The Fraud of FTC Worlds - How FTC & FIRST have failed me forever.

[gblake]

Folks,

When I read the OP, I come away with the poster focusing on the decision not to replay the match, and not on the initial mistake.

Discussing the ins, outs, ups, and downs of volunteer or professional refs is a distraction from the point I think the OP wanted to make. In the story he told in his post, no one disagreed explicitly about whether or not the penalty assessment was a mistake.

Instead, I think the root of his frustration that the match wasn't replayed (or that a corrected score wasn't recorded) when all four teams involved agreed a mistake had been made.

The assumption (that might be 100% wrong) folks have been making, is that the FTC folks in charge of keeping things moving along, decided they preferred advancing into the next matches, over a replay or other adjustment of the recorded (but wrong) result of the match being discussed.

Moving the conversation back onto the topic of event-schedule-vs-correctness might be more valuable than rehashing the referees-are-human topic.

Blake

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by gblake

Folks,

When I read the OP, I come away with the poster focusing on the decision not to replay the match, and not on the initial mistake.

Discussing the ins, outs, ups, and downs of volunteer or professional refs is a distraction from the point I think the OP wanted to make. In the story he told in his post, no one disagreed explicitly about whether or not the penalty assessment was a mistake.

Instead, I think the root of his frustration that the match wasn't replayed (or that a corrected score wasn't recorded) when all four teams involved agreed a mistake had been made.

The assumption (that might be 100% wrong) folks have been making, is that the FTC folks in charge of keeping things moving along, decided they preferred advancing into the next matches, over a replay or other adjustment of the recorded (but wrong) result of the match being discussed.

Moving the conversation back onto the topic of event-schedule-vs-correctness might be more valuable than rehashing the referees-are-human topic.

Blake

Blake, I 100% agree.

This season, at every FTC competition after Minnesota State Championship that I went to, I was frankly somewhat shocked by the focus on "just getting through" the even as opposed to the experience of teams, which is in my mind what event schedule vs. correctness comes down to. I was an FTA at two qualifiers and the Minnesota state championship this season, and had to call several replays in that time (working, of course, with our head referee to determine that was necessary). It sucks to replay a match, both in terms of scheduling and because it means you have to admit that somewhere, something went wrong, but the #1 priority needs to be giving teams a fair chance to succeed or fail on their merits, not because the referee messed up a call or because the field broke at an inopportune time.

I know there was talk in some earlier FRC threads about a "Putting teams FIRST" section in the volunteer manuals, but I think that needs to extend to FTC as well. Some of the volunteer behavior I witnessed and heard about at North Super Regional and Championships is in no way acceptable, and ultimately that comes down to us needing to train our FTC volunteers better, and making sure volunteers are in positions that fit their temperament. We collectively need to raise the quality of our FTC events, especially at the Super Regional level.

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Blake, I 100% agree.


I know there was talk in some earlier FRC threads about a "Putting teams FIRST" section in the volunteer manuals, but I think that needs to extend to FTC as well. Some of the volunteer behavior I witnessed and heard about at North Super Regional and Championships is in no way acceptable, and ultimately that comes down to us needing to train our FTC volunteers better, and making sure volunteers are in positions that fit their temperament. We collectively need to raise the quality of our FTC events, especially at the Super Regional level.

As someone who volunteered as an FTA at the super north regional, I'm curious as to what behavior you are referring to.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by gblake

Moving the conversation back onto the topic of event-schedule-vs-correctness might be more valuable than rehashing the referees-are-human topic.

I am not sure if things have changed since the 2008 experience I mentioned in my post, since that is the last time I went to the championship event, but my understanding is that the decision not to replay matches at the final level was (is?) out of the hands of the individuals volunteers including the head ref.

[dtengineering]

So my high school basketball team was playing in a game that would qualify us for the provincial championship. We were up by a point with seconds to go. Our center shoots the ball, misses, the other guys grab the rebound drive down the floor... the buzzer rings and their shot goes in. They win by a point. They go to the provincials.

Was it the fault of:

A) The ref for making a bad call?

B) The center for shooting when a possession game would guarantee a win?

C) The defense for not stopping their breakout?

D) Me for missing a foul shot (not to mention a few field goals) earlier in the game?

E) Our entire team for letting it get so close that it could be decided by one bad call?

F) The universe for not being fair?

I understand, you've got a good case. Why don't you talk to the FRC teams who were on Einstein when the field control system was interfered with and failed a few years back? I think they have a good case that a world championship title was unfairly interrupted. Maybe you want to talk to the English soccer team about the "Hand of God"? There's plenty of video evidence that Maradona actually comitted a foul rather than scoring a game deciding world cup elimination match. (It's an older reference but maybe a bit more significant on the world sporting scene than my high school basketball tournament experience!)

If you're looking for sympathy... well, I am sorry to hear that a mistake was made. I appreciate the frustration, but chances are the ref feels just as bad about making a bad call as you feel about the call being made. If it is any consolation, I'm pretty sure that my life has not been greatly damaged by what I truly believe was a monumentally incorrect call by a basketball referee over 25 years ago. I'm sure you'll get over this in time.

If you're looking to make the point that life is unfair... well, let's just hope that is the worst unfairness that life deals you.

Jason

[T^2]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Why don't you talk to the FRC teams who were on Einstein when the field control system was interfered with and failed a few years back?

Those teams received compensation, as well as acknowledgement from FIRST that the problem existed. Granted, the issues that year extended beyond Einstein.

[FTC5110]

Originally Posted by gblake

Folks,

When I read the OP, I come away with the poster focusing on the decision not to replay the match, and not on the initial mistake.

Discussing the ins, outs, ups, and downs of volunteer or professional refs is a distraction from the point I think the OP wanted to make. In the story he told in his post, no one disagreed explicitly about whether or not the penalty assessment was a mistake.

Instead, I think the root of his frustration that the match wasn't replayed (or that a corrected score wasn't recorded) when all four teams involved agreed a mistake had been made.

The assumption (that might be 100% wrong) folks have been making, is that the FTC folks in charge of keeping things moving along, decided they preferred advancing into the next matches, over a replay or other adjustment of the recorded (but wrong) result of the match being discussed.

Moving the conversation back onto the topic of event-schedule-vs-correctness might be more valuable than rehashing the referees-are-human topic.

Blake

As one of the teams on red alliance (not playing in that match) we were stunned that a replay wasn't granted. All 4 teams wanted it and from what we could tell observing the match only 1 ref called the penalty but was blatently wrong. There were 4 refs for a 12'x12' field, it's not like FRC where it's hard work trying to see what's going on. For those of you not participating in FTC this incorrect call was a 370 point swing literally gifting a win to blue.

Probably the most uninspiring moment for us since starting with FIRST in 2009. If scheduling was the reason a replay wasn't granted someone needs re-think why they're involved with this because they've failed in the most basic function - inspiring kids. No one in the stands would have cared about missing 5min of lunch break or only waiting patiently 25min for closing ceremony to begin.

Fail on so many levels.

[The Lucas]

In my experience, after the initial sting of losing on a controversial ref call seems overwhelming. However, after that passes they become some of my favorite stories to tell. One in particular became a feel good story and my team became good friends with one of our opponents (we were already good friends with some of the other ones). Since your opponents agreed that the match should be replayed, perhaps when you meet at Worlds next year to talk and bond over this shared experience.

Originally Posted by ksafin

The Story:

This story is regarding FTC Edison Division Semi-Finals match 3. We, ERX, are paired with Cougar Robotics, going against an alliance including Masquerade and Tesla. The record is 1-1, so a third match is forced.
Here is a video of the match, please feel free to forward to the tele-op period at https://youtu.be/5d3UuzGS5Lk?t=301.

Pay attention to Tesla's robot on the bottom left of the field as it manipulates the 90cm goal. Pay special attention to where we, ERX, and Cougars robots are. If you go to 5:20 (https://youtu.be/5d3UuzGS5Lk?t=319) and wait four seconds, you'll see Tesla drop their 90cm goal by moving up their intake.

If you watch till the end of the game and look at the tubes, I think you'll conclude that it's obvious that the red alliance won the match.

Here's where it starts. Our team cheers, excited about the match. I go to the bathroom and come back to see the score posted on the board. 855 - 600, Blue alliance wins.

My mind was boggled. What happened? How could this have happened?
As it turns out, the dropping of the 90cm goal was blamed on the red alliance. We were given a major penalty and the blue alliance was credited with a full 90cm goal.

Did the red alliance drop the goal? No. It's obvious in the footage. Here's where I add the fact that YES, I'm fully aware that video footage and replay is not allowed to be shown to referees to contest a call.

I watched the video and I think there is some nuance to the situation that needs to be explained, especially to the largely FRC crowd posting on this thread. It is a judgement call, not clear either way. I am familiar with FTC rules, but I am not a ref (hardware inspector locally, not at Worlds).

<GS14> Robots may not tip over ANY Rolling Goal (deliberately or accidentally). If this occurs, the offending Alliance
will incur a Major Penalty.

This rule requires that for every rolling goal tipped, a major penalty must be called on one alliance. The refs must determine which alliance was most responsible for causing the tip, it doesn't matter if the robot is directly in contact with the goal. If both alliances are to blame, one must still receive a penalty. If the goal is an opposing goal to the robot responsible, then the opposing alliance is credited with a full goal.

I am going to break this down by timestamp of the video and use the standard YMTC Redabot and Blueabot to replace team names:

5:03 Redabot first makes contact with Blueabot while Blueabot is placing a Blue goal in the Blue Parking Zone. Contact continues back and forth around the Blue Parking Zone. Blue drive team is gesturing (appears to be complaining about the contact).

5:18 Blueabot is lifting their intake near the Blue Goal, video is obscured by legs so it is hard to see what they are doing (possibly trying to pick up a ball on the base of the goal).

5:21 Redabot hits Blueabot on its way to the center goal. Announcer indicates End Game, clock is not visible to confirm when exactly when it started.

5:22 Redabot and Blueabot (not in contact with each other) move away from the Blue Goal and Blue Goal tips toward them. Once again the view is obscured by legs (it would be nice to see a recording from the camera guy, looks like he had a good angle).

Now is the YMTC moment, which robot caused this tip more? I think it is clear that both robots were involved. Most FTC calls depend on the timeline of events (and possible future timelines in the case of blocking), you can't just look at the snapshot.

My judgement from the replay:
Most likely Blueabot got its intake caught on the ball or the rolling goal base while attempting to pick up the ball. When Blueabot drove away, this contact on the base or the ball caused the tip. It does not appear to be caused by Blueabot moving their intake upward as OP suggests (would have tipped the opposite way initially if that was the case). Redabot did contact Blueabot during this process so they could have caused Blueabot to become stuck on the goal, and thus cause the tip. Redabot moved away so Blueabot could have tried to lift its intake if it was stuck. I think it is about 75% Blue's fault and 25% Red's Fault so I would call a Blue Major Penalty based on this replay.

Now what did the Refs see?

The nearest ref (suspenders) seems to be looking to the right (away from the goal) at the contact. Possibly the Ref is considering a Blocking or Pinning call on Redabot. Redabot is in a high risk position (contacting Blueabot while Blueabot is in contact with a field element in their parking zone) and time (End Game). The ref may not see Blueabot attempting to pick up the ball and only look at the contact, then see the goal tip.

The Head Ref is in that corner temporarily, but appears to be also focused on the contact then re-positioning to the center goal for end game when the goal tips (re-positioning at unfortunate times causes missed calls in all sports, including the recent infamous World Cup biting incident). He then appears to be ready to call a Block on Blue if the Red Ball doesn't score.

Ref across the way doesn't appear to see the goal until it is fully tipped. Then some gesturing and talking to the ref on that corner.

If none of the refs saw the goal start to go down or Blueabot attempting to pick up a ball off of the rolling goal (kind of an odd thing to attempt and hard to see from an overhead angle) then they are basing their call on: Redabot hits Blueabot (when Redabot needs to be careful to avoid contact), then Blue Goal tips. It is not all that surprising refs decided to give the mandatory major penalty to Red. In FIRST and sports, refs often err on the side of the offense when unsure and a penalty must be called (see basketball charging and football pass interference).

Originally Posted by ksafin

We were aware of this, and despite telling them a wrong call was made, we knew we wouldn't get much out of this.

We appealed to the gracious professionalism in the students from Tesla and Masquerade. We showed all of them the video. They all agreed - the call was wrong. We didn't tip over their goal. They did.

After some haggling, we got them to agree to talk to the referees with us. We went to head ref. Not just ERX. Not just cougars. We all went. All four teams from the match. The entirety of both alliances went to the referees. All four teams said the call was wrong. We weren't even asking for an adjustment of the score. We were asking for a rematch.

The answer? No. Why? My understanding was that it was to save time. They couldn't spare 5 minutes to correct an enormous injustice. They were saving face and saving the tournament five minutes by completely shafting our alliance. We spent 7 months developing this robot and getting to this stage to be shut out for the purpose of saving five minutes.

Not to mention - four teams, opposite alliances, all agreeing on the false call and asking a ref for a rematch? That's an enormous show of gracious professionalism, and I couldn't respect them more for that. It was amazing. And we were told no? Make your own judgement about what degree of ungraciously professional that is.

After we have haggled the head ref in excess of ten times trying to get this correct without avail, we were giving up. They were told to proceed to the other field to set up for division finals. We asked them to protest and refuse to go to the field and set up. They would have to give us a rematch.

<G14> Matches are replayed at the discretion of the Head Referee and only under the following circumstances:
a. Failure of a Field Element that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
b. Loss of control of a Robot due to a VERIFIABLE failure of the tournament-supplied FCS computer, FCS
software, USB Hub, or Gamepad that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
c. Loss of control of all four Robots due to a failure of the Field’s wireless router that was likely to have
impacted which Alliance won the Match.
Unexpected Robot behavior in itself will not result in a Match replay. Team-induced failures, such as low battery
conditions, processor sleep time-outs, Robot mechanical/electrical/software failures, Robot communication
failures, etc. are NOT valid justifications for a re-Match.

Clearly, none of the these 3 replay conditions apply to this situation. So if you don't expect the ref to look at your video because T1 prohibits it, why would you expect a replay when G14 prohibits it?
No one is ever happy when a match is decided on a ref call. It is a bad way to win, a terrible way to lose, and a tremendous burden on the refs. This was a judgement call within the rules, not a miscount or some other clearly verifiable mistake (I have lost an FRC final on one of those). Replay is not an option under the rules, so unless those rules change the only option is to continue the tournament for all the remaining teams and spectators. The advancing teams protesting would not cause a replay, only 2v0 Finals matches which would diminish the event for more participants.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Is that actually in the FTC rules? (FRC rules don't apply to FTC.)

Yes, T1-a

[FTC5110]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

My judgement from the replay:
Most likely Blueabot got its intake caught on the ball or the rolling goal base while attempting to pick up the ball. When Blueabot drove away, this contact on the base or the ball caused the tip. It does not appear to be caused by Blueabot moving their intake upward as OP suggests (would have tipped the opposite way initially if that was the case). Redabot did contact Blueabot during this process so they could have caused Blueabot to become stuck on the goal, and thus cause the tip. Redabot moved away so Blueabot could have tried to lift its intake if it was stuck. I think it is about 75% Blue's fault and 25% Red's Fault so I would call a Blue Major Penalty based on this replay.

Now what did the Refs see?

Probably something close to what the camera man and emcee saw.
http://livestream.com/accounts/13199388/FTC-Edison
Teleop starts around 2:03:00 on the 4/25 stream.

Red clearly not in contact as blue perform risky operation to retrieve ball on the goal base. Emcee says they need to be careful with the goal because it's perched on a ball. Happened just before endgame period.

Oddly the head ref told us he didn't see what happend and yes that's him in the corner at the moment it happened.

[MrRoboSteve]

For those advocating professional-level instant replay, here's a good article on how Major League Baseball implemented their replay system, which is considered to be the state of the art. Now think about how much that cost to implement and operate.

For reference, MLB had about $9 billion in revenues last year, vs FIRST revenues of about $55.5 million. FRC cost about $36 million to operate in 2014; FTC about $3 million.

Two final notes:

many people think of "fraud" as a pretty strong word, particularly in the context of critiquing the actions of one volunteer

future employers often use web searches to find out more about potential employees; it's worth examining posts in that context before pushing the "post" button

[Conor Ryan]

Would would be the ethics of calling this a Arena Fault and replaying? Especially if teams and at least one volunteer agree

[Nemo]

I had a chance to referee an FLL event this year and thought the conferences at the end of the matches were great. The teams and referees go through the scoring chart and verify that it's right at the end of each match. Teams walked away from the matches knowing what deductions were made and what they got credit for, and the students corrected my inevitable mistakes.

I do think it would be worth exploring options for correcting human errors that are bound to occur. I would entertain the option of an FLL style conference at the end of a match to let the teams verify the scoring. That could correct simple numerical errors such as, for example, assigning points to the wrong alliance for end game. Something like that swings a match, and with the current system there's no recourse if mistakes like that happen. It's unnecessary for it to be that way. For some types of errors, it would be an easy discussion and both sides would agree that the points went to the wrong alliance. In some scenarios, I could picture a team clarifying a penalty and admitting that "actually we did XYZ, it wasn't the other alliance." And realistically, sometimes the alliances will disagree and they'll have to just accept what the head referee says like we have now. At least they'd hear the reasoning straight from the ref. "I called a G99 because you did ABC." I'm not proposing a solution to those judgment situations, because human judgment by referees is going to have to take care of those. BUT, I do think a quick conference could help with an error that everybody agrees was an error, and then it can just be resolved quickly and without a bunch of bad feelings.

I am not offering any opinion on whether the scenario in this year's controversial match was an obvious error or not. I am just musing on a process change that I think could help to catch certain human errors and improve the integrity and positive experience of the competition.

It would be a tricky balance, because you'd have some people pushing the limits of grace and professionalism while other people would find a decent balance between competitiveness and respecting the volunteers and the process.

Maybe I'm wrong and this would put undue stress on volunteers. There seems to be an idea that revealing the scoring breakdowns would be bad for volunteers. But I think that would be a welcome bit of transparency, and I think it's unfortunate that currently there's no mechanism for identifying and correcting mistakes that naturally happen occasionally.

[Alan Anderson]

From my perspective, far removed both in space and time from the event, it seems clear to me that replaying the match would have been the wrong thing to do. If the referee did not think that the call was wrong, there was no justification for a replay. Any number of teams wanting a do-over doesn't count. On the other hand, if the referee did agree that the call was wrong, all that needed to be done was to correct the call and adjust the score accordingly.

Asking for the call to be changed based on the collective viewpoints of all the teams seems appropriate. However, if the teams approached the ref with a request for a replay, they were doing the wrong thing.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

From my perspective, far removed both in space and time from the event, it seems clear to me that replaying the match would have been the wrong thing to do. If the referee did not think that the call was wrong, there was no justification for a replay. Any number of teams wanting a do-over doesn't count. On the other hand, if the referee did agree that the call was wrong, all that needed to be done was to correct the call and adjust the score accordingly.

Asking for the call to be changed based on the collective viewpoints of all the teams seems appropriate. However, if the teams approached the ref with a request for a replay, they were doing the wrong thing.

Yes, but going to a team and saying "that call was wrong, we should play again" is a lot more likely to get a favorable reaction than if you were to say "that call was wrong, you guys should have lost".

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Yes, but going to a team and saying "that call was wrong, we should play again" is a lot more likely to get a favorable reaction than if you were to say "that call was wrong, you guys should have lost".

Asking to replay a match based on a disputed call shouldn't get a favorable reaction in any case. The rules do not -- and in my opinion should not -- provide for such a thing. If the referees stand by the call, then accept it and move on. If the call is deemed wrong, a replay is not necessary. Just correct it.