Team UPDATE - 2014-03-25

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

How can anyone say 1114's tech foul is "no more or less egregious" than the regular foul?

1114 contacted 1241's extended element--which was in the process of going for the ball--while trying to play defense. So while it was indeed 1241's extended element that caused the damage, it was 1114's action that caused the contact.

You can make an argument that neither penalty was intentional and therefore shouldn't be assessed; though I'm sure I know how that kind of argument would fly in, say, football.

The GDC can't win here; if they loosen the penalties the way many are clamoring for, then they get complaints. If they keep them and enforce them the way many are clamoring for, then they get complaints.

The situation as it happened is unfortunate, but it's no more unfortunate than if 1241 had, say, knocked off a chunk of 1114's bumper and 1114 had been disabled for the rest of the match. You can argue that of course 1114's bumpers are sufficiently robust to prevent that from happening--but were their upper mechanical systems sufficiently robust, that wouldn't have happened either.

My preference on this whole thing would be that all contact inside the frame perimeter is a foul, regardless of who initiates that contact, and to let the penalties fall where they may. If we're absolutely clear on this at the beginning of the season, everyone will design accordingly, or suffer the consequences. (In 2008 we had a rule much like that. We built our robot such that it barely extended outside the frame perimeter because of that foul potential. It was irksome at the time to see the penalty never called.)

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

How can anyone say 1114's tech foul is "no more or less egregious" than the regular foul? While 1241's foul was clearly unintentional, they did break the letter of a (dumb) rule on their actions. 1114 broke a rule because of somebody else's actions with really no way to prevent it. What was 1114 supposed to do? Why is it okay for another robot's actions to break you and then get a net gain of points for doing so? The GDC clearly is aware of this, why did they all sit around and go "yup, we should let that keep happening"?

If you watch the WFN GoPro footage, to me, it seems that 1114 is actually going faster than 1241 at the time of impact, and is actively defending 1241. 1241 is trying to truss the ball they just missed with, not defend. So another plausible reading is "1114 broke themselves trying to defend", rather than "1241 broke another team and caused them to take a tech foul".

Also, after all the ref decisions post SF1-3, it was actually a wash:
-What might've been a 31pt last-second ball that bizarrely bounced out of the low goal was disallowed, after it was decided it doesn't count unless it goes all the way through (essentially minus 31pt for blue)
-1241 was assessed a 20pt penalty for the impact (minus 20pt for blue)
-1114 was assessed a 50pt penalty for being too big (minus 50pt for red)

So blue gained 50pts in a penalty, kinda-sorta lost 31pts for the disallowed ball, and red gained 20pts in a penalty. Result: blue still wins, as the live scoring was showing at the end.

Edits: I thought the upright broke in the ball rejection that happened 5 seconds earlier. Was wrong, but the overall thrust of my post remains: 1241 certainly didn't ram 1114, 1114 was heavily defending 1241 who was trying to truss at the time.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Bongle

You know, watching that footage, I don't even think it was the collision: I think the truss attempt hit 1114's upright, and that's what broke it, not contact inside the bumper zone.

The ball hit 1114's left upright. The right upright broke. Both robots drove toward each other at the time of the break, but 1241 was outside the bumper zone. Obviously 1241's intent was not to break the robot, but it's quite clear from the video their intake collided with the piece and then it broke.

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by NOT Chris is me

How can anyone say 1241's foul is "no more or less egregious" than the tech foul? While 1114's tech foul was clearly unintentional, they did break the letter of a (dumb) rule on their actions. 1241 broke a rule because of somebody else's actions with really no way to prevent it. What was 1241 supposed to do? Why is it okay for another robot to hit you, break, and then get a net gain of points for doing so? The GDC clearly is aware of this, why did they all sit around and go "yup, we should let that keep happening"?

Chris, please understand this post isn't meant as a personal attack at you. It is most certainly not. I agree with your line of reasoning.

Playing the devil's advocate, I swapped 1114 and 1241 in your quote above, and flipped the description of the penalties.

The quote is not quite accurate for the exact Waterloo SF1-3 scenario, but imagine the broken piece of 1114 breaking completely off, and not causing a <20" frame perimeter tech foul. 1241 would be left with a 20pt net penalty.

(This BTW is a situation Tristan mentions in his YMTC, and I get the impression this is more in line with Brandon_L's concerns)

This is a feasible situation that any proposed rule change would have to deal with as well.

I hope this post doesn't rub you the wrong way, but I am attempting to add a different perspective that sometimes I feel gets lost in the shuffle. AND I always appreciate a good gracious and professional debate/analysis of FRC's open issues!

[Chris is me]

To be clear, I'm not saying 1241 deserved the penalty either - I think an ideal ruleset would make the collision a "no call" for both sides. I just think it's marginally less absurd than the 1114 penalty for being partially broken. I'll stay out of this now.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

To be clear, I'm not saying 1241 deserved the penalty either - I think an ideal ruleset would make the collision a "no call" for both sides. I just think it's marginally less absurd than the 1114 penalty for being partially broken. I'll stay out of this now.

I'm with you there. Not sure if there's any plausible rule changes they could make to that end though. Removing the "damaging contact" rule would battlebot-ize the competition. Hardening it would make for even more absurd rulings (or, as someone else suggested, would result in teams 'armoring' themselves with flimsy breakable things).

It's too bad SF1-3 had to be known for the calls afterwards. It (and the other 2 matches in that series) were amazing to watch.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Bongle

I'm with you there. Not sure if there's any plausible rule changes they could make to that end though. Removing the "damaging contact" rule would battlebot-ize the competition. Hardening it would make for even more absurd rulings (or, as someone else suggested, would result in teams 'armoring' themselves with flimsy breakable things).

It's too bad SF1-3 had to be known for the calls afterwards. It (and the other 2 matches in that series) were amazing to watch.

Update G24 or add an over-arching clause to the rules that prevents teams from being penalized for getting damaged (if they want to be really pedantic, they could make it "inconsequential or non-advantageous" damage).

[Duncan Macdonald]

Does anyone expect the Waterloo SF 1-3 situation to happen again? (I don't, maybe once)

It was a very specific situation that led to the ruling favouring blue. It is equally likely that a similar collision could go the other way if the defensive robot broke completely.

I'm not defending the GDC's decision, but I suspect they are taking "what are the chances it will happen" approach given the complexity of the robot interaction rules. (see 2012 build season cantilevered bridge grappling definition)

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

Does anyone expect the Waterloo SF 1-3 situation to happen again? (I don't, maybe once)

It was a very specific situation that led to the ruling favouring blue. It is equally likely that a similar collision could go the other way if the defensive robot broke completely.

I'm not defending the GDC's decision, but I suspect they are taking "what are the chances it will happen" approach given the complexity of the robot interaction rules. (see 2012 build season cantilevered bridge grappling definition)

While I don't think this exact call will pop up more than once or twice again this season, I think there a good chance that a call this controversial will decide at least one division final and an Einstein match too. The fouls are just too big and unevenly enforced to keep huge controversies from boiling up over and over and over...

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The ball hit 1114's left upright. The right upright broke. Both robots drove toward each other at the time of the break, but 1241 was outside the bumper zone. Obviously 1241's intent was not to break the robot, but it's quite clear from the video their intake collided with the piece and then it broke.

If the damage was in fact caused by contact with the ball, then there should be no foul on blue based on this Q&A:

Q. G28 -If a ROBOT is in possession of a ball, and the method of possession places the ball outside the bumper perimeter, but above the bumpers, and said ball contacts an opposing ROBOT (inside its frame perimeter), is that considered contact inside the frame perimeter? (and thus a potential penalty)
2014-01-15 by FRC4509
A. G28 refers to contact by the ROBOT, not the BALL.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

Does anyone expect the Waterloo SF 1-3 situation to happen again? (I don't, maybe once)

It was a very specific situation that led to the ruling favouring blue. It is equally likely that a similar collision could go the other way if the defensive robot broke completely.

I'm not defending the GDC's decision, but I suspect they are taking "what are the chances it will happen" approach given the complexity of the robot interaction rules. (see 2012 build season cantilevered bridge grappling definition)

It depends on what "it" is really. If you mean damage causing robots to break the size constraints, it happens multiple times a year - a penalty for not completely breaking. I would have to check again to find instances of this being possibly caused by opponent contact, but I bet I could find one. Personally, I think the fact that you broke your robot is punishment enough, and having this weird edge case where you get a big penalty if your robot partially breaks in a specific way but not in other cases makes zero sense. Robots that are clearly violating the rule solely because they are broken shouldn't be penalized under the rules, though that is how they are written as of now.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

Update G24 or add an over-arching clause to the rules that prevents teams from being penalized for getting damaged (if they want to be really pedantic, they could make it "inconsequential or non-advantageous" damage).

But even then, you could even have controversy: 1114's damage wasn't entirely inconsequential: as I understand it, the uprights were/are required to support their claw pre-match. In a 3-match series where that collision happened in the first one, 1114 could easily argue the damage required them to burn a timeout to fix it, and so a non-call on what they'd perceive as real damage would still be deciding the match in one way or another.

If it comes down to a judgement call, there'd still be people upset about the result.

[GCentola]

Not to be "that guy," but wasn't this being discussed elsewhere? Is this now becoming a game of "where can we discuss what should have been called?"

I went to Waterloo, there were some really high-quality matches among some of the best teams in FIRST. It is rather unfortunate that the referee calls are what people are remembering in what was an otherwise excellent showdown. Both alliances were well thought out, and I hate to have seen it work out the way it did because of a set of poorly worded rules that are constantly changing.

Which brings me to my main point: Yes. There are a large number of people who don't like the rules and people who are upset about how poor calls have affected their performance. I have no right to tell you that you cannot be upset because I know I would be too. Week after week, we have complained about the rules and asked for updates only to get angrier about whatever rule changes were released. This week, it seems as if the game is staying the same. At what point would you rather have a consistent set of mediocre rules rather than a set of rules that is difficult to stay up to date with and drastically changes the game each time. It's Week 5 already. The GDC changes the game after people respond, and then people get angry at the changes (Again, not saying they were good changes or that the rules are perfect). In this case, the GDC has done nothing and people are angry.


Otherwise, the update is pretty exciting.



Garrick

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

Does anyone expect the Waterloo SF 1-3 situation to happen again? (I don't, maybe once)

This situation has absolutely happened before and will happen again. At the NC regional a robot's battery fell out of their robot after a collision and was dragging behind them much greater than 20 inches (the wires were excessively long). They decided to stop driving but NO penalties were assessed to either team.


Basically we have an odd but certainly possible situation (pieces breaking on a robot but not falling off) that is sometimes penalized. It is sort of up to refs discretion unfortunately.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by GCentola

Not to be "that guy," but wasn't this being discussed elsewhere? Is this now becoming a game of "where can we discuss what should have been called?"

It's being discussed here because the update was expected by many to address this component of the rules, and it didn't. Discussing potential rules updates in the context of a thread about rules updates makes sense to me.