 48 = bad guys. right?

Originally Posted by Karthik

Fact: 48 pinned 1114 for 34 seconds, without backing up by 3 feet for 3 seconds.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...23692796016767
Definitely not a fact. The pinning in question starts at 1:02 and ends at 1:10 (that's 8 seconds btw). And before you say that 48 didn't back up 3 feet for 3 seconds, that rule doesn't apply when you are pushing back and moving back the 3 feet WITH THEM. That only makes it easier/quicker for them to re-engage in a pushing match they're sure to win.
The pinning stopped at 1:10 and started again at 1:14 (that's 4 seconds btw) and they certainly moved back more than 3 feet. If 1114 wanted to get out of that situation they should have stayed put, turned to the side and booked it out of there in the 3+ seconds and 3+ feet they had available instead of chasing after them for god's sake!
(watch carefully the space in between 1114 and the RACK, not 48 and 1114.)



I'll say it again, put yourself in the place of team 48's driver. Would you have backed off just as they were about to score the ringer? I doubt it.

[Vogel648]

Honestly, looking at your boom at competition and even before then when scouting, I said that it looked kind of flimsy, with as far as I could tell only a couple of small pieces near the end. I'm not trying to say there was a major design flaw, but to me that arm should have had more pieces re-enforcing it, especially since they were just tubes an not re-enforced pieces like the extruded aluminum our team uses. Overall, even to pulling stress like you're talking about, the amount of material used could have been far greater, but was likely given up to save weight. This allowed your robot to be very versitile, but not as robust.

[CJV648]

What happened is the reason why we will only get one tiny drivetrain motor in next year's game.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

Just because they knew what happened doesn't make them guilty! It may be hard to see from behind the rack and across the field, but sounds travels fine and I'm sure they hear the crack and saw the arm dangling from the ringer...
They stopped playing defense on 1114 because playing defense against a bot that can't score isn't much use. Or would it be more "graciously professional" to pretend like they still did?

Carl,

Team 48 denies knowing that the arm snapped off, this is what I am disputing. I agree it doesn't make them guilty of showing intent, but it does show that the knew the arm broke off, that's all.

Again, people feel so badly for 1114 because they're such a grade A+ team and would likely have been Curie champs (and then who knows what). This section of the stands obviously failed to see things objectively here. 1114 = good guys; 48 = bad guys. right?

Team 1114 has never been a fan favourite at any event, you know that better than anyone. Considering in the past people have cheered when our robot has broken, including people from a team you know rather well. Neither of us can know why 48 was booed, my guess is that it was because people thought it was a dirty play. Also, I wouldn't say it was likely that we would have been Curie division champs. 330 (best robot in 2007, hands down), 910 and 1270 would have had a lot to say about that.

I'll say it again, put yourself in the place of team 48's driver. Would you have backed off just as they were about to score the ringer? I doubt it.

I most definitely would have backed off. I know you wouldn't have, but that's what makes us different.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Wow... Look what can happen in the 6 hours I'm at work. This looks almost exactly like a repeat of a 2005 thread featuring a referreeing mistake in the semis at Midwest in which hearts were broken. I played a major part in that argument, putting blame on refs. I shouldn't have done that and I learned from it. Referees are only human and I agree that penalties should be assessed consistently.

I'm sorry to hear that 1114 and the rest of that alliance was put in this position. Karthik, I hope you and your team fix your arm and have it roaring to go at IRI. I hope to be there to cheer you all on.

[Vogel648]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Carl,

Team 48 denies knowing that the arm snapped off, this is what I am disputing. I agree it doesn't make them guilty of showing intent, but it does show that the knew the arm broke off, that's all.

I believe you are misrepresenting what he's saying, as far as I can tell what he's saying is he didn't realize that your arm was about to fail before it did. Of course I could be wrong, in which case I would apreciate you pointing me to the post in which it was said.

Thanks
-nrv.

[Jonathan Norris]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

As a driver who has played some defense this year I would have done the exact same thing as 48's driver. If you're trying to defend against someone who is just about to score but hasn't yet placed and released the ringer you're a bad driver if you DON'T keep pushing

All right Carl you got a point here, but you gota look at the footage more. Take a look between 1:18 and 1:28 throughout this time 48 was pinning 1114. They were going full out and drove right through 1114 while their arm was clearly tangled in the rack. This 10 seconds proves to me that yes, 48 was pinning. Also seeing 48 drive through 1114 like that while they were obviously tangled in the rack for 5-6 seconds till the point where the arm broke is something I doubt you would do (or I would let you do as operator).

edit: looking at the footage i would extend that pinning back to 1:15...
There's a reason we don't build bully bots anymore

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by CJV648

I think the above statement is ungracious and I believe Karthik should withdraw it.

Carl stated he wouldn't have backed off, Karthik would have backed off so there is the difference. There is nothing ungracious about that statement.

BTW Carl and Karthik are friends.