|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
Quote:
|
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
Quote:
I agree but not everyone goes to the wrap party, It would be easier to limit the speeches that people give. I love hearing some of the most important business leaders and inventors speak at these events but sometimes they go one forever and cause loooooong delays that snowball to everything else. I did not like that the CA was given out first. It made it seem that winning the field competition was more important then the CA. And I was sitting right behind where 842 was sitting watching the matches before they were called up to the stage and they had amazing seats to watch everything until they were called down to the stage. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
This years game was a lot of fun and a really amazing idea. Unlike most I don't have any problem with the breaking the plane penalty, my team had an issue and I, as coach, told them to learn to drive. Complaining about a penalty concerned with robot control is not good, the only bit of that rule that was unfair was when the bumper (which they required this year) went over and you got the penalty for that.
The issue that my team is very upset about is the inconsistent or incompetent reffing. FIRST made a big deal this year about training refs and making them pass a test and yet the reffing was worse this year then any other. Next year the game either needs to be easier to ref, or the refs need to take an in depth course on training. Aside from inconsistency, there was a general lack of enforcement at a lot of events. This game was supposed to be non-impact and non-defensive; penalties were stressed on impact, pinning, impeding, etc. And we had refs who didn't call a robot getting hit while hurdling and then pinned up against the rack ![]() |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
Build anything that is preceded by the phrase, "Its basically the same" it won't be...
|
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
SATURDAY AWARDS/FINALS/CELEBRATION
|
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
Quote:
Now, about the ref training--So you want last year's Curie-Einstein difference? At least they were pretty consistent. Pinning is legal for up to 6 seconds, so I don't see what's up there, unless it wasn't called after 6 seconds. Again, my negative is the CMP timing. I was timing the closing ceremonies/finals. 5 SF matches in 2.5 hours is NOT acceptable! Short and sweet is better, in this case. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
Quote:
I also had a huge problem with the announcer saying "N robot assessed 2 penalties for outside the bumper zone contact and 2 G37 penalties". Aren't those the same rules? <G37> encompasses a alot of situations, isn't it possible to be more specific? Who in their right mind knows what a G37 penalty is? |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
I think that the inspectors should have some sort of training like the refs do. I inspected at 3 regionals and all of them had slightly different rulings which was frustrating.
I would also like to see the game animation displayed at the competition more frequently. This is an easy way to explain the game to visitors and it might be nice to have to playing by the VIP/volunteer check-in table. I didn't like how some of the traditional FIRST songs, example "Thunderstruck", were no longer allowed to be played (even though they sometimes were). |
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
FIRST has always been safety concious. Requiring eye protection in the pits and on the fields for all students, visitors, and crew. More so in the last couple years with the addition of the Safety Captains, Safety Awards, and Safety Judges.
Why do they not enforce it with the official photographers then? It seems like they need safety glasses the most... (I don't know about you, but I've never met a blind photograher)... along with hard hats. There was one lady this year who stood closer to the field than the refs (nearly getting hit by a couple robots that she did not see because she was looking through her camera at the other end of the field). When some of us on crew mentioned that she should be wearing safety glasses that close to the field she blew us off rudely. She also kept going into the player stations during matches (which I know some of them were not expecting), and even onto the field after a match before the head ref. cleared anyone to enter the field. One of the robots was even still moving when she hopped the gate. The fact that FIRST did not enforce safety rules with people they actually pay to represent them makes me question what the message is that they are trying to send to the students... who were also out there with media passes taking pictures of their teams. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
I found that a disappointing aspect of the competition this year was the lack of enforcement of certain rules. In particular, the 80" rule, perhaps the biggest constraint this year in design was rarely enforced throughout the competition. Teams were occasionally penalized when they fell over and ended up being far out of the limit, however some designs were, when functioning normally, outside this limit. The fact that a yellow sticker was placed on the inspection tag, alerting the refs to the fact that the robot was capable of extending past the 80" was not enough. Rules like this, which are designed to specifically create a difficult design constraint (and thus make the game more complex and challenging) should be enforced on the highest order, as they are in essences why we play the game. No one expects to get away with a 140 pound robot that has a 40"X50" base. However, once the match starts, it seems that this concern for playing the game the way it was designed is lost. A team whose robot was ~87" long by diagonal measurement during normal (not fallen-over) game play, was never once penalized during a match. This leads to a more general disappointment in FIRST.
If/when such things happen, teams who are aware of this are put in a strange situation. Is it GP to report a rule violation by another team? Is there a way to do so that is GP, as well as officially acceptable? Can it be done efficiently? How will it affect the other team? Such questions are raised which have no real answer in the FIRST community/competition. An exception, Team 190 (Team 190 Legality Thread). Their robot had a unique hurdling technique which eventually was determined to be illegal after 2 regionals of acceptable play. There was a discussion on CD about their design and legality and it was all handled with care and professionalism. However, this is not usually the case, and a fear often arises that silences teams because they may be 'black-listed', if you will, for reporting these types of things. I feel it is FIRST's responsibility to design a system where a team can raise a legitimate concern about another team's robot without fear of any tarnish on their reputation. Centrally, it calls the question, "Is it alright to not report cheating?" No one wants to be the team that is always telling on other teams, but it is simply not fair to teams who took into consideration all of the rules when designing their robot. On that note, those are my 2 cents, take them as you will. The season was otherwise great! I look forward to next year's game, and to a time when such situations will be resolved in a gracious and professional manner. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
Quote:
I don't blame the refs, they were way to busy doing other things to pay attention to this rule. |
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
Quote:
I don't believe any of the three teams on our alliance went to the wrap party. I know one team had dinner reservations and our team literally grabbed the medals and hopped on the bus due to arrangements already made with the coach company months in advance. We certainly did not expect to be on Einstein, much less to win, so to spring this on next year's teams may prove to be just as unsuccessful as it was for us this year. I do think it's easy to fix, too - but I think the problem lies in the planning and length of the closing ceremonies/finals rather than in where the teams can be recognized. I hope this is something FIRST will consider. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Lesson Learned: The Negative
This may not be possible for a lower-cost program like FTC, but having schedules and results online would make for a VAST improvement. I had a team I was trying to watch, but I had zero information about when they'd be on. I didn't even know approximately how long the gap would be between their matches. In fact, I didn't even know how many matches they'd be playing. It really hurts the spectator friendliness of the program if you can't find out basic info like that.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Lesson Learned: The Positive. | Koko Ed | General Forum | 24 | 21-04-2008 13:11 |
| Championship's Atlanta 2006 - The Negative | dangerousdave | Championship Event | 80 | 03-04-2007 17:45 |
| 2006 Season - The Negative | Koko Ed | FRC Game Design | 119 | 10-05-2006 07:15 |
| Lessons learned 2005: The negative | Koko Ed | FRC Game Design | 138 | 06-05-2005 18:58 |