Extreme disappointment Philadelphia edition

[abeD]

Just to add from what I had seen at UCF. At UCF no robots were DQ'd for tipping. But there were several occasions where there were low frame to frame pushing that resulted in tipping with no penalites or DQ's (I think UCF was also before the update with the aggresive penalty).

[sw293]

The most pitiful thing about this call is it seems that nobody knows for sure what it was for. Some seem to think it was intentional tipping, others say it was hitting high, and yet others believe it was for "excessive rough play."

I was the 293-358-834 alliance captain, and you better believe that when I went to express my displeasure to the head ref I asked what the call was for. He told me it was on 358 for intentionally tipping 56. When we talk about "excessive rough play," we are referring to the act of tipping 56 over. There was NO high hitting going on. If you think there was, you should disabuse yourself of that notion.

Do you all know why we are having a dispute over what the call was for? Because the head ref did not do a very good job explaining his decisions. If you went out to ask him to explain his interpretation of the rules, he conveyed an attitude of displeasure and impatience. When you did get an explanation out of him, it usually didn't make sense. You left with more questions than you had answers.

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by sw293

The most pitiful thing about this call is it seems that nobody knows for sure what it was for. Some seem to think it was intentional tipping, others say it was hitting high, and yet others believe it was for "excessive rough play."

I was the 293-358-834 alliance captain, and you better believe that when I went to express my displeasure to the head ref I asked what the call was for. He told me it was on 358 for intentionally tipping 56. When we talk about "excessive rough play," we are referring to the act of tipping 56 over. There was NO high hitting going on. If you think there was, you should disabuse yourself of that notion.

Do you all know why we are having a dispute over what the call was for? Because the head ref did not do a very good job explaining his decisions. If you went out to ask him to explain his interpretation of the rules, he conveyed an attitude of displeasure and impatience. When you did get an explanation out of him, it usually didn't make sense. You left with more questions than you had answers.

Well, if I was head ref, I wouldn't want to have a person like you screaming into my face demanding an outlined explanation of the call. Standing on your feet for 3 straight days of screaming in your face and with only minimal breaks for any food or water. By the end of that last day, I'm sure the ref would be cranky. It says in the rule book that aggressive play is judgemental and determined by the refs, and thats what they apparently made the call on.

Chill out.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by David Kelly

Well, if I was head ref, I wouldn't want to have a person like you screaming into my face demanding an outlined explanation of the call. Standing on your feet for 3 straight days of screaming in your face and with only minimal breaks for any food or water. By the end of that last day, I'm sure the ref would be cranky. It says in the rule book that aggressive play is judgemental and determined by the refs, and thats what they apparently made the call on.

Chill out.

I'm glad you were there and saw this happen because my impression from sw's posts was that he told the ref he thought it was a bad call and asked for an explaination. I assumed that he did so in a reasonable manner, but apparently he was actually screaming at the refs, which is definitely a bad thing to do. Thanks for clearing up my obvious misconception.

That aside, I think teams do deserve good explainations of their violations. A head ref should be more than willing to tell a team very clearly what rule they violated and why it was called this way. It should already be clear in their minds if they're making the call anyways, and they should be more than willing to let a team know why they were penalized so they can avoid it in the future.

[sw293]

Originally Posted by David Kelly

Well, if I was head ref, I wouldn't want to have a person like you screaming into my face demanding an outlined explanation of the call. Standing on your feet for 3 straight days of screaming in your face and with only minimal breaks for any food or water. By the end of that last day, I'm sure the ref would be cranky. It says in the rule book that aggressive play is judgemental and determined by the refs, and thats what they apparently made the call on.

Chill out.

This comment is utterly inappropriate. I did not scream in his face. I asked him for an explanation and registered my objections to the call in an appropriate tone of voice. Please stop making assumptions about a regional that you didn't even attend.

[meaubry]

Sporticus99,
Nice post documenting the rationale. Thanks for posting and even more thanks for volunteering for a difficult job.

David and SW293,
Let's not allow your opinions and thoughts relative to this thread turn into a personal vendetta.

Based on the posts by team 358 in response to the actions on the field in Philly, I would hope thatthe discussion could begin to settle down a bit.

By the way, sw293 - Being that you are from one of the teams involved I sympathize with you, but - just because the drivers didn't see that they were under the opponent doesn't relinguish them from wrong doing. It is just as easy, when unsure or in doubt, to back away. Continuing to push puts them at risk - no matter what. The drivers may not have realized that they were underthem until it was too late to do anything about it - or maybe, when realizing that they were tipping them over they could have stopped or backed off.

[Mark McLeod]

I need to come to the defense of the head referee at Philly.

While I have no insight into the interaction between either of the alliance captains and the referee on the field, I must say the referee was concerned enough to seek me out in the pits during closing ceremonies to explain the decision of the referee staff. He was also looking for 293 and 834, but they were all already in the stands and I don’t know if he was able to talk directly with them. While we may not agree with his interpretation of the defensive play between 358 and 56, I do respect him for the responsibility he obviously feels, and has undertaken, to make and seek us out to explain such a very tough decision. He made an honest attempt to keep the event safe and the play fair. He and the other referees could not be everywhere or see everything at once, but they made great efforts to do so.

Since I was talking to the head referee in the pits when my team was called up as finalists, I unfortunately missed shaking the hand of each of the referees who worked so hard throughout this event, but I did get to thank the head referee for making this event possible.

[DarkJedi613]

I agree, the referees made the call they believe should have been made, which is at their discretion. But it just seems as though they did not want to explain it or anything - afterall they never even came over to talk to our alliance about it (and since we couldn't hear the announcer) we (as in the drivers/coaches/human players) didn't know why it said 69 - 10 = 0.

By the way - no one yelled at the head ref, we didn't have a chance to talk to him until after the next match I believe. Please try to understand where we're coming from and not "bash" one another. We're not complaining, at least not intentionally, its just that we're disappointed in what happened and wished we could have gone to a third match.

Also - the way the call was explained to one of our mentors was as "uncalled for intentional agression" or something along those lines. Which I disagree with, but it is at the referees discretion, so be it.

[MOEmaniac]

358 my opinion hasn't changed of you, I still think you're a top notch team. I remember looking over at your pit and seeing your two blue banners and thinking to myself "Now thats what I call an extrodenary team." An accident like that can happen to anyone, especially since your bot was on the other end of the field and you had the goals blocking your view.

[sporticus99]

I was the head ref at the Philadelphia Regional and ultimately it was my decision to DQ 358 in match 1 of the final. I care for the feelings of the kids on 293, 358, and 834, and the intention of this posting is to provide them with a detailed explanation of why I made the call. This is the only posting that I will make regarding the Philly final. I will not respond to questions and I do not want to review any video that you may have.

First, I didn't see the sequence of collisions myself. It was a big field with many moving parts and I was unfortunately watching another part of the field. The sequence of collisions happened on the opposite side of the field from my perspective and 3 of my refs had good views. The sequence of collisions happened early on in the match. When I saw 56 laying on the carpet, I knew I was in a tough spot.

I had 3 choices. Choice 1 was to make no call, which would likely have caused team 56 and their alliance partners to question why there was no call. Choice 2 was to issue a minor 10-point penalty for ramming/tipping/rough-play (Rule G25 was updated to give me the 10-point minor penalty option). Choice 3 was to DQ 358 and award the match to 56 and their alliance partners. Rather than making a rushed decision, I let the match continue. Issuing a DQ in the final means awarding the match to the opposing alliance and the call had to be right.

After the match, we scored the tetras and had a lengthy discussion in the middle of the field. 3 of my refs gave me the same consistent story. In summary, 358 and 56 had a collision and bounced off each other. Right after the collision, 56 made a turn and 358 drove forward again. 358 had a very low front and got underneath 56. 358 continued to push forward and flipped 56.

Several factors went into the decision.
1) The collision happened early on in the match. 56 was effectively disabled for more than half the match. This ruled out the minor 10-point penalty.
2) After the first impact, 56 actually made a turn and this led me to believe that 56 wanted to get away. This was really a very minor factor.
3) After the first impact, 358 drove forward immediately. This led me to believe that the drivers of 358 had the intention of hitting 56. The intention of hitting 56 by itself is entirely OK. I honestly believe that the drivers of 358 wanted to hit 56 low and push.
4) 358 got underneath 56 and continued forward to flip 56. From the 358 drivers' perspective, they could not have seen that their robot had gotten underneath 56. They very likely thought they were just pushing low. My refs along the sideline had the perfect side view. This is a key difference in perspective that I hope you could all appreciate.

In summary, 358 had the intention to hit 56, (albeit accidentally) got underneath the side of 56 with a low front, and continued forward to flip 56 during the early part of a match. It was a tough call to DQ 358.

One of my refs kept a list of trouble-making robots and 358 was not on the list. 358 played clean the whole weekend and it was really unfortunate that an accident had to happen in the final. In real life, when accidents happen, usually multiple sides suffer. In this particular case, team 358 and their alliance partners suffered the brunt of the accident. In a way, the refs also suffered as we were forced into make a tough judgement call in the final. To be honest, I would much rather see a clean match.

As Mark McLeod (coach of 358) alluded to in posting #20, I made an attempt to speak with 293 and 834, but they were not in the pit area when I was able to free myself from my duties.

To the kids on the 293, 358, and 834, I sincerely hope that you can hold your heads high and continue your great interests in science and engineering. Don't let a tough call ruin your season. You should be proud of yourselves for building capable robots. Good luck to you all.

Philly Regional Head Ref


================================================== ====
PS:-I would appreciate it greatly if you could help distribute this to the kids on the losing alliance. I strongly feel that they deserve a detailed explanation from me. Thanks.

[DarkJedi613]

Thank you for taking the time to explain everything to us. I'll make sure that its distributed to the members of team 358. Sorry if anything degraded to the referees was said in the thread, we all know you try your hardest, its just very hard to lose in that way.

Can I make a suggestion, however, in the future can you please explain to the alliance why they were DQed between the matches, because honestly - we didn't know what was going on. I realize it would have held up the matches more, but it was already held up for a while and I think it would have alleviated a lot of the tension. Thank you.

[Scott358]

Philly Head Ref,

Thank you for taking the time to post an explanation, which obviously you were not obligated to do. Overall, you and your team did a great job.

Even though I disagree with a few details of how things are recalled in your message about match 1 of the finals, and the call itself, it is obviously your responsibility to make the call and you made it the best you could with the information you had. We must respect that and move on from here, teaching the kids how to deal with such a situation in as positive and constructive a manner as possible.

I do hope that FIRST reviews this rule, and makes it less vague for the Nationals, as it appears as though this specific rule has caused many issues in other regionals, and has been interpreted differently from regional to regional. The rule as currently written puts good people like yourself in a difficult situation... to seemingly try to judge intent, take into account when something happened, estimate how it impacted the outcome, and to pick from extremes (10 points penalty or complete disqualification).

Again, thank you and your team for all your hard work and commitment to this wonderful program.

Scott358
Engineer/Mentor
Festo Hauppauge Robotic Eagles
2005 Philly Regional Finalist
2005 LI Regional Chairman's Award
2005 LI Regional Champions (thanks team 527 and 870)

[sw293]

Originally Posted by sporticus99

After the match, we scored the tetras and had a lengthy discussion in the middle of the field. 3 of my refs gave me the same consistent story. In summary, 358 and 56 had a collision and bounced off each other. Right after the collision, 56 made a turn and 358 drove forward again. 358 had a very low front and got underneath 56. 358 continued to push forward and flipped 56.

Several factors went into the decision.
1) The collision happened early on in the match. 56 was effectively disabled for more than half the match. This ruled out the minor 10-point penalty.
2) After the first impact, 56 actually made a turn and this led me to believe that 56 wanted to get away. This was really a very minor factor.
3) After the first impact, 358 drove forward immediately. This led me to believe that the drivers of 358 had the intention of hitting 56. The intention of hitting 56 by itself is entirely OK. I honestly believe that the drivers of 358 wanted to hit 56 low and push.
4) 358 got underneath 56 and continued forward to flip 56. From the 358 drivers' perspective, they could not have seen that their robot had gotten underneath 56. They very likely thought they were just pushing low. My refs along the sideline had the perfect side view. This is a key difference in perspective that I hope you could all appreciate.

In summary, 358 had the intention to hit 56, (albeit accidentally) got underneath the side of 56 with a low front, and continued forward to flip 56 during the early part of a match. It was a tough call to DQ 358.

One of my refs kept a list of trouble-making robots and 358 was not on the list. 358 played clean the whole weekend and it was really unfortunate that an accident had to happen in the final.

I appreciate this explanation and I rescind my earlier comment criticizing you for insufficiently explaining the call. I hope you don't hold it against me for requesting an explanation for and presenting my objections to the call during the finals at the regional. Now for my rebuttal.

The intent of 358 was to push 56 low. The drivers of 358 could not have seen that they were underneath 56, so the fact that they continued driving forward should not be held against them. They believed they were still pushing legally. The tipping was entirely "incidental" (I remember you using that word earlier to justify a no call) and "accidental" (your word again, see above). If it was an accident which occured during normal game play then there is no grounds for disqualification!

When I first approached you regarding this call, you told me it was for intetional tipping. Then I brought to your attention the fact that there was no way 358 could have seen that they were getting under 56. Did you consider this possibility in your deliberations before disqualifying our alliance? Probably not, because if you did, then you would not have referred to the tipping as intentional. But even if I could give a good argument as to why you shouldn't make the call, your call was final, as it should be. I had no recourse of appeal, and I shouldn't.

That leads me to my key point, that referees should practice restraint in making these calls that reverse the result of matches. Referees should not decide who wins matches by their discretion, the matches should be decided on the playing field. By imposing yourself in such a manner, you can do a lot more harm than good. That is why referees must always start with the assumption that a play is clean (Hence you cannot make a call on a play you didn't see). Referees are human, they make mistakes, and I accept that. But I'd like to conclude by offering you a nugget of wisdom courtesy of my AP US History teacher: "Errors of commission are greater than errors of omission."

[sw293]

Originally Posted by sporticus99

4) 358 got underneath 56 and continued forward to flip 56. From the 358 drivers' perspective, they could not have seen that their robot had gotten underneath 56. They very likely thought they were just pushing low. My refs along the sideline had the perfect side view. This is a key difference in perspective that I hope you could all appreciate.

Are you asking us to be understanding about the fact that the referees have a much better view of the field than the players? That is something I would expect. You wouldn't be doing your job if you guys as a group didn't have a better view of the events than the individual operators on each team did. We don't just appreciate the difference in perspective, we expect it.

As far as appreciating the difference in perspective, the refs are the ones ought to appreciate the difference in perspective. They ought to understand that 358 could not see that they were tipping over 56 in the process of normal game play. They also ought to consider this in their deliberations.

Rest assured I hold no animosity toward you. I simply feel you made a mistake, something every human is guilty of. Would that I never made mistakes! You are well within your rights to disagree with my analysis of the situation and I am glad that you shared you opposing point of view. The fact that I have a forum to present my objections to your call and you have a forum to explain it is a tribute to this website.

[AIBob]

Originally Posted by Kyle

You are not just half the team we are, you are right with us, I can only think of 2 teams that won a Regional and a Chairmans at the same event this year, 358 and 365.
The best of luck to your amazing team and I can't wait to see you guys at Nats.

Here is a list of teams that won and got chairmans at the same regional:
Midwest Regional: 111
Colorado Regional: 233, also 233: Florida Winners
Long Island Regional: 358
Philadelphia Regional: 365