2010 NASA/VCU regional!!!

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

My initial impression of the Virginia regional is that the referees are enforcing a much stricter (absolutely literal) interpretation of the rules. I don't think this strictly literal interpretation of the rules is in the best interest of the game, or of FIRST.

Have others that have watched more of the webcast or are actually at the regional have a perspective on whether the referees are utilizing a strictly literal interpretation of the rules, or are they exercising their discretion for common sense and gracious professionalism?

To be fair, why should we not play by the rules, particularly in the 2nd scenario you're describing? In other words, how is it in FIRST's best interest to not play by the rules they set?

The first scenario sounds like it's unprecedented (how can you even return a ball without putting it through the cyllinder?) and thus the referee would rather error on the side of literal rather than subjective. If anything, the head ref may receive clarification tonight and simply change the score tomorrow. I would much rather a referee error on the side of literal rather than interpretive, and at least in these two cases the rules are very clear.

For the second scenario, if the bot flipped then the other bot should have left the zone.

Edit -- After some research, it would appear that the alliance in scenario 1 should be issued a <G16> of 2 penalties + Yellow Card. So perhaps if the team challenges the ruling with what the rules state, their score can be changed even without GDC intervention.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Jared341

Who is the head ref at VCU?

My assumption is that it would be Lisa Evans, who is typically the head ref there.

I have attended many many events head reffed by Lisa during my tenure in FIRST, including the Washington DC regional a few weeks ago.

In my experience, Lisa has always made it abundantly clear how she's going to enforce the rules during the driver's meetings. She's stricter than some other refs, but definitely within reason (and definitely not the strictest I've encountered).

In DC she was somewhat strict with the red cards for entering the opposing zone, but she identified that as a major issue during the driver's meeting. Teams should have been prepared to be called on it. She specifically mentioned needing to have only one robot in the zone, even in cases where a robot becomes disabled or tipped (it's then the alliance partner's responsibility to get out).

She was strict on Friday in DC about ball incursions, but got much more forgiving on Saturday after seeing how it was impacting the game.

I didn't see the incident in question about the ball return, so I can't comment. However, I don't recall many DOGMA penalties in DC. Additionally, DOGMA penalties are automatically asigned by FMS, not the refs.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

I just happened to tune in to the webcast of the NASA/VCU regional. I was astonished by two of the penalties called in the first match (#21) which I watched.

1 - The blue alliance racked up 39 points in "DOGMA" penalties, because one of the balls that they returned to the field near the beginning of the match went over the "ball return counter", resulting in DOGMA penalties accruing every 2 seconds for the remainder of the match! This doesn't seem right to me. I could see 1 penalty point being assessed, but to continually assess a penalty every 2 seconds for the remainder of the match defies common sense, especially since the ball was returned to the field. My reading of <G17> is that the penalty is for balls that are not returned. Arguably, this ball was returned to the field (on time even), but simply missed the ball return counter. For 39 points of penalties to accrue from a single violation is clearly not the GDC's intent. Furthermore, once the team realizes this has occurred, they have absolutely no way to remedy the situation for entire remainder of the match! This basically means that if the human player with the trident makes a simple mistake at the beginning of the match, the unavoidable conclusion (even if they could manage to score 30+ points) is that they lose the match.

2 - One of the blue alliance robots (I think it was 1655) was also given a red card (disqualified for the match) due to being the second robot to enter the opponent's zone (the red zone) and failing to immediately remedy the problem. (See G29.) It turns out that the webcast was on the robot at the time the violation occurred, and the robot tipped over while it was crossing the bump to enter the red zone! Thus, since the robot tipped over as it entered the red zone, it had no way to remedy the problem. Again, I think a single penalty would have been appropriate, but to issue a red card for this violation, while strictly within the letter of the rules, is clearly not the intent of those rules.

This year, I had been extremely impressed by the discretion exercised by the referee crew at the Week 1 BAE Systems NH Granite State Regional (GSR) -- the referees exercised common sense with regard to issuing penalties, rather than simply following the letter of the rules for situations where common sense and gracious professionalism would indicate a different outcome. For example, at GSR, the referees clearly enforced rule G46 (Ball Penetration Restriction) with the intent that was later codified by the team update after week 1 by not penalizing "incidental protusions of the ball within" the frame perimeter when the offending robot immediately attempted to rectify the situation, or if the problem occurred as a result of robot-to-robot contact (for example, when two robots get into a pushing match with a ball in between and one of the robots ends up with a ball under the robot.)

Similarly, at the NH Granite State Regional our team accidentally drove up on top of a ball during QF1-1 when we used our robot to right an opponent's robot that tipped over during a pushing contest with our robot. We were pleased to see that the referees at GSR used their understanding of gracious professionalism to not issue a penalty to our team for this incidental (and accidental) driving up on top of a ball while we were clearly assisting an opponent robot, even in the midst of an elimination match!

My initial impression of the Virginia regional is that the referees are enforcing a much stricter (absolutely literal) interpretation of the rules. I don't think this strictly literal interpretation of the rules is in the best interest of the game, or of FIRST.

Have others that have watched more of the webcast or are actually at the regional have a perspective on whether the referees are utilizing a strictly literal interpretation of the rules, or are they exercising their discretion for common sense and gracious professionalism?

Originally Posted by JesseK

To be fair, why should we not play by the rules, particularly in the 2nd scenario you're describing? In other words, how is it in FIRST's best interest to not play by the rules they set?

The first scenario sounds like it's unprecedented (how can you even return a ball without putting it through the cyllinder?) and thus the referee would rather error on the side of literal rather than subjective. If anything, the head ref may receive clarification tonight and simply change the score tomorrow. I would much rather a referee error on the side of literal rather than interpretive, and at least in these two cases the rules are very clear.

For the second scenario, if the bot flipped then the other bot should have left the zone.

Edit -- After some research, it would appear that the alliance in scenario 1 should be issued a <G16> of 2 penalties + Yellow Card. So perhaps if the team challenges the ruling with what the rules state, their score can be changed even without GDC intervention.

<G16> BALL Return - HUMAN PLAYERS must place BALLS on the BALL RETURN using the TRIDENT. No other means are permitted for TEAMS to return BALLS to the FIELD. Violation: Two PENALTIES and YELLOW CARD.
<G17> BALL Return Timing - BALLS must be returned to the FIELD within a specified period of time to prevent delaying the game according to the following algorithm:
Texpire = Tscore
• where T - [11 + (4 * n)]
expire
• T, is the match time, in seconds, assigned to each individual BALL, at which point the Field Management System automatically assigns a PENALTY if a BALL is not passed through the BALL RETURN COUNTER,
score
• n is the number of balls that have passed through either BALL COUNTER of the ALLIANCE, but not yet passed through the BALL RETURN COUNTER. is the remaining match time, in seconds, on the match timer when the ball enters the BALL COUNTER, and
Violation: One initial PENALTY

From what I can see all rules were followed to the letter (with the possible exception of an additional <G16> penalty), which is what I would hope would happen. By doing it any other way you will get variations in refereeing, which is exactly what we don't want.

39 points in penalties is a bit excessive, but I betcha no one will make that mistake again

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

From what I can see all rules were followed to the letter (with the possible exception of an additional <G16> penalty), which is what I would hope would happen. By doing it any other way you will get variations in refereeing, which is exactly what we don't want.

39 points in penalties is a bit excessive, but I betcha no one will make that mistake again

Well, if a team puts a ball on the rails and it somehow misses the ball counter, then it may not be there fault (i.e. if the rails were bumped and the ball fell off beforehand).

However it could also be that the human player tried to give the ball a push using the trident, and the ball fell off. That's only conjecture and I seriously doubt anyone except for the human player knows for sure.

[fnsnet]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

From what I can see all rules were followed to the letter (with the possible exception of an additional <G16> penalty), which is what I would hope would happen. By doing it any other way you will get variations in refereeing, which is exactly what we don't want.

39 points in penalties is a bit excessive, but I betcha no one will make that mistake again

I see this long discussion going on, so I will give you a little insight. I'm Matt Glennon, the Field Supervisor for the VA regional (and I'll be FS on one of the fields in Atlanta too.) As far as the large DOGMA penalties, the rules state that the team must return the ball using the provided slide. This much I know. I do not know (someone help me here) if their is actually a rule stating the penalty for throwing the ball over the glass or otherwise bringing it into play by another means.

As for your "but I betcha no one will make that mistake again" comment; they did. We only had this happen twice. Both times it was the same human player. He kept getting the ball stuck in the end of the slide when taking it off of the trident. In order to get it unstuck, he would smack the bottom of the ball, launching it over the upright wall. He came up after the second time and questioned the build of the field. While I have no control over the score nor the rulings given by Lisa, I was brought into the conversation because I am in charge of the field (to include setup and breakdown.) I simply told him it was build to standard and that he was the only one that had popped balls over the wall. I would have offered him more suggestions toward not doing it again if it weren't for his really poor attitude and lack of GP while talking to me.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by fnsnet

I see this long discussion going on, so I will give you a little insight. I'm Matt Glennon, the Field Supervisor for the VA regional (and I'll be FS on one of the fields in Atlanta too.) As far as the large DOGMA penalties, the rules state that the team must return the ball using the provided slide. This much I know. I do not know (someone help me here) if their is actually a rule stating the penalty for throwing the ball over the glass or otherwise bringing it into play by another means.

As for your "but I betcha no one will make that mistake again" comment; they did. We only had this happen twice. Both times it was the same human player. He kept getting the ball stuck in the end of the slide when taking it off of the trident. In order to get it unstuck, he would smack the bottom of the ball, launching it over the upright wall. He came up after the second time and questioned the build of the field. While I have no control over the score nor the rulings given by Lisa, I was brought into the conversation because I am in charge of the field (to include setup and breakdown.) I simply told him it was build to standard and that he was the only one that had popped balls over the wall. I would have offered him more suggestions toward not doing it again if it weren't for his really poor attitude and lack of GP while talking to me.

As far as a rule goes ... here you go (emphisis mine):

<G17> BALL Return Timing - BALLS must be returned to the FIELD within a specified period of time to prevent delaying the game according to the following algorithm:
Texpire = Tscore
• where T - [11 + (4 * n)] expire
• T, is the match time, in seconds, assigned to each individual BALL, at which point the Field Management System automatically assigns a PENALTY if a BALL is not passed through the BALL RETURN COUNTER,score
• n is the number of balls that have passed through either BALL COUNTER of the ALLIANCE, but not yet passed through the BALL RETURN COUNTER. is the remaining match time, in seconds, on the match timer when the ball enters the BALL COUNTER, and
Violation: One initial PENALTY plus one additional PENALTY for every 2 seconds that a BALL is not returned.

... and Yeah, I heard he did it again. Just goes to show that not everyone learns the first time through.

Oh, and in case nobodys done it recently, Thank you for volunteering. Without the volunteers FIRST couldn't exist, nevermind inspire the next generation of problem solvers.

[JMT]

Thank you everyone for the kind words! 122 worked really hard all season (and the 12 prior) to be able to win our first ever RCA.

1676, 1086, and 1418: Congratulations on the win! You had some very good robots out there.

1086: Can't wait to see your team again in NC (and Atlanta.)

617, 346, and 1895: You were a great alliance. I know my team will remember those semi-finals for a long time. Your win was hard earned and well deserved.

To all the volunteers: The tournament was amazing! The field issues were dealt with accordingly and the teams kept informed of the problems.

[McVey]

Originally Posted by fnsnet

As for your "but I betcha no one will make that mistake again" comment; they did. We only had this happen twice. Both times it was the same human player.

I felt truly awful as I looked up at the scoreboard and saw a 44 point penalty assessed against them. How rough! It was almost graceful, though, the way the ball hopped perfectly over the sensor. For a brief moment there, I could have sworn it was going to land back on the railing and travel down anyway, as if to display the human player's incredible trident skill or something.

Also, I didn't get to say much to you, Matt, but it was great to get to see you again. I already had serious respect for you after the FLL regional in Richmond, but the way you handled VCU was brilliant - you had numerous awful situations to deal with and did a great job keeping things afloat despite it all. I hope to see you again at other regionals!

Originally Posted by Bsteckler

On another note, did anybody notice the scoreboard dropping points (before they made the announcement)? We were affected by this in a subsequent match, and one of the spectators from a team on our alliance caught the event on tape. The refs also admitted to the problem and acknowledged that it would be fixed We took the issue up after the match and they said it would be rectified once the day was complete, but at the end of play they said that the recording could not be used as evidence to dispute the claim. I have heard of this happening with several other teams and I was wondering if anyone has successfully pressed the refs and judges to deal with this issue.

Lisa Evans gave me a rundown on this and had me make announcements about it every now and again. I don't think I gave a proper explanation, so allow me to do so now:

According to the FTA and Head Referee, the score counting backwards was an automatically assessed penalty for balls (or hands/arms or something) being pushed backwards through the goal sensor. Evidently not only does the field management system not give you the point for scoring should a ball go back through the sensor, but it also counts backwards - a one point penalty. Hopefully that helps a bit.

There were a lot of strange hiccups at the Virginia competition that I am not used to, even after five years of FRC, but that's all a part of the experience I guess - rising from maximum strangeness is what we can all pride ourselves in. For those of you who did not have the opportunity to see FTA Glen on the phone with the creator of the field management system trying to bring everything back to life, that man provided so many answers to my infinite questions through mere facial expressions as he talked and pressed buttons. I really must give him my thanks. So many people in the stands were probably frustrated if not furious at the situation, but despite it all there was Glen who managed to stay calm throughout everything. I am also proud to say that after three years of FLL volunteering, this was my first FRC event as a volunteer and I had an amazing time. Every team that took the field and every student I got to talk to made my day over and over. The ability of the FIRST teams and students at VCU to hold together and stay cooperative despite the setbacks really proves the value of the camaraderie that exists between FIRST folk from all over.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by McVey

So many people in the stands were probably frustrated if not furious at the situation, but despite it all there was Glen who managed to stay calm throughout everything.

Yes, it was mildly frustrating, but I can't say anyone was even mildly angry (much less furious): It was plainly obvious how hard the field tech folks were working to bring the field back to life. Like seeing a way-overworked waitress, how can you do anything but sympathize (and give thanks it isn't you)?

Someone else said it: The volunteers at Virginia last weekend were the best of the best.

[PayneTrain]

Not going to lie, the regional was mentally tough. Our build manager wanted me to coach for most of the day one matches, and I'm sure there was at least a 10 minute stoppage of competition at least 3 of those times. The last match we were in had us queued up and waiting for 40 minutes. I was sweating from nerves and the building conditions, thirsty from waiting so long in the heat, and upset that I felt deserted by the volunteers. It was really tough to get through. When I get home around 11 though, I thought about how the FTA and all of the Field Volunteers had to WORK through the darkness of the frazzled FMS. It was understandable. They could have just given up all together, but they didn't. Thanks.

Also, the guys from Jersey or any Week one regional can tell you that a 44-point penalty is small. i remember match one in Trenton had somewhere around 70 or 90 points in penalties, and two matches Team 422 played in assessed 20 and 40 penalties, resulting in some 4-0 and 12-10 to become 0-0 and 0-10 matches. Glad TU16 fixed some of that.

[coolyrd]

Thank you from Synergy 975

We had a blast this weekend and it is in no small part due to the following...

1731 and 1908: Thanks for being great alliance partners! It was a pleasure to compete along side you guys! We'll get 'em next time!

1676: Thanks for all the help this weekend. You guys are a real inspiration and a pleasure to get to know. We'll be pulling for you guys in Atlanta. Best of luck!

2363: Congratulations on the Motorola Quality Award! You guys are a great team and continue to impress! You guys have come so far in such a short time! Always a pleasure.

1571: You guys are a class act. Top to bottom. Thank you for the battery support in the elimination round. Also, you guys "quietly" add another two trophies to the case... congrats on Imagery and Safety (again!) this year! And of course Brian, Dean's List finalist. Go Midlo!

346, 617, and 1895: Thanks for a great quarterfinal round. It was great to play against (and nearly get the better of) you guys. Glad to see you guys fight your way into the finals in an incredible way. 346: Congrats on the Engineering Excellence Award! Go RoboHawks!

3136: Very, very impressed. Would never guess you guys were rookies. Was a pleasure to play with you guys in qualifying. Looking forward to see you guys grow!

1086: Again you guys represent the competitive gold standard by which we judge our progress. Congratulations on another great Regional and best of luck in Atlanta! Hope you guys continue to take your game to the next level.

Thank you to everyone (all the volunteers, judges, refs, field crew) who made this a great Regional! Can't wait to see everyone back next year!

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by JesseK

To be fair, why should we not play by the rules, particularly in the 2nd scenario you're describing? In other words, how is it in FIRST's best interest to not play by the rules they set?.

I'm not suggesting that the rules be ignored. However, the 2nd scenario is, in my opinion, a question of interpretation, as I can see a valid interpretation which results in a red card being issued and I can also see a valid interpretation which results in no red card. Below is the rule in question...

Originally Posted by Rule G29, as of Rev K

Defending ROBOT Restriction - Only one opposing ALLIANCE ROBOT is allowed in the opponent’s ZONE. A ROBOT is considered in this ZONE if any part of the ROBOT is in contact with the ZONE's green carpet. Violation: PENALTY; plus a RED CARD if effort to remedy is not immediate.

I would note that I am not complaining about the 1-point penalty in this situation (where a 2nd robot illegally enters the opponents zone, but falls over into the opponents zone while crossing the bump, and then incurs a PENALTY and a RED CARD for breaking G29). However, the RED CARD is issued "if effort to remedy is not immediate." One scenario is that if the drivers of the offending tipped robot were attempting to leave the zone by using the joysticks on the driver console to spin their robot's wheels, they were indeed making an effort to remedy, but their effort was doomed since their robot had tipped over. (I have no idea if the drivers of the tipped robot were taking such action, as I was only watching on the webcast, which gives a poor impression of what is going on even in the best of circumstances.) If I were the head referee (which I'm not) and the drive team was trying to get their tipped robot back out of the red zone by operating their controls (but simply spinning their wheels on their tipped robot), I would definitely issue the team a 1-point penalty and probably not issue a red card, since the team had attempted to remedy the situation (even though they had been unable to do so since their robot tipped over.) I would note that my decision on a red card would probably be affected by other circumstances such as whether or not the tipped robot posed a significant obstacle to the other alliance, which would be highly dependent upon the location and specific circumstances of where the robot is tipped. (For example, in the bump/wall corner with no balls obstructed would be relatively benign, but right in front of the tunnel/tower on top of a couple of balls could be a major impediment to the other alliance.)

[Coredesat]

On another note, I was not at the event today but I have photos from Wednesday and Thursday on a Picasa gallery:

Wednesday: http://picasaweb.google.com/coredesa...Regional31710#

Thursday: http://picasaweb.google.com/coredesa...Regional31810#

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

I'm not suggesting that the rules be ignored. However, the 2nd scenario is, in my opinion, a question of interpretation, as I can see a valid interpretation which results in a red card being issued and I can also see a valid interpretation which results in no red card. Below is the rule in question...

I would note that I am not complaining about the 1-point penalty in this situation (where a 2nd robot illegally enters the opponents zone, but falls over into the opponents zone while crossing the bump, and then incurs a PENALTY and a RED CARD for breaking G29). However, the RED CARD is issued "if effort to remedy is not immediate." One scenario is that if the drivers of the offending tipped robot were attempting to leave the zone by using the joysticks on the driver console to spin their robot's wheels, they were indeed making an effort to remedy, but their effort was doomed since their robot had tipped over. (I have no idea if the drivers of the tipped robot were taking such action, as I was only watching on the webcast, which gives a poor impression of what is going on even in the best of circumstances.) If I were the head referee (which I'm not) and the drive team was trying to get their tipped robot back out of the red zone by operating their controls (but simply spinning their wheels on their tipped robot), I would definitely issue the team a 1-point penalty and probably not issue a red card, since the team had attempted to remedy the situation (even though they had been unable to do so since their robot tipped over.) I would note that my decision on a red card would probably be affected by other circumstances such as whether or not the tipped robot posed a significant obstacle to the other alliance, which would be highly dependent upon the location and specific circumstances of where the robot is tipped. (For example, in the bump/wall corner with no balls obstructed would be relatively benign, but right in front of the tunnel/tower on top of a couple of balls could be a major impediment to the other alliance.)

Ultimately, as clarified by Q&A, even if a robot is tipped/disabled, the alliance is still in violation of <G29>. The alliance partner should make the immediate actions to remedy the situation, in that case.
However, if I were the ref (and I'm not), in the case of the red card I would still give it to the team that tipped, as they are the ones who initiated the penalty (though I would actually consider giving it to both teams).

[Bsteckler]

I was coaching for 2402 when the 39 point penalty in question occured (in fact, the human player was one of ours). Our human player had a tenancy to want to jam the balls into the trident and he says that one of them was not able to be removed easily, and it came off the rails when he pulled the trident off, and somehow made it onto the field without triggering the ball counter. He has since fixed this issue and has been our trident-er for all our matches today and done a fairly decent job.

On another note, did anybody notice the scoreboard dropping points (before they made the announcement)? We were affected by this in a subsequent match, and one of the spectators from a team on our alliance caught the event on tape. The refs also admitted to the problem and acknowledged that it would be fixed We took the issue up after the match and they said it would be rectified once the day was complete, but at the end of play they said that the recording could not be used as evidence to dispute the claim. I have heard of this happening with several other teams and I was wondering if anyone has successfully pressed the refs and judges to deal with this issue.