Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Brian Beatty

In conclusion, I feel for 1114's tough break, but if a bad call/no call was made, that's the game. The only way to end these human element disputes is the "nuclear option" --no defense.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

Brian, while I respect your opinion and that of all the other teams who prefer to practice their offensive craft without being harassed by the little guy, I'm not going to let one unfortunate accident out of countless cleanly and safely played qualifying and elimination round matches over the course of four competitions this season serve as the galvanizing symbol for some kind of offensive rallying cry to eliminate all defense in FIRST competitions.

I continue to believe that defense is an integral and necessary part of the game which adds a dynamic flair to the competition (robots changing strategies on the fly) and if done right, can better engage the audience in the on the field action. I thought the GDC did an excellent job this year of creating a game where both offensive and defensive alliances could equally show off their skills AND succeed. You need look no further than the Einstein finals to see the kind of alliance diversity that was allowed to shine through to the final stage. Some may have found the Einstein finals boring; I found them to be a refreshing mix of both offensive and defensive strategies on display at the same time.

I feel a combination of better education and rule enforcement are the best ways to eliminate the most egregious forms of damage due to excessive defense. How are teams expected to know what not to do if no one shows them exactly what not to do? Set the limit visually and then enforce it. FIRST has a safety video it shows at each competition - why not a defense video? Combine examples of appropriate and inappropriate contact using real robots with other examples of taboo actions and the corresponding penalties that may be called. If teams see what is illegal before the competition begins, they will have a weaker argument when challenging any referees' calls, and the refs will be more empowered to make the tough calls when they are needed. It will also give all referees a common visual baseline upon which all their subsequent rulings can be built.

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Brian, while I respect your opinion and that of all the other teams who prefer to practice their offensive craft without being harassed by the little guy, I'm not going to let one unfortunate accident out of countless cleanly and safely played qualifying and elimination round matches over the course of four competitions this season serve as the galvanizing symbol for some kind of offensive rallying cry to eliminate all defense in FIRST competitions.

I continue to believe that defense is an integral and necessary part of the game which adds a dynamic flair to the competition (robots changing strategies on the fly) and if done right, can better engage the audience in the on the field action. I thought the GDC did an excellent job this year of creating a game where both offensive and defensive alliances could equally show off their skills AND succeed.

I feel a combination of BETTER EDUCATION and RULE ENFORCEMENT are the best ways to eliminate the most egregious forms of damage due to excessive defense. How are teams expected to know what not to do if no one shows them exactly what not to do? Set the limit visually and then ENFORCE IT. We have safety videos we show at each competition - why not a defense video? Combine examples of appropriate and inappropriate contact using REAL ROBOTS with other examples of taboo actions and the corresponding penalties that may be called. If teams see what is illegal before the competition begins, THEY WILL HAVE A WEAKER ARGUMENT WHEN CHALLENGING THE REFEREES, AND THE REFEREES WILL BE MORE EMPOWERED TO MAKE THE TOUGH CALLS WHEN THEY ARE NEEDED.

I agree with you on that Travis. There is no way you can eliminate defense for a few reasons, a couple you already posted. But another major one I can think of, is the inability of some teams to build something complex, like an arm, that can function on a winning level.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

3. HIRE THE REFEREE'S, get someone who is not familiar to the game, who won't play favorites, who has refereed something else before like football or basketball. (basketball being the better, due to the active amount of game play.) therefore the refs are eliminated from the blame, if the refs are paid it will only bump registration up a maximum amount of say $100, that $100 from each team = $4000 per referee team consisting of 8 refs, 4 refs at the corners, a head ref, a clock operator, a red alliance ref, and a blue alliance ref. Now the referees will not be afraid of throwing out the yellow card or red card

I think it's going to be difficult to find someone who wants this thankless task for $500 and about a week of work. It might be a nice gesture to our current volunteers, though.

Originally Posted by Corey Balint

It doesn't need to be that difficult. You just need a precise ten minute video for demonstrations. A phone conference like they have had, is not the answer.

You're blithely stating here that you can fit the entirety of borderline and questionable calls into a 10 minute video. I find it difficult to believe you could fit enough material onto even a 2 hour DVD. At least, that's assuming you want calls based entirely on the situations from the video. Otherwise you're still depending on human judgement. Honestly, we're going to keep arguing about reffing until the GDC designs a game where we build robot refs, or everyone accepts the fact that people are human and there are far more people in the audience judging the refs than there are refs to watch the field.

[Cody Carey]

Yes, Travis I couldn't agree more... defense is there, and it always will be. If it weren't, FIRST would not be the same competition. It is there for "the little guy". It makes it so teams that don't have thousands of dollars to spend on building their robot can compete with what they are given in the kit. To suggest eliminating it is (for lack of a better phrase) Just plain stupid. Would you watch football if there were no defense? Would you watch soccer, hockey, or any other sport? I don't think so.

Defense is part of the game, and it especially was this year (contrary to my original thoughts) . The fact that one bad thing happened to one robot Doesn't mean it should be sneered at or looked down upon.


-Cody C


P.S. *all in good fun* You know what a robot with a broken arm would be really good at? Defense. *all in good fun*

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by Corey Balint

But another major one I can think of, is the inability of some teams to build something complex, like an arm, that can function on a winning level.

I rarely call out people, but in this case i feel a minor need to do so. I will not speak names though.

Not everyone feels this way sadly, i will say that one of the well known mentors on this forum has had a conversation with me basically saying a robot that does nothing but play D is not good enough. Having a built robot to play a certain style, maybe not be a total Difference Maker offense is not good enough to make them proud. I know i would be very proud with anything that is finished and been able to play on the field. Sadly, not everyone see's it this way.

To keep this post, within this thread and such, i see no problem with D in the game and seek a change similar to what Travis is saying.

Edit//
Per request from the person, for some odd reason he wants to be kown for this. The person is your beloved John V Neun

[Rich Ross]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=54562&

I can't help but think that the Drivetrain "Arm's Race" is not what FIRST is about. Some may feel this is off-topic, but if no robot was capable of exerting a force sufficient to turn the rack or to snap aluminum box tubing, then this wouldn't be a problem.

[Pat Arnold]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Everyone would like a more complete explanation of penalties and rulings regarding scoring. Keep in mind that FIRST is under considerable time pressure to get the matches completed. The championship event this year ran more than a hour past the scheduled time.

I don't think a quick explanation re: how or what penalty/bonus was incurred/awarded would slow matches down. There is always down time as robots are collected or set up on the field between matches. The educational benefit for spectators and teams would be great. It would cut down on misunderstandings on just how final scores were arrived at. It is valuable hearing explanations why flags are thrown in other sports.

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by Cody Carey

Yes, Travis I couldn't agree more... defense is there, and it always will be. If it weren't, FIRST would not be the same competition. It is there for "the little guy". It makes it so teams that don't have thousands of dollars to spend on building their robot can compete with what they are given in the kit. To suggest eliminating it is (for lack of a better phrase) Just plain stupid. Would you watch football if there were no defense? Would you watch soccer, hockey, or any other sport? I don't think so.

Defense is part of the game, and it especially was this year (contrary to my original thoughts) . The fact that one bad thing happened to one robot Doesn't mean it should be sneered at or looked down upon.

Defensive play is getting a bit out of hand. Partly due to the nature of the game but also how much of it went "unpunished". We were the victims of questionable defensive play at Bayou (that's in another thread) that went without a penalty. The sad thing is because of the lack of penalty calls at that regional, our driver played much more aggressively at our next regional and tipped a robot in the final match. He flat out admitted it to me and didn't feel that bad about it (he knew we were going to lose). Very disheartening.

I don't think defense needs to be there for the "little guy". We're given a kit frame, wheels, and transmissions. Even the little guy needs more of a challenge than to build a defense bot.

Would a more offensive focused game be that bad next year? Some twist on 2001 perhaps. I really enjoyed some of the offensive matches where the whole rack was almost full of ringers and robots rushing back to do the ramps at the end. I found that very exciting, didn't anyone else?

[4throck]

Originally Posted by Doug G

Defensive play is getting a bit out of hand. Partly due to the nature of the game but also how much of it went "unpunished". We were the victims of questionable defensive play at Bayou (that's in another thread) that went without a penalty. The sad thing is because of the lack of penalty calls at that regional, our driver played much more aggressively at our next regional and tipped a robot in the final match. He flat out admitted it to me and didn't feel that bad about it (he knew we were going to lose). Very disheartening.

I don't think defense needs to be there for the "little guy". We're given a kit frame, wheels, and transmissions. Even the little guy needs more of a challenge than to build a defense bot.

Would a more offensive focused game be that bad next year? Some twist on 2001 perhaps. I really enjoyed some of the offensive matches where the whole rack was almost full of ringers and robots rushing back to do the ramps at the end. I found that very exciting, didn't anyone else?

I have to say I agree with this post. We were at Curie too, and as the competition went on, the play got more and more violent. Let's just say that no one was surprised when the Curie alliance got DQed at Einstein for playing the same way they had been playing. By not calling it, the refs allowed it to escalate. It is hard to say where the line should be drawn, but the rough play exhibited throughout the finals crossed it, especially when it came to ramming and pinning.

Additionaly, the penalties are not big enough to truly prevent this kind of play. At Chesapeake in the elimination rounds, we had another teams arm enter our robot and yank out a wire. For this, they recieved 30 points worth of penalties and a yellow flag. A shame that the unpenalized score was 64-32. When a single ringer can more than cancel out penalties for rough play, the penalties don't mean anything, and they will not deter illegal play.

[Kate00]

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari

3) I believe everyone was watching the finals on einstein. Please make the playing field leveled.

Originally Posted by Jason Morrella

The DQ called on Einstein for tipping was nowhere near as obvious or intentional as the non call on Archimedes. It's one thing not to call an obvious DQ, but an entirely different thing to then call a DQ for something not nearly as flagrant.

Just speculating here, but perhaps the refs heard about the incidents on both Archimedes and Curie, and may have tried to improve the quality of the reffing for the finals on Einstein. If this is true, I commend them for realizing their mistakes and trying to fix them, and my question then becomes why this only came up for the last two rounds of play in the entire season, and not after 37 regional competitions.

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Kate771

Just speculating here, but perhaps the refs heard about the incidents on both Archimedes and Curie, and may have tried to improve the quality of the reffing for the finals on Einstein. If this is true, I commend them for realizing their mistakes and trying to fix them, and my question then becomes why this only came up for the last two rounds of play in the entire season, and not after 37 regional competitions.

I know I have definitely discussed these reffing issues numerous times before, most notably in the Palmetto Regional thread.

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by Kate771

Just speculating here, but perhaps the refs heard about the incidents on both Archimedes and Curie, and may have tried to improve the quality of the reffing for the finals on Einstein. If this is true, I commend them for realizing their mistakes and trying to fix them, and my question then becomes why this only came up for the last two rounds of play in the entire season, and not after 37 regional competitions.

there were definantly questionable calls during the 37 regionals, but the mistakes are amplifide once teams get to the championships. many stories could be told about the questionable call at the regionals too.

[Brian Beatty]

Travis,

I apologize for my post was not being quite clear. I agree with you that I liked this years game, as well as 2004,2005, 2006 and that defense can make it more exciting. I am not necessarily advocating no defense. My point is this; as long as we have defense, we will have controversy--but there should not be. If the majority wants defense, no problem. Then lump it. And it is always more than just one little incident. 254 could make an argument for no calls on Archimedes. We have been consistently the most defensively abused team in FIRST( 233 took the brunt for us at nats). Like it, no. But we accept it. Yes we can pay the refs, train the refs, ect,ect. But don't expect anything different. And don't give me this little guy-big guy justification for defense. FIRST has to define goals of what it is trying to accomplish in the competition and if it allows a box of rocks to compete effectively against a well-engineered machine, ok( 48 is NOT a box of rocks). Every year we have these monster posts on calls, but why? That is my point.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Brian Beatty

Travis,

I apologize for my post was not being quite clear. I agree with you that I liked this years game, as well as 2004,2005, 2006 and that defense can make it more exciting. I am not necessarily advocating no defense. My point is this; as long as we have defense, we will have controversy--but there should not be. If the majority wants defense, no problem. Then lump it. And it is always more than just one little incident. 254 could make an argument for no calls on Archimedes. We have been consistently the most defensively abused team in FIRST( 233 took the brunt for us at nats). Like it, no. But we accept it. Yes we can pay the refs, train the refs, ect,ect. But don't expect anything different. And don't give me this little guy-big guy justification for defense. FIRST has to define goals of what it is trying to accomplish in the competition and if it allows a box of rocks to compete effectively against a well-engineered machine, ok( 48 is NOT a box of rocks). Every year we have these monster posts on calls, but why? That is my point.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

Better defined rules as well...

I know it's tough, but they need a better way of defining ramming...

When I asked at the driver's meeting, the ref answered that it was completely subjective.

I got called for ramming in qualifying matches on galileo playing 10% as rough as I was in the semi's (sorry for breaking your panel 968, it wasn't intentional) and the final's (sorry for breaking your chain 330, it wasn't intentional) at San Diego. At the end of San Diego I asked theref how much farther would I have had to go to get a ramming penalty, to which he replied "I wouldn't call one because it was all bumper to bumper contact".

When such fluctuation is allowed just in reading the rules, there is a problem.

[cziggy343]

i agree. there will probably not be any change in the way that calls are made because of humans. each human that makes calls has an opinion, thus, each call that is made is made on the particular judgement of the ref. this is something that cannot be changed.