Did anyone else see it this way?

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Cory

However, seeing as they never attempted to score in that match, they should never have even raised their arm in the first place. The fact that their arm was raised all the way in the air, and contacting 233 outside of the bumper zone, while not attempting to score is illegal anyways.

They may not have intentionally got entangled, but it was clearly a conscious decision to use their arm to play defense.

Having watched 177 at several events this season, I can say that they always put their arm up while playing defense in order to avoid the gripper getting smashed between bumpers by being down low. The arm controller moves the arm up, then takes his hands off the controls while the base driver plays defense. It is clear to me that their intent was not to push/grab/pop tubes outside of the bumper zone, regardless of what occurred in the match.

In general, situations like this and others that occurred on the Curie and Archimedes fields are the result of what appears to be a "just let them play" approach to refereeing this year's game. It is hard to blame teams for what you might perceive as playing outside the rules when the referees are standing right there and allow them to play that way. As much as it hurts some, I say this is part of the game. If the refs are not calling something that you think should be called, you have to adjust your play style to deal with it.

Best of luck to all teams competing in offseason events!

RAZ

[David Brinza]

The danger of looking at a still photo of something that looks like it might be an infraction is you cannot determine how the situation arose. The referee needs to assess the action (who's moving what, where the contact originated, how both robots are responding, what is cause vs effect) all in real time. Not an easy job by any stretch of the imagination.

The referees at the Championship were very experienced - gained in multiple regionals and many matches in the divisions. I trust their judgment based on their knowledge of the rules (believe me, they know them), their impartiality and their understanding of the importance of their job.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Rob

Having watched 177 at several events this season, I can say that they always put their arm up while playing defense in order to avoid the gripper getting smashed between bumpers by being down low. The arm controller moves the arm up, then takes his hands off the controls while the base driver plays defense. It is clear to me that their intent was not to push/grab/pop tubes outside of the bumper zone, regardless of what occurred in the match.

That makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation.

[ALIBI]

Isn't the intent of the bumpers and bumber zone to make certain that defensive contact be made within that zone? 177 does not have a ringer and should not be considered to be playing offence. IMHO, when a robot goes into a defensive mode, they must make certain, it is thier responsibility, that the first part of thier robot that touches another robot either be bumpers or a part of thier robot flush with the vertical plane where the bumpers would be if they do not have bumpers. Playing defense in such a way that a part of your robot that is outside the bumper zone makes contact with the opposing robot first is wrong. Incidental contact once in a while, OK, but driving around the field with your arm outside the bumper zone and repeatedly having it be the first part of your robot that contacts the opposing alliances robot should have been a penalty.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by ALIBI

Isn't the intent of the bumpers and bumber zone to make certain that defensive contact be made within that zone? 177 does not have a ringer and should not be considered to be playing offence. IMHO, when a robot goes into a defensive mode, they must make certain, it is thier responsibility, that the first part of thier robot that touches another robot either be bumpers or a part of thier robot flush with the vertical plane where the bumpers would be if they do not have bumpers. Playing defense in such a way that a part of your robot that is outside the bumper zone makes contact with the opposing robot first is wrong. Incidental contact once in a while, OK, but driving around the field with your arm outside the bumper zone and repeatedly having it be the first part of your robot that contacts the opposing alliances robot should have been a penalty.

But if through the course of the competition no ref ever penalized them or even just warned them then they must correctly assume that they are playing within the rules. So you can’t blame them either. In their shoes I would have done the same thing.



My point of starting this thread was to show how difficult a referee’s job can be. We have the benefit of pictures and videos and we as a group can’t agree on what is correct. How can we expect a ref to decide in the heat of the moment and get it right every time?

Big thanks to the men and women who step and do this thankless job!

[ALIBI]

Originally Posted by IndySam

But if through the course of the competition no ref ever penalized them or even just warned them then they must correctly assume that they are playing within the rules. So you can’t blame them either. In their shoes I would have done the same thing.



My point of starting this thread was to show how difficult a referee’s job can be. We have the benefit of pictures and videos and we as a group can’t agree on what is correct. How can we expect a ref to decide in the heat of the moment and get it right every time?

Big thanks to the men and women who step and do this thankless job!

I would have to agree with you on all points. The least that can be said is that the call was not made consistantly. I was at two regionals and the championship and saw many hours of webcast and could easily find countless other similar instances where this call was not made. There is a reason the Head Referee's call is final. I prefaced my remarks with IMHO fully realizing as you have stated so well that the referees did not typically make this call thoughout this season and 177 was only behaving as they had been permitted to in the past. Frankly, I am surprised that 177's arm held up so well! Incidental contact was given rather broad interpretation this year by the referee's. I am just a die hard bumper to bumper, pushing from one end of the field to the other fan of this type of defense. Alot of pushing without anybody's robot getting broke (drivetrains excepted).

[Jason Morrella]

Originally Posted by Rob

In general, situations like this and others that occurred on the Curie and Archimedes fields are the result of what appears to be a "just let them play" approach to refereeing this year's game. It is hard to blame teams for what you might perceive as playing outside the rules when the referees are standing right there and allow them to play that way. As much as it hurts some, I say this is part of the game.

I think most agree that some (not all) refs did take the "just let them play" approach - which I don't mind in a very close gray area/tough call situation, but not when the rule violation is obvious. However, I would disagree that "it is part of the game". Mabye it is part of "life", but the game is the "game" as it is designed and written.

One thing I keep hearing, which I'm going to comment on even though I probably shouldn't....is that I don't get all the talk about whether something is incidental or intentional.

1. Part of that debate does not even matter - if something is against the rules (such as hitting teams outside of the bumper zone repeatedly while playing defense), then it's a penalty, no matter if it was intentional or not.

2. We need to give FIRST teams and the drivers/coaches of these robots a little more credit. These aren't clueless people who are "surprised" when an extended arm (not being used to play offense or score) hits another robot up high (out of the bumper zone) or tips it over. Especially playoff teams that have clearly discussed and set on a defensive strategy and/or veteran teams who I'm fairly sure understand the physics of what will likely tip another robot over when they choose to raise/extend their arm while interacting with another robot (and not attempting to score) instead of keeping it down.

3. Last, in the same line of thinking of giving the teams more credit than some of these arguments seem to:

FIRST teams are smart. FIRST teams adapt. FIRST teams push the limits to whatever is allowed. If the referees called the rules as written, and penalized teams at the regionals and in the Championship qualifiers for using extended arms for defense, hitting outside the bumper zone, overly agressive ramming and pinning/tipping robots - the teams would have stopped doing it for the most part.

In some of the examples people have posted here on CD, I don't really hold the "teams" accountable for damaging or tipping other robots. Since I saw it first hand, I'll comment on the Archimedes example posted in another thread:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

There were incidents of questionable nature on all four fields during the elimination rounds, 2 of which directly affected champions. The most egregious of which happened in this incident on Curie and on Archimedes. While I have not yet been able to find video (or get it from teammates) of the incidents on Galileo or Newton, but I will post video of 254 being tipped on Archimedes (no call).
http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2XmhRZmMsM

Anyone who saw it was expecting the 494/254/997 alliance to move on after they were tipped by 107 towards the start of the second semifinal match (they won the first 140-4). It was probably one of the easiest to call examples of that the entire season. When the penalty wasn't called, every person standing around me knew exactly what was going to happen in the third match - the very same thing - you could go to the bank (or vegas) that 254 was going to be tipped very early in match 3, which they were. If teams know the refs aren't going to enforce the bumper zone or tipping rules, then of course they are going to take more chances playing defense. If they knew there was a likelihood of the rules being enforced and a penalty being called, I know that most of the teams would adjust their play accordingly.

Luckily, unlike some other previously discussed situations, in the Archimedes example I didn't hear of any hard feelings from the tip - for one because nothing on the 254 bot was damaged or torn apart (makes it easier not to be upset) and second, because the 494/254/997 alliance knew the issue was with the penalty not being called, not with the team playing defense. Plus the tip in the 3rd match was much more similar to the tip on Einstein, which is to say it certainly fell into the category of a judgement call and could have gone either way, as oppossed to the tip in match 2.

Important note here (since I do have an affiliation & history with 254) - in NO way am I implying 233/71/179 would not have won Archimedes. I think they had the best alliance and still would have won the division. Would have been a great matchup which many in the division were expecting and waiting to see, but I still think the right alliance came out of Archimedes. Hope I didn't just manage to offend either the 494/254/997 or 386/85/107 alliances.

Either way, the point is that FIRST teams will adapt if they know the refs are calling certain rules or actions and giving penalties - just as the teams will adjust their play to be much more agressive when they realize the rules aren't being enforced. What clearly caused even more frustration is that the rules at one regional or on one division field would be enforced the exact opposite then on one of the other fields. Teams expect (and most of us would argue deserve) two things - rules to be enforced as close to as written as possible (which will never happen 100% of the time - part of being human - and I believe most teams get that) and rules to be enforced consistently (or very close to). I don't think many would argue that either of those goals was even close to being achieved this year.

Is there any point harping on this? Not for the 2007 season, no - it's over and nothing's going to change. However, any organization needs to acknowledge what worked and what didn't so it can improve - so hopefully enough discussion and consensus on recognizing the inconsistencies of the rule enforcement this season (and things like the match algorithm) will help make things much better and improved next year for all the teams. The teams work too hard and spend too much not to have the play of the robots & teams decide the matches.

Very sorry for the long post - just couldn't bite my tongue on the incidental vs intentional comments anymore.

Hope everyone has a great weekend and a great off season!

[xzvrw2]

i watched the video only once. i did that so i can base my opinion off of, like a ref, only seeing the match once. (i got this idea from some one over in the now closed curie discussion) here is my opinion:

I see that 177s arm never moved, therefore they didnt intentionaly contact 233 outside the bumper zone. 233s arm was moving back and forth, sometimes in the bumper zone sometimes not. they both contacted eachother outside the bumper zone. so, in theory, they both should have gotten one. but i think the ref seen tat and decided to negate both penalties. Thats what i saw that one and only time i watched the match.

i think the ruling on this match was fair.

my $0.02

During the drivers meeting I heard the Ref say that it was OK to try to knock a tube out of another robots grasp. It was NOT OK to grab the tube. If two robots became entangled it was incumbent on both of them to try to become disentangled. If one of them fell over, the other was probably going to be turned off for the rest of the match. The penalties I rememeber them stressing was from a full speed ramming run from 5 feet or more away (even in autonomous mode) and grabbing a tube in another robot's possession. I got the feeling they weren't going to call penalties for robot arms touching, incidental or otherwise.
I just wish we had had the chance to use some desperate and questionable tactics on Einstein. Not that we would have...

Chris

[Faith]

Watching from the stands, my immediate reaction was that 177 should have been called for a penalty. That was only in the heat of the match, though. Almost immediately afterwards, I thought about it and talked with a teammate and it became more obvious that it shouldn't have been called. Granted, we didn't have great seats, but I'm sure the ref made a great call, even though I had trouble with it .

[John Wanninger]

Many robots operate much of the time with their extensions outside of their starting zone, and when in close quaters, frequently make contact with other robots' 38x28 ‘protected’ space. Rule <G35>, if strictly enforced would result in a sizable number of robots receiving penalties. I believe that the enforcement (and thusly the interpretation) of this rule had to be relaxed to avoid a rash of penalties, and the ‘incidental’ clause gives leeway. Because ‘incidental’ is never defined, and a visible line never drawn, interpretation is bound to be arbitrary. To further weaken the rule, note that it is sprinkled with softeners such as "generally" and "guidelines". Perpetrator intent may be a factor too, as the rule is titled "Intentional ROBOT- ROBOT Interaction"

A great deal of leeway has been incorporated into this rule - So much that the rule is no longer a rule but a guiding principle. This one is totally up to the referees.

[vVigglEs]

Originally Posted by chrisrobin

During the drivers meeting I heard the Ref say that it was OK to try to knock a tube out of another robots grasp. It was NOT OK to grab the tube. If two robots became entangled it was incumbent on both of them to try to become disentangled. If one of them fell over, the other was probably going to be turned off for the rest of the match. The penalties I rememeber them stressing was from a full speed ramming run from 5 feet or more away (even in autonomous mode) and grabbing a tube in another robot's possession. I got the feeling they weren't going to call penalties for robot arms touching, incidental or otherwise.
Chris

This is true, i am surprised it was brought up so late in the discussion. 177 didn't grab the tube. When the two robots and the tube became in tangled 177's drivers took there hands of the controllers.

[henryBsick]

Originally Posted by vVigglEs

This is true, i am surprised it was brought up so late in the discussion. 177 didn't grab the tube. When the two robots and the tube became in tangled 177's drivers took there hands of the controllers.

In any situation, drivers should NEVER EVER take their hands off of their controls. I always waved with one hand and drove with the other(I think some of the gratitude goes to Aiden Brown). Removing your hand from the controlls garuntees 0% controll of the robot.

Just inputting on general actions,
-Henry Sick

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Originally Posted by Henry_222

In any situation, drivers should NEVER EVER take their hands off of their controls. I always waved with one hand and drove with the other(I think some of the gratitude goes to Aiden Brown). Removing your hand from the controlls garuntees 0% controll of the robot.

Just inputting on general actions,
-Henry Sick

I agree... taking your hands off the controls could prove worse off. Example: Not being able to save your robot from tipping over if you're tangled and the other robot is pulling away. However, this does not need to be discussed here.


Back on topic: I don't believe this should have been penalized because 177 was consistent in raising their arm when they played defense. However, the photo angle does make it look intentional, but the video proves, in my opinion, that it was not intentional.

[Jeffrafa]

Originally Posted by chrisrobin

During the drivers meeting I heard the Ref say that it was OK to try to knock a tube out of another robots grasp. It was NOT OK to grab the tube. If two robots became entangled it was incumbent on both of them to try to become disentangled. If one of them fell over, the other was probably going to be turned off for the rest of the match. The penalties I rememeber them stressing was from a full speed ramming run from 5 feet or more away (even in autonomous mode) and grabbing a tube in another robot's possession. I got the feeling they weren't going to call penalties for robot arms touching, incidental or otherwise.
I just wish we had had the chance to use some desperate and questionable tactics on Einstein. Not that we would have...

Chris

This was the biggest thing I got out of the driver's meeting. Basically, the way I understood it they said that unless something was extremely excessive, no penalties would be called on extension contact until someone tipped - then a 10 point penalty would likely be assessed. Obviously grabbing a tube was still out of line, but until somebody tipped it was fair game.

I was actually more surprised when 1270 was DQ'd for tipping 71 in the semifinal match. I wasn't watching when it happened, but I expected nothing more than a 10 point penalty - but it was just a judgment call on whether or not it was 'excessive' play.

(Chris mentioned that he understood it was a DQ for tipping, which would fit for this, but we had a qualifying match in which 217 was tipped and we were only assessed a 10pt penalty, although there was absolutely no hitting high )

- Jeff