WOW-- Did I miss something?

[FIXIT]

Originally Posted by meaubry

Did you miss something?

Yep, the ref's decision is final AND we don't always understand them. Sometimes the gray areas are difficult for everyone to agree on. Making the call is a tough job, most the time the ref's are right - sometimes they make mistakes (they are human), and often the results won't make everyone very happy.

Time to move on.

You are correct, nothing will change and all rules are final.

You are also correct that the call could have gone either way. The reason for this thread is to find out why the call was made in the first place. What rules were used? It is also to determine whether a mistake was made so that we can learn from it. If we make mistakes and learn from them, then we become better for it. If, however, mistakes are never brought out and discussed—what have we learned?

Was it a good call? I truly believe that the official felt it was. After watching hundreds of matches – I’m not sure all would agree. There were many calls during the year that lack consistency. This in it self is a great lesson. As part of our scouting reports we should take into consideration who the officials are and how they call the game.

As long as we stick to a serious discussion this thread can help us all.

[FIXIT]

Originally Posted by GaryV1188

Was 1270 E-stopped by the ref? If so, yes I missed that. As did the announcer, as I seem to recall a comment about them being unable to move, and he didn't mention a disable.

We were in the stands and thought 1270 broke down. We were quite surprised, along with many others, that 1270 was disqualified and disabled by the referee.

[CJV648]

I'm not not sure of the refs reasoning, but it was different than what was used in Curie QF 34 when 1270 got under both 648 and 1732 while playing defense next to the rack in the match. Neither tipped--648 drove across them, they backed off 1732. Only the 1732 encounter is shown in the video.

Looking at the low profile of 1270's bot versus the others I see how their behavior could be interpreted as contrary to the intent of the wedge/tipping rules and therefore overly aggressive. Looking at their profile it isn't a wedge per se, so I can also see why a ref might not call it a violation. It is a legitimate matter of interpretation.

A yellow card in QF 34 might have made 1270 a little more cautious and let them avoid the tipping on Einstein.

Under the circumstances I can see why 1270 and allies would be frustrated by the change in interpretation, but keeping things in perspective, they did have a great run in a fun game.

[redbarron]

Originally Posted by CJV648

I'm not not sure of the refs reasoning, but it was different than what was used in Curie QF 34 when 1270 got under both 648 and 1732 while playing defense next to the rack in the match. Neither tipped--648 drove across them, they backed off 1732. Only the 1732 encounter is shown in the video.

Looking at the low profile of 1270's bot versus the others I see how their behavior could be interpreted as contrary to the intent of the wedge/tipping rules and therefore overly aggressive. Looking at their profile it isn't a wedge per se, so I can also see why a ref might not call it a violation. It is a legitimate matter of interpretation.

A yellow card in QF 34 might have made 1270 a little more cautious and let them avoid the tipping on Einstein.

Under the circumstances I can see why 1270 and allies would be frustrated by the change in interpretation, but keeping things in perspective, they did have a great run in a fun game.

I was the field coach of 1270 and I was looking directly at what happened on Einstein. 1270 and 71 were both going for the same spot on the spider, both had a tube, and both were pushing each other. 71 and 1270 were BOTH going forward. 71 while driving forward went over top of 1270 and the forward driving of the robots caused 71 to tip.

Now I am not sure exactly what the call to DQ 1270 was based on, whether it was that the ref believed he had witnessed intentional tipping or what, but I can tell you now that it was not. That was just a battle of CG and 71 was top heavy. Now as far as " if 1270 had bumpers" or "if they were just a little taller" , I believe the game rules have to agree and stay in the guidelines of the robot rules. As soon as there is a set ground clearance or a requirement for bumpers than those will become valid points toward the call. I say this not to start a war but simply to make a point. One could argue with these and say "if only 71 was a little lower to the ground" or "if only the CG of 71 was a little lower".

Whats done is done and it is what it is. Though this call hurt us a lot it is all over and done.


Again I am not trying to start a war so please do not take it that way.

I would also like to say thankyou to 330 and 910 for accepting us into your alliance. I had a lot of fun playing alongside you guys and would like to say that both teams are awesome both robot and members. Hope to see you next year!!

[FIXIT]

Originally Posted by CJV648

I'm not not sure of the refs reasoning, but it was different than what was used in Curie QF 34 when 1270 got under both 648 and 1732 while playing defense next to the rack in the match. Neither tipped--648 drove across them, they backed off 1732. Only the 1732 encounter is shown in the video.

Thanks for this post. Your reference to Curie QF 34 is very useful. It is true that 1270 is low to the ground, but its design is not in violation of any rules. The robot sits 4.5” above the ground with a CG that is directly in the center of the robot at 6.5” off the ground, making the robot very difficult to push around and virtually impossible to flip—that’s the way it was designed.

Robots that are top heavy and try to push the Red Dragon do have a tendency to tip. This match is a good example of that. As 1732 tried to push the Red Dragon from the side, it started to tip over. The Red Dragon was perpendicular to 1732 at the time. The 1732 driver did the only thing he could do and that was to regain control of the robot and move away from the Red Dragon. This was a smart move. If 1732 had continued, it would have flipped over just as 71 did in the semi-finals.

I’m simply pointing out that trying to push the Red Dragon will cause the aggressor to flip. Should this be a penalty? Who should get the yellow/red card? It seems that quite a bit is up to the interpretation of the referee. What if the referee gets it wrong -- what recourse is there?

I am still trying to find out what the call was on the field. Maybe the referee saw something no one else did. I would love to see a video of this match that clearly shows what happened.

Thanks for your understanding!

[meaubry]

Fixit,
Glad to see that you updated your info. Now it makes sense why you are attempting to gain a better understanding for the ref's decision.

As I said before, unless Aiden decides to respond - you/we will never know WHY? That is his choice.

For everyone else that saw it or didn't see it - we are all speculating why the ref made the call. Only he knows why.

All year (every year) there are inconsistancies in the way rules are interpretted and decision regarding penalties are made. This year is no different - this match is no different.

Bumpers or no bumpers - robots are not suppose to be designed to flip others over (passively or otherwise). We've been through that debate at nauseum, over the past years (led to the no wedge shape rule). The circular debate of whom is at fault (the one that drove on top, or the one that drove underneath, or the one that just sat there and innocently did nothing) is never ending. The only people that truely know are the students controlling the machines - they know if they were driving forward, backing away, or doing neither.

I suppose we could ask for another build regulation regarding what the ends of the robots with out bumpers MUST be designed to meet, in order to help mitigate the problem. I just hate to see another requirement that could constrain creativity and suck away materials and resources to meet it.

Debating what rules were or weren't interpretted by the ref in order to rationalize a particular call, won't change anything - now or in the future.

As you suggested in an earlier post, I'll leave this one open as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

Mike Aubry
Engineering Lead
Chief Delphi

[FIXIT]

Mike -- I agree!

[FIXIT]

Originally Posted by GaryV1188

Was 1270 E-stopped by the ref? If so, yes I missed that. As did the announcer, as I seem to recall a comment about them being unable to move, and he didn't mention a disable.

Perhaps the ruling was that even though 1270 wasn't shaped like a wedge, it ended up acting like a wedge and thus the tipping was their fault. I don't know, I'm just speculating like all the rest of us.

Oh, and the head ref on the Finals was Chief Ref Aiden Browne, who is also a member of the GDC I believe.

Upon speaking with the head referee, the teams were told that the Red Dragon was disqualified because of "contact made outside the bumper zone." Maybe we need more than one referee calling the final rounds so we have a consensus and limit any bias.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by FIXIT

Maybe we need more then one referee calling the final rounds so we have a consensus and limit any bias.

How many striped shirts were around the field? Six or so, many with "Head Referee" on the back? There is more than one ref there, but as for talking to each other during a match, that takes too long. Also, I'm pretty sure the head ref has no team affiliation.

[FIXIT]

Originally Posted by EricH

How many striped shirts were around the field? Six or so, many with "Head Referee" on the back? There is more than one ref there, but as for talking to each other during a match, that takes too long. Also, I'm pretty sure the head ref has no team affiliation.

In the event of a dispute such as ours, they would make time. In a disqualification situation, they should make time because it's too important a call to leave up to one individual. Besides, other sports have more than one referee making a call -- why not FIRST? Also, I am pretty sure the referees are not randomly picked from the general population. They all have an affiliation of one sort or another.

[Liz Smith]

Originally Posted by FIXIT

In the event of a dispute such as ours, they would make time. In a disqualification situation, they should make time because it's too important a call to leave up to one individual. Besides, other sports have more than one referee making a call -- why not FIRST? Also, I am pretty sure the referees are not randomly picked from the general population. They all have an affiliation of one sort or another.

That is the way the play was called. It is over. It's unfortunate that your team got DQed, but thats just the way it is. Bringing up the issue over and over isn't going to change anything.

I am personally offended that you would imply that the referees on the field were biased. None of the referees on that field were against your team, or any other team in the competition. To say that the referees made a call you disagree with is one thing, to say that they made a call because they were biased is not right. You should really think before you post. By making implications like this, it only reflects poorly on you and your team.

[Arefin Bari]

Originally Posted by FIXIT

In the event of a dispute such as ours, they would make time. In a disqualification situation, they should make time because it's too important a call to leave up to one individual. Besides, other sports have more than one referee making a call -- why not FIRST? Also, I am pretty sure the referees are not randomly picked from the general population. They all have an affiliation of one sort or another.

It is very hard to get everyone to agree with the same thing. If I may think that it was a right call, you may not. At the same time, keep in mind that all the head refs were not the same for every field at championship. Couple of fields allowed rough play, couple of fields didn't. Thats just how it is. Now when it comes to Einstein the head ref was Aidan Browne, if you didn't know, he is also part of the GDC committee, which means he is one of the people who makes the rules for the game.

At the rate FIRST is growing, it is very hard to keep everyone happy. Championship was last month, it's may now... let's move on to the offseasons, think about which strategies are you going to use to bring the offseason golds home. You guys have an amazing robot and I was privilaged to see it in action in person at the Florida regional and at the Championship event.

[Tim Delles]

Originally Posted by Liz Smith

That is the way the play was called. It is over. It's unfortunate that your team got DQed, but thats just the way it is. Bringing up the issue over and over isn't going to change anything.

I am personally offended that you would imply that the referees on the field were biased. None of the referees on that field were against your team, or any other team in the competition. To say that the referees made a call you disagree with is one thing, to say that they made a call because they were biased is not right. You should really think before you post. By making implications like this, it only reflects poorly on you and your team.

I must say that if you believe that people are 100% unbiased then you are clearly wrong.

However I would venture to say that Aiden Brown is they most unbiased person you could have as a referee. But after watching that match over and over, and having seen it with my own eyes (i was watching 71 because i wanted to see those neat ramps deploy since they are similar to ours).

Personally I would have made the same call (including against my own team) There was contact made outside of the given bumper zone that resulted in a team being tipped over. If this contact had not been made then there would have been no tipping of the Beast. Also your drivers continued to drive while the Beast rocked and then finally went over. If it had not been a DQ for hitting outside of the bumper zone I would not have been suprised if you had been DQ'd for intentional tipping, because after looking at the footage and pictures that i have and that have been posted it looks as though the Beast was tipped on purpose (I don't know what happened since i am not one of your drivers. all im saying is what it looked like)

But now as for the comment that there should be a group of Head Refs. I do not agree with this. Soon people are going to be asking for Instant Replay to determine things on the field. When will this choas stop. Every year there are a group of people who aren't happy with the ref-ing at the Championship. Given sometimes it is sketchy, the only real thing that they need to work on is getting unity to the calls made.

Sorry your team didn't win that match, but it just happened. You can't win them all. Best of luck next year

[Liz Smith]

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

I must say that if you believe that people are 100% unbiased then you are clearly wrong.

I agree with that. But, implying that referees are making calls based on how much they like a team, rather than legitimate rules is offensive.

[Squirrel Lord]

What makes me wonder about this call is another group of calls made on another field (go figure):

254 (Cheesy Poofs) was a rather light robot with a relatively high center of gravity, at nationals it was exposed that if you hit them in a certain way, they would tip over. This eventuall meant that for the paltry sum of ten points the other team could force their opponents to go two against 3.
This eventually lost them the match.

Should this be the same call?