2010 IRI Results and Awards

[Kit Gerhart]

With all the ties in the elimination rounds, it was a good thing for teams that had to "hit the road," that there was no awards ceremony after the matches on Saturday.

I've always thought that the number 4 team should be requred to play one match per round, since they are officially a "winner" if their alliance wins the competition. Maybe a compromise would be to require the backup to play the second match of a round, if your alliance wins the first match of the round. These are just my thoughts. There are good points to be made for the current setup, including having your backup "readily at hand" if needed.

This may have been the best IRI ever, as far as the level of competition. There were a lot of very good teams that didn't get picked.

[Joe Ross]

According to the IRI elimination results, 5 of the 8 backup robots played at least one match. Both the champions and the runner-up's backup robot's played. The #3 alliance backup robot played 3 matches.

This year probably had the highest number of backup robots playing, ever.

[JaneYoung]

If the judged awards were to return to the IRI competition, I would be delighted. It would provide increased opportunity for more teams to garner the valued recognition they deserve. While it is true that many teams come with just a few team members who can not always be in their pit, ready for the judges to interview them - the judges are aware of the constraints and pressures and work with them, hoping to provide the teams the opportunity to shine as they naturally do. I saw and recognized that while queuing this weekend and judging these teams would have been an honor and a privilege.

I also respect the extra costs that are incurred in the judged awards but think that those could be worked with.

With great respect for the 2010 IRI planning committee and the decisions that you made,
Jane

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

This year probably had the highest number of backup robots playing, ever.

It seemed that way to me too. I know you sat out one of your finals matches, and 1086 sat out a match in one of their semis. ...and yeh, Team 51 played three times in their hard-fought semi.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

According to the IRI elimination results, 5 of the 8 backup robots played at least one match. Both the champions and the runner-up's backup robot's played. The #3 alliance backup robot played 3 matches.

This year probably had the highest number of backup robots playing, ever.

Last year, 222, 179, 45, 148, and 70 got play time, tying this year.

[Siri]

Out of curiosity, I notice that the match results for Friday appear to be different between the two .pdf files. (Match 15 goes from 11-15 to 11-16, Match 40 goes from 8-10 to 10-10, among others.) I remember Stu announcing on Saturday that the seeding had changed overnight because of the lack of DOGMA. Did I miss that there was a change in scoring as well, or is one file just off a little? (For the two matches listed at least, I believe the scores displayed at the time reflected the earlier .pdf.)

As for suggestions, I'm a first-timer, but this was the best run competition I've ever been to, on- or off-season. The morning award ceremony was great. I missed most of the afternoon ceremony (not the post-finals one, the one where the VEX award was given out), so I'm not quite sure why some awards were given then instead of earlier. It would have helped our logistics to have just the morning and post-finals ceremony, but if there was a specific reason that's fine. I would have enjoyed having judged awards, but I understand the purpose behind not having them, and it did allow more time for visiting pits.
We were regularly pushed to queue for matches very early (up to 6 or 7 matches ahead), which could cut into repair (not to mention free) time, but who am I to complain when you manage to keep almost 80 teams virtually on schedule for 104 matches? Also, many thanks for the full sized practice field. That was exceedingly helpful!
Other than that, I'd highly suggest a "previously played" list if DJs are going to change that often. I love "I Got a Feeling", but unfortunately not quite that much. Overall, absolutely excellent job!

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Siri

Out of curiosity, I notice that the match results for Friday appear to be different between the two .pdf files. (Match 15 goes from 11-15 to 11-16, Match 40 goes from 8-10 to 10-10, among others.) I remember Stu announcing on Saturday that the seeding had changed overnight because of the lack of DOGMA. Did I miss that there was a change in scoring as well, or is one file just off a little? (For the two matches listed at least, I believe the scores displayed at the time reflected the earlier .pdf.)

Siri,

Good question.

There were two changes that had to be made to the scoring of some of the matches on Friday evening. DOGMA penalty adjustments were one. The other was to fix the method we were systematically scoring each match, as we were using human scorers AND the sensor scorers. If there was a discrepancy between the two scoring methods at the end of the match, we had to choose one or the other: human or sensors. During the first 60 or so matches, we chose to use the human scorers.

After looking at the system and spending much time discussing this between Mark Koors (the FTA), Stu Bloom (the head ref) and myself, we decided to use the sensor system as the accepted score, unless there was a significant (4-5 balls or more) difference between the two systems. Essentially, if there was a catastrophic error in the sensor scoring system, then the human count would be used. If not, then the human count was not used.

So, we had to make some changes mid-stream. We decided to make this scoring method change after match 60 (or somewhere around there), and we also decided to go back and correct the slight adjustments which were made to some of the system scores between matches 1-60 (we were able to see in which matches these adjustments were made). Due to this, on matches that were close in scores, some of the match results changed. For instance, during matches 40 and 55, these changes resulted in ties instead of wins/losses for the teams involved.

I hope this helps explain things.

Andy

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

[cut for space]...Essentially, if there was a catastrophic error in the sensor scoring system, then the human count would be used. If not, then the human count was not used...[cut for space]

Thanks Andy, that makes sense. Thanks to the human counters for playing backup, that must have been a heck of a job!

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by Siri

Thanks Andy, that makes sense. Thanks to the human counters for playing backup, that must have been a heck of a job!

Well, if you were scoring for 469, it was rather interesting I didn't think that it was too hard, but it was really easy to become distracted slightly. You kind of have to watch the entire field as well as your particular goal, to make sure that you wouldn't be hit by a stray ball (Michelle was standing two feet away from me when she got a ball to the chest from 1114, and I was also almost hit a few times), and to also know where the balls may be coming from (balls randomly appearing in the goal from across the field are rather shocking). The task itself - keeping a tally on a little sheet of paper - isn't hard, but staying focused and attentive is a bit harder when there are 6 amazing robots moving on the field and doing things that robots should not necessarily be doing (i.e. entanglement, fast blinks, and battery death).