Lesson Learned: The Negative

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by EricH

Really. I don't recall anyone saying this was no-contact, no-defense. Not even the GDC.

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.

I was very disappointed that the refs on Einstein called outside the bumper zone penalties against bots that were constantly pinned against a wall. The contact appeared unintended after watching replays and I doubt it could have been avoided. There were also pins where the defensive bot would back up 2-3 feet only to go right back in to pin without an impeding penalty. This happened to any bot, including the slow hurdlers like us.

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?

[hallk]

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).

[DUCKIE]

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.

[casualobserver]

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.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by casualobserver

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. (...) 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.

I don't understand your point. There is nothing wrong with being more than 80" in any direction as long as the robot meets Rule R16:

<R16> Once the MATCH has started, the ROBOT may assume a PLAYING CONFIGURATION that exceeds the size dimensions specified in Rule <R11>. While in the PLAYING CONFIGURATION, the ROBOT may expand up to a maximum horizontal dimension of 80 inches (e.g. all parts of the ROBOT must fit within an imaginary 80-inch-diameter upright cylinder). There are no height limits for a ROBOT in its PLAYING CONFIGURATION at any time after the start of the MATCH.

So, if that 87" long robot was diagonal in the cylinder, it would only violate <R16> if it was also protruding through the side of an imaginary cylinder 80" in diameter. The rule specifically says that a robot has no height limit, and could therefore be 160" high if that's what the team wanted. Were you saying that the 87" robot was at a shallow enough angle that it covered more than 80" on the floor?

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

I don't understand your point. There is nothing wrong with being more than 80" in any direction as long as the robot meets Rule R16:



So, if that 87" long robot was diagonal in the cylinder, it would only violate <R16> if it was also protruding through the side of an imaginary cylinder 80" in diameter. The rule specifically says that a robot has no height limit, and could therefore be 160" high if that's what the team wanted. Were you saying that the 87" robot was at a shallow enough angle that it covered more than 80" on the floor?

I can think of at least one robot that routinely violated the 80" rule (was more than 80 long in a horizontal plane) and was never penalized. Through all of the competitions I saw, the only time the penalty was called was when a robot fell over. That means that it was never looked for.

I don't blame the refs, they were way to busy doing other things to pay attention to this rule.