Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking

[alex334]

Hey guys,

After finishing up the New York City regional, I lost a lot of the respect that I had for FIRST. I don't mean for this to be a rant or anything, I just want to hear the community's opinion on a number of things that I noticed over the course of this and previous regionals.

Firstly, the ranking system. This year's seemed to particularly wonky. At a regional as large as NYC, eight matches per team simply don't cut it. How can a robot's abilities be assessed fairly in comparison with the rest when it mathematically does not have the chance to play with/against every other team. A lot of luck seemed to be involved. The large amount of penalties (I saw 120+ points scored on just penalties) also seemed to skew the rankings, especially when fouls were counted as goal/climb points. Let's face it, not everyone reads the rules. Why punish teams that do by dragging them down? Why not find a better way to rank based on individual performance. I'm not arguing that great teams gravitate towards the top, but shouldn't the best team deserve first place, the second best second, and so on?

Secondly, rules. In general, I liked the rules a lot. The ones that bothered me were those regarding penalties (this is going to be a common theme in this post). "Obstructing the flow of the game." What's that all about? It just sounds like defense to me, not to mention that it's extremely subjective. When does a good defense begin to obstruct the game? Instead of creating rules like this, why not just create a game in which this is not possible? Instead of placing two obnoxiously large pyramids in the middle of the field, with either side being easily blocked, why not create a climbing wall and leave a wide open field? Maybe place a different, smaller element there instead.

Which brings me to my final complaint. This exact bias in ruling occurred during the elimination matches of the NYC regional this year. (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29860861). Not only do I find this unfair, but it all of the refs seemed to disagree on what the large penalty was for. It took us about 10 minutes to find out that it was because of "obstructing the flow of the game." Well, great. Ten minutes after our match we get the official ruling and just because one of the refs that was friendly and put in extra time to find out for us. I personally ran to the head ref and asked to dispute the penalty. He stated that the decision was final and could not be challenged since they "already moved on." I asked him to consider watching videos of previous matches in which I would gladly point out more extreme scenarios only a few matches prior which were not penalized. He refused and told me to relax, because "it's just a game" and the refs are "just volunteers." Well, needless to say, the majority of us are just volunteers. I personally spent two weeks of my college vacation helping my team and countless hours on the bus to see the regional. He told me that we still accomplished the mission of FIRST, since we learned a lot. He then walked away.

I am completely disappointed with this attitude. It is unprofessional. It is disrespectful to everyone doing FIRST and their efforts. I'm still pondering what the lesson learned was for my team. That life isn't fair? Is that such a great message? I personally don't care about winning. I'm done with FIRST. I just want others to get the experience that I got without having such great hopes shattered.

It would be great if FIRST could refine this system by introducing a more refined method of disputing claims via video. I know the volunteers work hard, but everyone gets it wrong once in a while. The true value of FIRST lies in exposing youth to fields that are slowly fading from our schools. If we truly decide to celebrate mediocrity and losses like this, what are we really teaching our youth?

I would like to see a lot more prizes celebrating engineering, programming, and business achievements. What do you guys think? Are we lacking in those?

Looking back, this is a bit of a rant and I apologize, but a large number of people on my team, alliance, and in the NYC regional feel this way. I wanted to see everyone's opinion.

Thank you for reading. I look forward to your responses.

[xSAWxBLADEx]

The link is broken.

[Jonathan Cheng]

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29860861

[xSAWxBLADEx]

when did that penalty happen? I don't see it.
(I do see some "dumb" defense)

EDIT:Next time avoid the opponent's pyramid at all costs

[alex334]

Originally Posted by xSAWxBLADEx

when did that penalty happen? I don't see it.
(I do see some "dumb" defense)

That's what we were trying to figure out.

[xSAWxBLADEx]

Originally Posted by alex334

That's what we were trying to figure out.

It happened at the 10 second mark when the two red robots were playing "defense" on the one blue.

[darkember]

Originally Posted by xSAWxBLADEx

It happened at the 10 second mark when the two red robots were playing "defense" on the one blue.

In the qualification matches it was seen where 2 robots played defense against one and no penalties were issued.

[DominickC]

There is no rule prohibiting 2v1 defense, or 3v1 defense for that matter. The only rules which must be observed are pinning and contact within frame perimeter.

[xSAWxBLADEx]

ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. This rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-ROBOT interaction.

EDIT:Our team avoids all 2v1 defense at all costs because it is such a big penalty.

[DominickC]

I guess it comes down to one's definition of "blockade". I don't view 2v1 defensive hits as blockading the field. Apparently, this ref did.

[JohnFogarty]

The senario in the image I have created here is what I understand to be the meaning of "blockading" the field. It sounds like to me that some refs don't understand the proper meaning of the rule.

[xSAWxBLADEx]

Yes, I think this is such a subjective rule, but it has to be there to eliminate the choke-hold strategies.

[nicholsjj]

It looked to me that that call was due to pinning and the technical foul was called when the red alliance hit a blue alliance robot that was defending a red alliance bot touching their pyramid. This is one where I believe an update needs to happen regarding that situation.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by DominickC

There is no rule prohibiting 2v1 defense, or 3v1 defense for that matter. The only rules which must be observed are pinning and contact within frame perimeter.

Not quite. The "Blockade" rule specifies that two or more robots cannot work together to affect the flow of the game, which flow affectation is apparently left to the proverbial reasonably astute observer to determine. (G25, in case you're wondering.)

So, if a 2v1 or 3v1 is found to stop the flow of the match, it is a Technical Foul.

(I make no judgement as to whether the call in question would be correct given the situation. I'm not a ref.)

[DominickC]

Unfortunately, all of this points back to the fact that some people interpret the same things differently than others.