2010 Pittsburgh Regional

[Trevor_Decker]

Does any one know if their are recordings of the webcasts?

[Nuttle89]

http://www.pittsburghfirst.org/webcast

It isn't broken up by match quite neatly yet, but all the feed is there.

[Trevor_Decker]

Originally Posted by Nuttle89

http://www.pittsburghfirst.org/webcast

It isn't broken up by match quite neatly yet, but all the feed is there.

Thank you

[Racer26]

Just thought I'd mention, the controversial call is in the video here around the 57 minute mark: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5417946

My $0.02? 2641 touched the tower long before 1114 pushed them into it, but still AFTER the start of the FINALE.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

My $0.02? 2641 touched the tower long before 1114 pushed them into it, but still AFTER the start of the FINALE.

That's exactly right... the video couldn't be clearer. The head referee's explanation of what happened was perhaps not as articulate as it could have been, but the call was correct, and she deserves to be commended for handling a very uncomfortable situation as well as could be expected. Team MARS (2614) also deserves recognition for standing and applauding the decision, even though it sealed their elimination from the tournament. Their display of gracious professionalism was particularly remarkable in contrast to whatever adult thought it was appropriate to back-talk the head ref loudly enough for everyone in the stands to hear.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Just thought I'd mention, the controversial call is in the video here around the 57 minute mark: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5417946

My $0.02? 2641 touched the tower long before 1114 pushed them into it, but still AFTER the start of the FINALE.

Here's a link to that specific section of the video:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5417946/highlight/55883

It is very clear that 2641 drove into the tower of their own accord after the start of the finale. They then remained parked in a position that would block 1114 from hanging from either of the two poles in that zone until the referee waived the penalty flag. They then tried to move away and were blocked by 1114, but the damage had been done, their actions up to that point warranted a red card. Judging intent is always a difficult position for a referee to be put in, but based on this action it definitely appeared that 2641 was attempting to stop 1114 from hanging by blocking the tower, per the rules that is grounds for a red card.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by jgannon

That's exactly right... the video couldn't be clearer. The head referee's explanation of what happened was perhaps not as articulate as it could have been, but the call was correct, and she deserves to be commended for handling a very uncomfortable situation as well as could be expected. Team MARS (2614) also deserves recognition for standing and applauding the decision, even though it sealed their elimination from the tournament. Their display of gracious professionalism was particularly remarkable in contrast to whatever adult thought it was appropriate to back-talk the head ref loudly enough for everyone in the stands to hear.

For what it's worth, I was standing all the way across the field from the incident, and I was openly saying "Don't touch the tower! Don't touch the tow-ahhhhhhhhhhhh you touched the tower!" as 2641 bumped it from red's near zone. This was after the finale sound and before the disputed pushing activity. If I could catch that from that disadvantaged viewpoint, I'm thinking the refs certainly were able to clearly see it, and they made the right call. The video supports this contention.

One gaffe in execution to ruin an otherwise outstanding, match-winning performance for the blue alliance. Unfortunate, but one hopes the team learns from the experience.

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Judging intent is always a difficult position for a referee to be put in, but based on this action it definitely appeared that 2641 was attempting to stop 1114 from hanging by blocking the tower, per the rules that is grounds for a red card.

Let's be clear. G34 and G35 only prohibit touching the tower, or a robot in contact with the tower or elevated alliance partner, during the FINALE period. There is nothing that prohibits a team from blocking their opponent from reaching the tower, other than the risk involved in carefully getting into position close to the tower to attempt the block. I'd set a rule of thumb at no closer than 1 foot. I don't know what the *official* stance is, but I also think that a blocking team parked with drivetrain perpendicular to approach from the team trying to hang (just to make it crystal clear they cannot actively touch the tower themselves) that is pushed into the tower by the hanger-to-be should not receive any form of penalty whatsoever. 2641 had every right to attempt the block, but they violated G35 to do it, and thus, the red card.

[Travis Hoffman]

I'm sure their team leader will post eventually, but on behalf of NEOFRA rookie Team 3193, Falco Tech, I would like to thank everyone who helped make their first regional competition a fun and educational experience in Pittsburgh.

Thank you to Team 1038 for picking them as an alliance partner and for 306 serving along with them. The elimination round experience in their first event will be very memorable and beneficial down the road.

Thank you to Teams 1038 (friendliness, professionalism), 1114 (duh), 1743 (spirit) and 3138 (rookie awesomeness) for existing in adjacent pits so the team could observe all these components in action.

Finally, thank you to the announcing crew for branding their bumpers the "best looking". It helps when your school's colors are red and blue.

The team expects to have the kinks worked out of their arm and bring an improved kicker with them to Buckeye. It'll be a fun time with all 8 NEOFRA FRC teams in attendance in Cleveland.

[coldfusion1279]

Thank you to teams 3138 and 2656. We played extremely well together. 1114, 63, and 117 were overwhelming, and in the 6 minute bumper change/wheel replacement between semis and finals, we couldn't get a strategy put together. 1114 was great, congratulations to them and the entire winning alliance.

Good luck to everyone who qualified for nationals, especially 3138, what a great rookie team.

Congrats to 433 on the Chairman's award too.

It was also great getting to know the members of 1503 next to us in the pit, and in the hotel later. They are a great group of people. Good luck this season.

[mathking]

Travis, if you have a chance, I would like to talk to you at Buckeye. We have formed CORI (the Central Ohio Robotics Initiative) here in Central Ohio and I would like a chance to talk to you about NEOFRA. Most of our teams (except 1317) will be at Buckeye.

[PhilBot]

I was checking out the video to see what the red card fuss was about..... and noticed some interesting footage at 56:10.

1114 has the ball, and gets tipped up from the side.

Is it my imagination, or does the ball go up with them?

If so, isn't that a clear case of ball posession (Carrying), and not an accidental one... their mechanism would tend to appear to firmly hold onto that ball (dual roller system maybe).

Clearly it's effective.... but doesn't <G44> outlaw this sort of mechanism...

We just competed at Chesapeake, and so I know that inspection didn't include a demonstration of ball handling, so when should this sort of <G44> thing get picked up and corrected?

(I mean, if it's permitted, I want one!)

[Cory]

Originally Posted by PhilBot

I was checking out the video to see what the red card fuss was about..... and noticed some interesting footage at 56:10.

1114 has the ball, and gets tipped up from the side.

Is it my imagination, or does the ball go up with them?

If so, isn't that a clear case of ball posession (Carrying), and not an accidental one... their mechanism would tend to appear to firmly hold onto that ball (dual roller system maybe).

Clearly it's effective.... but doesn't <G44> outlaw this sort of mechanism...

We just competed at Chesapeake, and so I know that inspection didn't include a demonstration of ball handling, so when should this sort of <G44> thing get picked up and corrected?

(I mean, if it's permitted, I want one!)

It has been explained elsewhere but that roller type just reduces the normal force on the ball. When you get tipped over it will come with you.

It should not be a penalty though, because the opposing alliance cannot force 1114 into taking a penalty due to their actions.

[MPblankie]

Originally Posted by PhilBot

I was checking out the video to see what the red card fuss was about..... and noticed some interesting footage at 56:10.

1114 has the ball, and gets tipped up from the side.

Is it my imagination, or does the ball go up with them?

If so, isn't that a clear case of ball posession (Carrying), and not an accidental one... their mechanism would tend to appear to firmly hold onto that ball (dual roller system maybe).

Clearly it's effective.... but doesn't <G44> outlaw this sort of mechanism...

We just competed at Chesapeake, and so I know that inspection didn't include a demonstration of ball handling, so when should this sort of <G44> thing get picked up and corrected?

(I mean, if it's permitted, I want one!)

You could clearly see a loss of contact with the floor in many matches. However they shoot so effectively that is is hard to see. That particular move sort or proved it to me. Our team (and some others I hear) brought it up to the refs, but nothing was done about it. Hopefully it will be caught for future regionals.

[2641Captain]

For what it is worth when I was driving I did go to block the tower so team 1114 could not hang as I had done in a previous match. The trouble is 1114 had bumped me into the tower during end game. The head referee had told me that bumping into the tower did not give me the penalty but it was the fact that I stayed there after I was free to escape for more that 5 seconds. I have video from our media person who has the clearest shot that clearly shows 3 seconds after making contact with the tower that my wheels where in full reverse. The G34 and G35 rules clearly state that if I obviously and intentionally touched the tower that I should receive a penalty. The whole conflict resulted from team 1114 bumping into me. Mrs. Perrotto told me that it was up to her and she did not have to give me a penalty, but she somehow thought that team 1114 bumping into me and then me not realizing I was on the tower until 3 seconds later was all my fault. That to me is not obvious intentional contact.

The change I would like to see in FIRST is this grey area where all of the referees have to interpret what a team is doing gone.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by PhilBot

I was checking out the video to see what the red card fuss was about..... and noticed some interesting footage at 56:10.

1114 has the ball, and gets tipped up from the side.

Is it my imagination, or does the ball go up with them?

If so, isn't that a clear case of ball posession (Carrying), and not an accidental one... their mechanism would tend to appear to firmly hold onto that ball (dual roller system maybe).

Clearly it's effective.... but doesn't <G44> outlaw this sort of mechanism...

We just competed at Chesapeake, and so I know that inspection didn't include a demonstration of ball handling, so when should this sort of <G44> thing get picked up and corrected?

(I mean, if it's permitted, I want one!)

When on level ground, 1114's mechanism is designed to keep the ball on the floor - it is even spring loaded to apply additional downforce.

However, much like as we witnessed in the 148 promo video earlier in the year, where 148 clearly could use their ball magnet to carry the ball into the goal before release during herding, this is an example, in my opinion, of a situation which warrants further analysis.

The defending robot was not doing anything special to interact with 1114 (getting underneath them, etc.). It was simple bumper zone contact, and 1114 clearly lifted the ball off the ground during it. However, in speaking with a few in the know, according to the head ref, this situation fell under the "another robot cannot cause a robot to get a penalty" situation. I can understand this viewpoint - if the defense weren't there, the ball would not have left the ground. However, I can also understand the view of those who might claim that a "legal" ball control device is one that releases the ball when the robot loses normal contact with the ground. Not an easy question - one which only the GDC could answer. Further debate here is pointless. People know where to go to get official rulings on such matters.

There can be no doubt that such systems have the potential to carry the ball during certain game situations. The 148 video and the 1114 video indicate several situations that should be closely monitored. The question is whether the GDC defines the normal operation of the ball magnet on flat ground as "carrying". I'm thinking, not at all; otherwise, these robots would not be competing.

My opinion? The systems should be deemed legal to operate on flat ground (and they DO, in fact, operate legally), but the teams should be held accountable (2 penalties via <G44>) for carrying whenever they so obviously lift the ball off the ground during rapid change in direction, aggressive driving, interaction with a field surface, goal incursion, or any other similar maneuvers. It would be prudent for referees to pay attention to any and all extremely effective "ball magnet" robots during such situations to ensure the rules are being effectively enforced.

Finally, I do think the video situation points out something else - drivers have to be careful in avoiding kicking the ball out of bounds, as intentional attempts to do so are penalizable offenses. 1114's kick was angled well away from the long axis of the field - there could be no expectation of scoring a goal at that moment, and if I'm not mistaken, the ball shot into the crowd, a definite safety concern. Accidental or otherwise, refs would be prudent to watch out for and enforce <G19> more stringently the rest of the way.