Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?

[rourke]

Sadly, I concur with Karthik’s fact statements, having witnessed the match at field-side, then later watching the videos, and all-the-while feeling uncomfortable with Team 48’s pre-championship claims on defensive manoeuvres – particularly using 1114 as an example.

However, what is done is done. FIRST is a microcosm of the real world. And this is just another example of what happens in the real world. Every day we read about things that don’t seem fair. Every day we see companies and governments that take action or make decisions that unfairly impact others – whether it is trade practices, employment equity, currency manipulation, or judgement errors.

In great companies, leaders take accountability for the actions of their team. In similar situations, leaders resign from key posts as a sign that they accept responsibility. I respectfully request that the leadership of Team 48 assess the role of the coach to determine if it is appropriate for him to continue in his role.

- Steve

[MasterChief1732]

I dont know what the specific rule is but you will notice that each time 48 backed up from the rack 1114 went with them. Therefore its just like two robots pushing eachother in the middle of the field. The timing for each pin was more like 7-8 seconds and that means that they did not need to move back three feet for three seconds, its only when its for 10 seconds. This could be due to certain refs. Example: when a robot gets pinned for 5 seconds and the robot doing the pinning backs away the refs usually stop the count and begin a new one if they pin them again.

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by MasterChief1732

I dont know what the specific rule is but you will notice that each time 48 backed up from the rack 1114 went with them. Therefore its just like two robots pushing eachother in the middle of the field. The timing for each pin was more like 7-8 seconds and that means that they did not need to move back three feet for three seconds, its only when its for 10 seconds. This could be due to certain refs. Example: when a robot gets pinned for 5 seconds and the robot doing the pinning backs away the refs usually stop the count and begin a new one if they pin them again.

The rule actually states that the robot that is doing the pinning has to back off 3 feet for 3 seconds before it can go back to pinning.

[KTorak]

Disclaimer: I was not at the event, I only saw video of the said action and I am going solely based off the rules. ALSO, I cannot tell who was on which side of the field. If 48 was performing defense on the opposing alliances side of the field, seeing and/or maneuvering may have been very difficult through the rack and with the intense game play.

First, as of approx. 1:09 on the google video here, 1114 appears to be attempting to hang a game piece.

My first Rule to point out is G39, which states:

<G39> Pinning - While on the carpeted field surface, a ROBOT cannot pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border) for more than 10 seconds. If a ROBOT has been pinned for 10 seconds, the TEAM with the pinning ROBOT will be told by a referee to release the pinned ROBOT and back away approximately 3 feet for a minimum of 3 seconds. Once the pinning ROBOT has backed off by at least 3 feet for 3
seconds, it may again attempt to pin its opponent, and if successful, the 10 second countwill start over. If a referee determines that this rule has been violated, a 10-point penalty will be assessed for each violation. Note that a ROBOT attempting to HANG a GAME PIECE on the RACK will be immune from a "pinning" violation as long as it is clear that the ROBOT is continuing to attempt to HANG the GAME PIECE.

From G39, we can conclude that as it appears, 1114 was attempting to score a game piece and therefore, immune from the pinning rule. IF 1114 would have dropped the game piece and stopped attempting to score, they would have been subject to the normal 10 second pinning rule.

Also, let me point out a another rule. Rule G35 states:

<G35> Intentional ROBOT - ROBOT interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. In all cases involving robot-to-robot contact, the head referee may assess a 10-point penalty and/or the ROBOT may be disqualified. However, Rack 'n' Roll is a highly interactive game, and some appropriate contact is allowed
under the following guidelines:  Any contact within the BUMPER ZONE is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed, long distance ramming. If TEAMS choose not to use bumpers, and their ROBOT contacts another ROBOT such that simultaneous contact occurs both in and out of the BUMPER ZONE, then this contact is considered within the BUMPER ZONE.

While we do not know 48's intentions, the contact was in the bumper zone AND was not ramming, therfore the contact was legal. However, if they clearly demonstrated that their strategy was to disable 1114 (such as high speed ramming and contact OUTSIDE the bumper zone), they would have at least a 10 point penalty assessed, and possibly a DQ.

To prevent a conversation style post, i'm gonna edit this one.

Originally Posted by rourke

Someone may beat me to this post, but you've misinterpreted the rule here. It means that if 1114 was trying to place a ringer, it could not be called for pinning 48 in the course of that action. Not the other way around.

Is there any FIRST clarification on this rule? From what I have seen, the rule has seemed to apply to a robot pinning a robot this is attempting to score. Not a robot that is attempting to score pinning a defensive robot.

[rourke]

From G39, we can conclude that as it appears, 1114 was attempting to score a game piece and therefore, immune from the pinning rule.

Someone may beat me to this post, but you've misinterpreted the rule here. It means that if 1114 was trying to place a ringer, it could not be called for pinning 48 in the course of that action. Not the other way around. 48 was clearly not trying to score a ringer at the time.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by rourke

Someone may beat me to this post, but you've misinterpreted the rule here. It means that if 1114 was trying to place a ringer, it could not be called for pinning 48 in the course of that action. Not the other way around. 48 was clearly not trying to score a ringer at the time.

Steve is 100% correct. If we were ever between the rack and 1114 as they were trying to score, they could pin us there until doomsday if they wanted to.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Originally Posted by MasterChief1732

If you watch the robots carefully, 1114 was never pinned against the rack for 30 seconds. Team 48 backed off every once in a while and towards the end 1114 was sideways against the rack and could have driven away. It is unfortunate that thier arm came off and there was a scoring problem, but what happened cannot be changed.

By the original wording of the rules, you are (partially) correct; any small amount of backing off before the 10-second mark ended the count. (I've called it that way myself, however much I didn't like it.) However, at the drivers' meeting on Thursday, it was stated that the pinning count would not stop until the pinning robot had backed off a full 3 feet for a full 3 seconds, which I'm quite sure was not the case. Also, the orientation of the robot is immaterial; pinning a robot sideways is still pinning, which is defined as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border".

Originally Posted by MasterChief1732

The result of this match should not end in ill feelings towards other teams since we all know this is just a game and there is always next year.

"It's just a game" is not a catch-all excuse for inappropriate (and here I am wording myself very carefully) behaviour. And while we will most certainly be back in full force next year, that's no reason that we should be denied a fair chance at the big prize (well, second biggest prize) this year.

[MasterChief1732]

Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie

By the original wording of the rules, you are (partially) correct; any small amount of backing off before the 10-second mark ended the count. (I've called it that way myself, however much I didn't like it.) However, at the drivers' meeting on Thursday, it was stated that the pinning count would not stop until the pinning robot had backed off a full 3 feet for a full 3 seconds, which I'm quite sure was not the case. Also, the orientation of the robot is immaterial; pinning a robot sideways is still pinning, which is defined as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border".

Even though they did not back up for the required amout of time 1114 moved with 48's robot and during that amount of time there was free movement of both robots, therefore the count ended after each backup of team 48. If 1114 stayed where they were the case would be different, but since they moved with 48 away from the rack I think they had the freedom of movement.

[shamuwong]

As a former driver myself, I can understand how 48's drivers continued to plow into 1114 until the arm broke off. The rack is rather hard to see through, especially with the ringers that were put on. I will not agree or disagree with any of Karthik's points, as I did not witness some of them myself. I was, however, standing right by the field, as part of the pit crew.

The greatest disappointment to me, however, was the incosistent or lack of refereeing on the Curie field. The 10 point penalty for aggressive play by 48 was only called after many complaints to the head referee, who blamed 1114's arm breaking on "poor design". And in the middle of our talking with the head referee, she left in order to ref the next match, effectively making any chance of a replay or change in the outcome impossible.

Say what you want about referees. Sure, they're volunteers. They can make mistakes. But every team that goes to nationals pays several thousand dollars on the robot itself, transportation, and entry fees, and countless hours of work and practice to get to Atlanta. To have it all squandered because of volunteers who don't know the rules and make inconsistent calls is absolutely ridiculous. I can appreciate their volunteering and all, but that doesn't make our complaints invalid. And then, to have the audacity of blaming the design of a robot in order to cover up for the fact that the head ref wasn't doing her job? I was stunned.

I have witnessed this too many times in Atlanta. In 2005, one of the volunteers working the autoloader stared at the field while one of our alliance partners waited for 20 seconds for them to load it. We were told to deal with it. In 2006, all three of the opposing alliance robots crossed the line to play defense, and no call was made. And now, this year, ringers weren't counted and destruction of robots was dealt with by a slap on the wrist, only after several complaints. It's no longer fun. It's just disappointing.

[Vogel648]

It was a design flaw, not saying that the ramming was legal or anything like that, but it was a design flaw. Honestly, your arm should be able to hold up to the point where you tip over or be designed to fail in a way that is simple to repair(such as: shear pins).

[Vogel648]

Also, I believe rourke is correct, let us parse the wording.

Note that a ROBOT attempting to HANG a GAME PIECE on the RACK will be immune from a "pinning" violation as long as it is clear that the ROBOT is continuing to attempt to HANG the GAME PIECE.

Note that the Robot is attempting to hang a game peice. They are "immune" to a pinning violation. I assume that immune means that they will not be called on them. The robot being discribed is clearly the one scoring as the last one states that it is as long as it is continuing to attempt to hang.

[KTorak]

Originally Posted by Vogel648

Also, I believe rourke is correct, let us parse the wording.

Note that a ROBOT attempting to HANG a GAME PIECE on the RACK will be immune from a "pinning" violation as long as it is clear that the ROBOT is continuing to attempt to HANG the GAME PIECE.

Note that the Robot is attempting to hang a game peice. They are "immune" to a pinning violation. I assume that immune means that they will not be called on them. The robot being discribed is clearly the one scoring as the last one states that it is as long as it is continuing to attempt to hang.

I'm going to justify my belief by challenging the wording. When the GDC uses the term violation, it does not appear to mean penalty to me. Had they said the team hanging a game piece would be immune from the pinning penalty, i'd follow what is being said 100%. However, the choice of violation makes it seem like a team committing the pinning against them would be immune as well, or simply no action would be taken for robot-to-robot contact.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by KTorak

I'm going to justify my belief by challenging the wording. When the GDC uses the term violation, it does not appear to mean penalty to me. Had they said the team hanging a game piece would be immune from the pinning penalty, i'd follow what is being said 100%. However, the choice of violation makes it seem like a team committing the pinning against them would be immune as well, or simply no action would be taken for robot-to-robot contact.

This was clarified in a team update, Q&A and the driver's meeting. It was made very clear that it was legal for a team to pin somone while scoring. It did not mean that a scoring team is allowed to be pinned. But I do agree, this was not very clear in the initial version of the rules.

[Jonathan Norris]

Originally Posted by KTorak

I'm going to justify my belief by challenging the wording. When the GDC uses the term violation, it does not appear to mean penalty to me. Had they said the team hanging a game piece would be immune from the pinning penalty, i'd follow what is being said 100%. However, the choice of violation makes it seem like a team committing the pinning against them would be immune as well, or simply no action would be taken for robot-to-robot contact.

This was discussed heavily at the beginning of the season, and i believe the GDC has addressed this wording many times in their forum. This rule is not up for questioning, sure it is not worded properly but the understanding by most (if not all) is that this applies to the offensive team attempting to score.

[KTorak]

Thanks for the clarification on that rule. I'm assuming the discussion occurred at the ATL drivers meeting, in which I was not in attendance because 1023 failed to qualify for the event. However, I am surprised that I missed that GDC update/ruling. Does anyone care to point me in the direction on where it was clarified? I can't believe I went off my own judgment all season without an issue (though 1023 RARELY plays defense).