Scoring error at Boston.

[MikeE]

This seems to have happened several times at Regionals, sometimes due to
human error but I didn't see any hands near the ball chutes in this particular match.
Some Regionals posted human scorers at each goal.

I haven't looked at the position of the ball detector beams, but if there is a situation where multiple balls only break the beam once, then there could be conditions that would cause a negative count.
I wonder what the FMS does when more balls are returned to play than it has counted as scored?

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by MikeE

I haven't looked at the position of the ball detector beams, but if there is a situation where multiple balls only break the beam once, then there could be conditions that would cause a negative count.
I wonder what the FMS does when more balls are returned to play than it has counted as scored?

There are actually 2 beams for the counter. The FMS determines which way a ball is traveling based on which beam trips first. If the beam towards the field trips, and then the one to the DS does, it is a scored goal. The other way around, it is a double penalty. The situation you are thinking of, however, is most likely where a 2nd ball trips the first beam before the 1st ball clears the second beam. I'd imagine the system is programmed so that if the 1st beam is active when the 2nd beam clears, it detects it as a 2nd score. The only thing I can think of that would miss scoring a ball is an error in the software.

I'm also curious about how it handles a non-scored ball passing through the return

[AmoryG]

There seemed to be multiple scoring errors In Quarter 4 Match 2 at the Boston Regional:

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match/2010ma_qf4m2

If you watch carefully, at 1:25 our alliance scores a goal, making it 4-3 blue alliance. Right after that if you look even closer, you can see that we score another point. Instead of adding another point to our score, 2 points were taken away making the score 3-2, red alliance. The score ended 3-2, but for some reason, the final score ended up 6-3, red alliance.

I can't know for sure, since half the time the camera was aimed at our end, but I don't remember seeing the red alliance score 3 uncounted points. The announcer said something about dogma penalties when 3 points were deducted from our score, but I don't know if that's what really cause it.

I can't say I'm not a bit disappointed by the results, since from my perspective, we might have actually won that match. If the end score was the result of a field error, then it might have actually prevented my alliance from winning our 2nd match in the quarterfinals, and going on to the semifinals.

[mahumnut]

At the Virginia regional there were multiple occurrences like this affecting multiple teams, us being one of them. In one match, we scored 6 goals, none of them were counted. Apparently this one specific red goal's ball sensor was especially sensitive and even the slightest touch before it COMPLETELY cleared the goal chute would trip the automatic penalty. This problem caused many delays and eventually they just replaced the sensor altogether. I'm pretty sure in the elimination rounds they were using volunteers to keep track of scores in addition to their automated system, but I think that also may have been due to the ball return sensors malfunctioning and they were actually keeping track of the 11 seconds for the balls to be returned. Oh well, hopefully they have these issues sorted out before the championship.

[sv2198]

After watching that autonomous closely several times I agree that only one ball was and should be scored. It's hard to tell if it was an automatic penalty, or if it was a field error.

[Radical Pi]

As far as I've seen, the ONLY penalty (not even DOGMA) that is shown on the live display is the automatic -2 for re-entering the ball counter. In [urlhttp://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match/2010ma_qf4m2]this match[/url], around 1:35 a ball is certainly scored, however it does the 2 point deduction instead of scoring. If it was an HP error, the score would have dropped to 3, since the ball scored would added and offset the -2. However, since a straight -2 was applied, this has to be an error in the counter equipment.

[FRC4ME]

Originally Posted by Radical Pi

As far as I've seen, the ONLY penalty (not even DOGMA) that is shown on the live display is the automatic -2 for re-entering the ball counter. In [urlhttp://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match/2010ma_qf4m2]this match[/url], around 1:35 a ball is certainly scored, however it does the 2 point deduction instead of scoring. If it was an HP error, the score would have dropped to 3, since the ball scored would added and offset the -2. However, since a straight -2 was applied, this has to be an error in the counter equipment.

It looked to me like the score was 3-3, then a ball was scored, bringing it to 3-4, then the same ball bounced backward through the goal, bringing it to 3-2.

You are correct, however, in saying that DOGMA penalties are not assessed in real time. Every one that I've seen has showed up as a penalty after the match.

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by FRC4ME

It looked to me like the score was 3-3, then a ball was scored, bringing it to 3-4, then the same ball bounced backward through the goal, bringing it to 3-2.

What I saw was a ball scored, bringing score to 3-4. Another ball was scored a few seconds later, which dropped the score to 3-2. There was enough time between the scores that there is no chance this could have been a situation where 2 balls passing through the counter at the same time messes up the system

[AmoryG]

Originally Posted by Radical Pi

What I saw was a ball scored, bringing score to 3-4. Another ball was scored a few seconds later, which dropped the score to 3-2. There was enough time between the scores that there is no chance this could have been a situation where 2 balls passing through the counter at the same time messes up the system

You're correct. A few seconds before, you can see clearly there were two balls that weren't there before once we pushed them towards the goal. We scored the first ball, and you can see that our human player picked it up. It was not pushed back out. A second ball was kicked, and only then was the 2 point penalty subtracted from our score.

[FRC4ME]

Originally Posted by Radical Pi

What I saw was a ball scored, bringing score to 3-4. Another ball was scored a few seconds later, which dropped the score to 3-2. There was enough time between the scores that there is no chance this could have been a situation where 2 balls passing through the counter at the same time messes up the system

Originally Posted by AmoryG

You're correct. A few seconds before, you can see clearly there were two balls that weren't there before once we pushed them towards the goal. We scored the first ball, and you can see that our human player picked it up. It was not pushed back out. A second ball was kicked, and only then was the 2 point penalty subtracted from our score.

Okay then. What I thought was the same ball coming back was actually a second ball going through.

A properly mounted sensor with bug-free software should never encounter a problem like this. As I've said before, if FIRST is going to base the outcome of matches on the reports of computer software (which I have no intrinsic problems with), they should at least allow the community to see the source code and help ensure that software is error-free.

[Vermeulen]

The FMS this year isn't reliable at all. Our third quarterfinals match was a 6-6 tie, but the scoreboard showed 8-2 with us losing. We went up to the ref, and they were already changing it, so it didn't end up too badly for us, but still.

[FRC4ME]

Originally Posted by Vermeulen

The FMS this year isn't reliable at all. Our third quarterfinals match was a 6-6 tie, but the scoreboard showed 8-2 with us losing. We went up to the ref, and they were already changing it, so it didn't end up too badly for us, but still.

The scoring system has some bugs, no doubt. I'm just worried that FIRST will go back to manual scoring next year due to all of the problems. IMO, electronic scoring is the way to go - the availability of a (mostly) accurate real-time score display this year was beneficial for everyone - but the system just needs to have a few kinks worked out.