Did anyone else see it this way?

[Peter Matteson]

I know there is better video of this somewhere but check out The Blue Alliance for video posted and see how this contact began at the 1:04 mark.

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/team.php?team=177

At the 1:14 mark you can see Pink pulling 177 over.

At the 1:18 mark the 177 drivers hands come off the controls to allow 233 to get clear.

So where is the penalty? You are talking about a fraction of a second photo that makes things look bad and misrepresents the dynamic situation that was actually taking place.

[Liz Smith]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Whatever the ref rules somebody is going to be unhappy.


Anybody want that job?

Yep. Being a referee this year was one of my best experiences with FIRST. Even after all this debate and controversy about bad reffing and inconsistancies between calls, I am still really excited about doing it all again next year.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

177 never grasps the tube. If you watch the video, the popped tube merely gets snagged on their gripper, they never actively tried to grasp the tube.
While in many situations this season I would have liked to see more penalties called, especially for outside bumper zone contact, this is not one of them.

Going back and watching again, you are correct. They never grab the tube.

However, seeing as they never attempted to score in that match, they should never have even raised their arm in the first place. The fact that their arm was raised all the way in the air, and contacting 233 outside of the bumper zone, while not attempting to score is illegal anyways.

They may not have intentionally got entangled, but it was clearly a conscious decision to use their arm to play defense.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Cory

However, seeing as they never attempted to score in that match, they should never have even raised their arm in the first place. The fact that their arm was raised all the way in the air, and contacting 233 outside of the bumper zone, while not attempting to score is illegal anyways.

They may not have intentionally got entangled, but it was clearly a conscious decision to use their arm to play defense.

Having watched 177 at several events this season, I can say that they always put their arm up while playing defense in order to avoid the gripper getting smashed between bumpers by being down low. The arm controller moves the arm up, then takes his hands off the controls while the base driver plays defense. It is clear to me that their intent was not to push/grab/pop tubes outside of the bumper zone, regardless of what occurred in the match.

In general, situations like this and others that occurred on the Curie and Archimedes fields are the result of what appears to be a "just let them play" approach to refereeing this year's game. It is hard to blame teams for what you might perceive as playing outside the rules when the referees are standing right there and allow them to play that way. As much as it hurts some, I say this is part of the game. If the refs are not calling something that you think should be called, you have to adjust your play style to deal with it.

Best of luck to all teams competing in offseason events!

RAZ

[Zotas]

Originally Posted by Cory

However, seeing as they never attempted to score in that match, they should never have even raised their arm in the first place. The fact that their arm was raised all the way in the air, and contacting 233 outside of the bumper zone, while not attempting to score is illegal anyways.
conscious decision to use their arm to play defense.

It was not a conscious decision to use the arm for defense. The arm was raised due to the design of our "wrist". The wrist locked in place once the robot started moving and the arm was raised so that it did not hit the floor. If you watch to the matches you will notice that the arm pretty much stayed in the same place once it was raised.

I agree that that could have been called for a penalty even though it was incidental. Regardless, 177 won the match by 14 points so it would not have affected the outcome.

[David Brinza]

The danger of looking at a still photo of something that looks like it might be an infraction is you cannot determine how the situation arose. The referee needs to assess the action (who's moving what, where the contact originated, how both robots are responding, what is cause vs effect) all in real time. Not an easy job by any stretch of the imagination.

The referees at the Championship were very experienced - gained in multiple regionals and many matches in the divisions. I trust their judgment based on their knowledge of the rules (believe me, they know them), their impartiality and their understanding of the importance of their job.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Rob

Having watched 177 at several events this season, I can say that they always put their arm up while playing defense in order to avoid the gripper getting smashed between bumpers by being down low. The arm controller moves the arm up, then takes his hands off the controls while the base driver plays defense. It is clear to me that their intent was not to push/grab/pop tubes outside of the bumper zone, regardless of what occurred in the match.

That makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation.

[ALIBI]

Isn't the intent of the bumpers and bumber zone to make certain that defensive contact be made within that zone? 177 does not have a ringer and should not be considered to be playing offence. IMHO, when a robot goes into a defensive mode, they must make certain, it is thier responsibility, that the first part of thier robot that touches another robot either be bumpers or a part of thier robot flush with the vertical plane where the bumpers would be if they do not have bumpers. Playing defense in such a way that a part of your robot that is outside the bumper zone makes contact with the opposing robot first is wrong. Incidental contact once in a while, OK, but driving around the field with your arm outside the bumper zone and repeatedly having it be the first part of your robot that contacts the opposing alliances robot should have been a penalty.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by ALIBI

Isn't the intent of the bumpers and bumber zone to make certain that defensive contact be made within that zone? 177 does not have a ringer and should not be considered to be playing offence. IMHO, when a robot goes into a defensive mode, they must make certain, it is thier responsibility, that the first part of thier robot that touches another robot either be bumpers or a part of thier robot flush with the vertical plane where the bumpers would be if they do not have bumpers. Playing defense in such a way that a part of your robot that is outside the bumper zone makes contact with the opposing robot first is wrong. Incidental contact once in a while, OK, but driving around the field with your arm outside the bumper zone and repeatedly having it be the first part of your robot that contacts the opposing alliances robot should have been a penalty.

But if through the course of the competition no ref ever penalized them or even just warned them then they must correctly assume that they are playing within the rules. So you can’t blame them either. In their shoes I would have done the same thing.



My point of starting this thread was to show how difficult a referee’s job can be. We have the benefit of pictures and videos and we as a group can’t agree on what is correct. How can we expect a ref to decide in the heat of the moment and get it right every time?

Big thanks to the men and women who step and do this thankless job!

[Eric O]

Originally Posted by IndySam

What about:

<G36> Goal defense - ROBOTS may defend SPIDER LEGS by pushing and/or blocking other ROBOTS as they attempt to HANG GAME PIECES. If a ROBOT is holding a GAME PIECE, a ROBOT on the opposing ALLIANCE may not grasp/attach to the GAME PIECE in order to remove it from their POSSESSION or prevent them from HANGING. A violation will
result in a 10-point penalty being assessed to the offending ROBOT.

Sam,

I first want to thank you for looking up a rule to discuss. Many people will try to dispute a call on these forums without actually referencing a rule.

Second, team 177 is known for playing defense. We use it many times within our strategies and teach our driver (singular because our arm driver has nothing to do with defense) how to play it affectively and more importantly appropriately. They are not out there to break or flip other machines, but instead to properly position themselves to resist opponent scoring. Considering at least 25% of this years robots could not score a tube due to being ramp/lift only, I saw much of this type of play, including defense played against us. In fact, I do not believe that we had a penalty called on us all season.

Thirdly, it is up to the refs to call the rules and we respect that. If they think we have crossed the line and broken a rule and give us a penalty we usually ask for clarification. Not to argue to the call, but to better understand the call and make sure we do not do it again.

Lastly, in response to you questioning of the call and why the ref did or did not penalize us. I do not know what swayed the ref to not make the call, but can point out some of the reasons I think they did not call a penalty. The picture shown was in the final match. I have watched that video multiple times to see exactly what happened prior to the picture being discussed. During that match I noticed a few things which I would like to point out.
1) The arm driver never moves the arm except to raise it back up to a position inside of our starting platform. We had previously had it even more vertical, but the wearing of our worm gear caused it to flop backward if we went to far upright. We are unable to tuck the end effector in and therefore up is the only position we remain in our base platform.
2) As Pete pointed out, to avoid tipping or damaging Pink our drivers were told to take their hands off the sticks and let them get untangled.
3) The claw was never opened; therefore there was obviously no attempt to grab the tube.
4) The point where the tube gets entangled on our claw, pick is coming toward us with their arm outside the platform of their robot which is legal per rule G35: “Extension to extension contact between two ROBOTS with appendages outside the 28-inch by 38-inch starting footprint will generally not be penalized.” However, I don’t think this rule even applies due to the face that it was accidental contact with the tube and not even the robot.
5) The tube is not an extension of the robot. If this were true, human loading over the wall would have been illegal due to this rule: <S02>HUMAN PLAYERS, DRIVERS, and COACHES may not directly contact any ROBOT at any time during the match. Illegal contact will result in the disabling of the TEAM'S ROBOT for the remainder of the match.

I have obviously thought about this a bit and although I understand it looks like a one sided defensive post, but hope I have brought out fact and not just opinions. I commend all referees, not for making a call in our favor, but for doing what I just did in my post in about 10 seconds without a replay reel or manual in hand.

Thank you to all who have made it this far though the post.

Eric

[ALIBI]

Originally Posted by IndySam

But if through the course of the competition no ref ever penalized them or even just warned them then they must correctly assume that they are playing within the rules. So you can’t blame them either. In their shoes I would have done the same thing.



My point of starting this thread was to show how difficult a referee’s job can be. We have the benefit of pictures and videos and we as a group can’t agree on what is correct. How can we expect a ref to decide in the heat of the moment and get it right every time?

Big thanks to the men and women who step and do this thankless job!

I would have to agree with you on all points. The least that can be said is that the call was not made consistantly. I was at two regionals and the championship and saw many hours of webcast and could easily find countless other similar instances where this call was not made. There is a reason the Head Referee's call is final. I prefaced my remarks with IMHO fully realizing as you have stated so well that the referees did not typically make this call thoughout this season and 177 was only behaving as they had been permitted to in the past. Frankly, I am surprised that 177's arm held up so well! Incidental contact was given rather broad interpretation this year by the referee's. I am just a die hard bumper to bumper, pushing from one end of the field to the other fan of this type of defense. Alot of pushing without anybody's robot getting broke (drivetrains excepted).

[s_forbes]

Looking over the video again, it appears that when 233 and 177 contacted both of their bots had their arms arguably inside of their robot footprint. I think it was incidental contact and the tube just managed to get stuck on both of their arms.

[Jason Morrella]

Originally Posted by Rob

In general, situations like this and others that occurred on the Curie and Archimedes fields are the result of what appears to be a "just let them play" approach to refereeing this year's game. It is hard to blame teams for what you might perceive as playing outside the rules when the referees are standing right there and allow them to play that way. As much as it hurts some, I say this is part of the game.

I think most agree that some (not all) refs did take the "just let them play" approach - which I don't mind in a very close gray area/tough call situation, but not when the rule violation is obvious. However, I would disagree that "it is part of the game". Mabye it is part of "life", but the game is the "game" as it is designed and written.

One thing I keep hearing, which I'm going to comment on even though I probably shouldn't....is that I don't get all the talk about whether something is incidental or intentional.

1. Part of that debate does not even matter - if something is against the rules (such as hitting teams outside of the bumper zone repeatedly while playing defense), then it's a penalty, no matter if it was intentional or not.

2. We need to give FIRST teams and the drivers/coaches of these robots a little more credit. These aren't clueless people who are "surprised" when an extended arm (not being used to play offense or score) hits another robot up high (out of the bumper zone) or tips it over. Especially playoff teams that have clearly discussed and set on a defensive strategy and/or veteran teams who I'm fairly sure understand the physics of what will likely tip another robot over when they choose to raise/extend their arm while interacting with another robot (and not attempting to score) instead of keeping it down.

3. Last, in the same line of thinking of giving the teams more credit than some of these arguments seem to:

FIRST teams are smart. FIRST teams adapt. FIRST teams push the limits to whatever is allowed. If the referees called the rules as written, and penalized teams at the regionals and in the Championship qualifiers for using extended arms for defense, hitting outside the bumper zone, overly agressive ramming and pinning/tipping robots - the teams would have stopped doing it for the most part.

In some of the examples people have posted here on CD, I don't really hold the "teams" accountable for damaging or tipping other robots. Since I saw it first hand, I'll comment on the Archimedes example posted in another thread:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

There were incidents of questionable nature on all four fields during the elimination rounds, 2 of which directly affected champions. The most egregious of which happened in this incident on Curie and on Archimedes. While I have not yet been able to find video (or get it from teammates) of the incidents on Galileo or Newton, but I will post video of 254 being tipped on Archimedes (no call).
http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2XmhRZmMsM

Anyone who saw it was expecting the 494/254/997 alliance to move on after they were tipped by 107 towards the start of the second semifinal match (they won the first 140-4). It was probably one of the easiest to call examples of that the entire season. When the penalty wasn't called, every person standing around me knew exactly what was going to happen in the third match - the very same thing - you could go to the bank (or vegas) that 254 was going to be tipped very early in match 3, which they were. If teams know the refs aren't going to enforce the bumper zone or tipping rules, then of course they are going to take more chances playing defense. If they knew there was a likelihood of the rules being enforced and a penalty being called, I know that most of the teams would adjust their play accordingly.

Luckily, unlike some other previously discussed situations, in the Archimedes example I didn't hear of any hard feelings from the tip - for one because nothing on the 254 bot was damaged or torn apart (makes it easier not to be upset) and second, because the 494/254/997 alliance knew the issue was with the penalty not being called, not with the team playing defense. Plus the tip in the 3rd match was much more similar to the tip on Einstein, which is to say it certainly fell into the category of a judgement call and could have gone either way, as oppossed to the tip in match 2.

Important note here (since I do have an affiliation & history with 254) - in NO way am I implying 233/71/179 would not have won Archimedes. I think they had the best alliance and still would have won the division. Would have been a great matchup which many in the division were expecting and waiting to see, but I still think the right alliance came out of Archimedes. Hope I didn't just manage to offend either the 494/254/997 or 386/85/107 alliances.

Either way, the point is that FIRST teams will adapt if they know the refs are calling certain rules or actions and giving penalties - just as the teams will adjust their play to be much more agressive when they realize the rules aren't being enforced. What clearly caused even more frustration is that the rules at one regional or on one division field would be enforced the exact opposite then on one of the other fields. Teams expect (and most of us would argue deserve) two things - rules to be enforced as close to as written as possible (which will never happen 100% of the time - part of being human - and I believe most teams get that) and rules to be enforced consistently (or very close to). I don't think many would argue that either of those goals was even close to being achieved this year.

Is there any point harping on this? Not for the 2007 season, no - it's over and nothing's going to change. However, any organization needs to acknowledge what worked and what didn't so it can improve - so hopefully enough discussion and consensus on recognizing the inconsistencies of the rule enforcement this season (and things like the match algorithm) will help make things much better and improved next year for all the teams. The teams work too hard and spend too much not to have the play of the robots & teams decide the matches.

Very sorry for the long post - just couldn't bite my tongue on the incidental vs intentional comments anymore.

Hope everyone has a great weekend and a great off season!

[xzvrw2]

i watched the video only once. i did that so i can base my opinion off of, like a ref, only seeing the match once. (i got this idea from some one over in the now closed curie discussion) here is my opinion:

I see that 177s arm never moved, therefore they didnt intentionaly contact 233 outside the bumper zone. 233s arm was moving back and forth, sometimes in the bumper zone sometimes not. they both contacted eachother outside the bumper zone. so, in theory, they both should have gotten one. but i think the ref seen tat and decided to negate both penalties. Thats what i saw that one and only time i watched the match.

i think the ruling on this match was fair.

my $0.02

During the drivers meeting I heard the Ref say that it was OK to try to knock a tube out of another robots grasp. It was NOT OK to grab the tube. If two robots became entangled it was incumbent on both of them to try to become disentangled. If one of them fell over, the other was probably going to be turned off for the rest of the match. The penalties I rememeber them stressing was from a full speed ramming run from 5 feet or more away (even in autonomous mode) and grabbing a tube in another robot's possession. I got the feeling they weren't going to call penalties for robot arms touching, incidental or otherwise.
I just wish we had had the chance to use some desperate and questionable tactics on Einstein. Not that we would have...

Chris