More Scoring Issues...

[Racer26]

Am I the only one who noticed MANY autonomous mis-scores at Waterloo? I watched 1114 get their autonomous overscored several times. Once they were somehow given 3 hurdles in that 15 seconds, giving them 64 points (this one was pointed out by Karthik and corrected, but the others I saw weren't, despite not having an effect on the match's outcome).

I saw one time for sure where they got 5 lines and 1 ball, and were assigned 36 points. To me, 5 lines and 1 ball is (5 lines x 4 pts/line) + (1 ball x 8pts/ball) = 28 pts, perhaps with a 2pt addition for a 'lap'

I'm relatively sure this happened in other matches too, I just happened to be paying particular attention to 1114.

Also, I think the refs were a bit trigger happy with <G22> on a few occasions (calling it when it didn't really happen), and also EXTREMELY trigger happy with <G42>, Hurdler interference. They were calling it if a passing team even so much as brushed a robot in the process of hurdling... but they weren't calling it when we (1075) were being impeded while trying to GET close enough to the overpass. (We're a launcher bot). Which is fine, as I don't think that was the intent, but it was irritating, as we got called on <G42> a couple times, and were never once helped by it.

In my mind, <G42> was intended to stop teams from pushing and shoving and disrupting a hurdlers attempt to hurdle. Brushing into them on the way by didn't disrupt them...

*ducks from flack*

[Grant Cox]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I saw one time for sure where they got 5 lines and 1 ball, and were assigned 36 points. To me, 5 lines and 1 ball is (5 lines x 4 pts/line) + (1 ball x 8pts/ball) = 28 pts, perhaps with a 2pt addition for a 'lap'

Was 1114, by chance, playing with two other robots at the time? Is it possible that those other robots crossed 1 line each?

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Also, I think the refs were a bit trigger happy with <G22> on a few occasions (calling it when it didn't really happen), and also EXTREMELY trigger happy with <G42>, Hurdler interference. They were calling it if a passing team even so much as brushed a robot in the process of hurdling... but they weren't calling it when we (1075) were being impeded while trying to GET close enough to the overpass. (We're a launcher bot). Which is fine, as I don't think that was the intent, but it was irritating, as we got called on <G42> a couple times, and were never once helped by it.

[disclaimer: this is spoken as a driver] At Detroit and St. Louis, we felt that hurdler interference is one of the calls that wasn't really made as much as it should have been. Satisfying the act of HURDLING (ball higher than lane divider OR moving towards overpass with ball), we saw several times where teams would get wrecked and no call was made. We tried our best to discuss it with the head ref after our matches, but often to no avail. At WMR this weekend (and apparently Waterloo as well), we noticed that they were being MUCH more strict on this call. I feel that this is one where it's better to be fairly overzealous in giving the benefit of the doubt to the hurdling team.

[Racer26]

Wait; moving towards the overpass is considered to be in the act of hurdling? Then <G42> should have been called on SO many teams that were blocking us from getting to the overpass.

I'm fairly certain their alliance partners didnt move at all, but at the risk of eating my words, I won't say that didn't happen. I'd rather wait till I can watch their matches again on TBA

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Also, I think the refs were a bit trigger happy with <G22> on a few occasions (calling it when it didn't really happen), and also EXTREMELY trigger happy with <G42>, Hurdler interference. They were calling it if a passing team even so much as brushed a robot in the process of hurdling... but they weren't calling it when we (1075) were being impeded while trying to GET close enough to the overpass. (We're a launcher bot). Which is fine, as I don't think that was the intent, but it was irritating, as we got called on <G42> a couple times, and were never once helped by it.

In my mind, <G42> was intended to stop teams from pushing and shoving and disrupting a hurdlers attempt to hurdle. Brushing into them on the way by didn't disrupt them...

I have to agree with you about <G42>. I was the drive team coach for my team at the Connecticut Regional, so I paid particular attention to our robot. We practiced not breaking <G22> a lot, so we were pretty much ok there. However, we got called on <G42> at least twice that I can rememeber. In both (or all) circumstances, we had just picked up our trackball, and were zooming across the field at high speed to score another hurdle, when we incidentally clipped a corner (just barely) on opposing team's robot who was mid-hurdle, not disturbing their effort to hurdle at all. If your bot is clearly offensive (we had an average of about 5 hurdles per match), and you are in possession of ball, making your way to score... a small amount of contact with another robot, not interfering with them, doesn't deserve a 10-point penalty. It didn't determine any match outcomes for us, but it seems that if they're so adamant on enforcing "the intent" of the rules this year, they would better examine the circumstances. But hey, the refs are human, just like our drivers who misjudged a little bit. Like a lot of people have pointed out, I think we're giving them too much grief. The game is still great, and most of us have said that it hasn't affected our match outcomes, so maybe we should just let it be.

[Jonathan Norris]

I was watched all the Waterloo matches on Friday and Saturday, and I must say the reffing crew did an outstanding job. G22 was laid out clearly to every team (hey Paul even got Karthik to do pushups every time a team got the penalty), there was no reason for teams not to understand the rule and the number of G22 penalties decreased dramatically from Friday morning. Its a tough rule that very easy for any team to break, and the reffs at Waterloo called it accordingly.

On the note of miss-scoring in hybrid mode, every time there was any question with the hybrid score the Head Ref would pause the beginning of teleop period and go over the scores with his line refs. Not to say there wasn't some error involved, but from what I've heard Waterloo was probably one of the fairest reffing jobs to date.

[Karthik]

In reference to the scoring issues with hybrid mode at the Waterloo Regional, yes there were a few instances where alliances had their hybrid scores under or over counted as shown on the real time scoring. But, what was not evident to the audience, was that the ref crew was tracking all hybrid scoring on a pad of paper as well. During the pause between hybrid and tele-operated mode, head ref Manny Ma, would verify all hybrid scores and if need arose changes were made on the scoring computer after the match. So, matches which seemed to be scored incorrectly on the audience display were actually being counted correctly when it came to the official scoring.

I have to agree with Jonathan, I felt the Waterloo Regional was the best reffed event that I've seen either in person or via webcast. The calls were consistent through out the weekend.

[Racer26]

I will agree with you guys there, the field refs were VERY consistent at the Waterloo Regional. The only thing I had a little trouble with was towards the end of Saturday, 188 capped the overpass at the last possible second, the ball settled into the overpass, and their lift (presumably running on pneumatics, or a backwindable motor) slid downwards after the match. I'm not totally certain if it was in contact with the ball at T=0. The refs did NOT score this ball. One or two matches later, 2609 had a similar incident. They capped the ball, and backed up a bit right when the buzzer went (presumably attempting to not lose their ball the same way 188 did), once disabled, their arm collapsed down, and brushed the ball on its way down (the ball was still settling into the overpass, but would have anyway). The refs didn't count this ball either, and I feel they should have, as 2609 was NOT in contact with the ball at T=0, but rather came into contact with it AFTER T=0.

EDIT: Also, the queuing crew were not quite so consistent. On Thursday, they told us that they didn't like how big our cart was (for anyone who was their, they can attest that our powered forklift cart WAS a little on the big side, but still totally reasonable in comparison to some of the stuff I've seen at a FIRST event, never mind that it was designed with the utmost of ergonomics and safety in mind, as noted by the Safety Advisors). They did however say that as long as we didn't drive it up alongside the field, and that we were quick with it and didn't get in the way, that it would be fine. Then late on Friday, they flipflopped, again saying that they didn't want it there. After much complaining from our lead mentor (who on numerous occasions has hurt his back lifting our robot onto the field, yielding the forklift design of our cart), they watched us very carefully the next few times we brought it in, and eventually said it would be ok again.

[SU 39]

Originally Posted by GeeForce

Was 1114, by chance, playing with two other robots at the time? Is it possible that those other robots crossed 1 line each?


[disclaimer: this is spoken as a driver] At Detroit and St. Louis, we felt that hurdler interference is one of the calls that wasn't really made as much as it should have been. Satisfying the act of HURDLING (ball higher than lane divider OR moving towards overpass with ball), we saw several times where teams would get wrecked and no call was made. We tried our best to discuss it with the head ref after our matches, but often to no avail. At WMR this weekend (and apparently Waterloo as well), we noticed that they were being MUCH more strict on this call. I feel that this is one where it's better to be fairly overzealous in giving the benefit of the doubt to the hurdling team.

As a driver, I noticed many instances where <G42> should have been called but wasn't, and times when it really didn't matter and it was called.
Example: I was standing in the on-deck watching, and calling out penalties to the rest of my drive team and watching timid refs. But that's another subject and can go under "Referee inconsistencies" or whatever.
Example 2: We got a hurdler interference with less than 3 seconds left for bumping into a robot that was JUST starting to raise its lift. The part I had a problem with was that the other 4 robots happened to be blocking the entire track in front of both of us, and theres NO WAY that robot could have hurdled from its position (near its own driver station wall).

And back on topic about scoring problems...I think they're usually fixed when they are brought to the attention of the head ref/scorekeepers. I know one of the matches Friday morning at SVR was scoring lines with only 1 point each. Someone pointed out how they had an odd score and they quickly changed it back even though it didn't affect the final outcome.

[EricH]

I saw a few issues with <G42> at L.A. (not called), but it didn't matter. The funny one was when a team had an obvious <G22> (over the overpass from the other side) and it wasn't called. They got possession of an opponent's trackball instead (which was also a valid penalty in that case). I don't really have any issues with the L.A. scoring/penalties because the ones I saw that were missed wouldn't have changed the outcome.

<G42> is a very subjectively called rule.

[MannyMa]

Originally Posted by Karthik

In reference to the scoring issues with hybrid mode at the Waterloo Regional, yes there were a few instances where alliances had their hybrid scores under or over counted as shown on the real time scoring. But, what was not evident to the audience, was that the ref crew was tracking all hybrid scoring on a pad of paper as well. During the pause between hybrid and tele-operated mode, head ref Manny Ma, would verify all hybrid scores and if need arose changes were made on the scoring computer after the match. So, matches which seemed to be scored incorrectly on the audience display were actually being counted correctly when it came to the official scoring.

I have to agree with Jonathan, I felt the Waterloo Regional was the best reffed event that I've seen either in person or via webcast. The calls were consistent through out the weekend.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

TO the rule about hurdling penalties.
It seems that the refs are not calling this penalty when there is 20 sec. left and it is endgame, Especially at FLR. From what ive seen on podcasts it looks the same way. I dont know if they consider it a defensive maneuver to stop a player from placing, and not hurdling?

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by 65_Xero_Huskie

TO the rule about hurdling penalties.
It seems that the refs are not calling this penalty when there is 20 sec. left and it is endgame, Especially at FLR. From what ive seen on podcasts it looks the same way. I dont know if they consider it a defensive maneuver to stop a player from placing, and not hurdling?

You can only be Hurdling in your own Home Stretch. If you are trying to place the Trackball on the opposite Overpass, you have no protection.

[danshaffer]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

You can only be Hurdling in your own Home Stretch. If you are trying to place the Trackball on the opposite Overpass, you have no protection.

But besides that distinction, there is no difference (in the eyes of the rules) between hurdling and placing from your own homestretch, and you can get dinged for impeding a place. Ref teams not calling it this way would not be consistent with the rules: if a robot meets any of the conditions laid out in <G42>, they have protection, even if they do not intend to hurdle (or it would not be feasible/possible for them to hurdle, like if the entire track was blocked)

[Bochek]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

EDIT: Also, the queuing crew were not quite so consistent. On Thursday, they told us that they didn't like how big our cart was (for anyone who was their, they can attest that our powered forklift cart WAS a little on the big side, but still totally reasonable in comparison to some of the stuff I've seen at a FIRST event, never mind that it was designed with the utmost of ergonomics and safety in mind, as noted by the Safety Advisors). They did however say that as long as we didn't drive it up alongside the field, and that we were quick with it and didn't get in the way, that it would be fine. Then late on Friday, they flipflopped, again saying that they didn't want it there. After much complaining from our lead mentor (who on numerous occasions has hurt his back lifting our robot onto the field, yielding the forklift design of our cart), they watched us very carefully the next few times we brought it in, and eventually said it would be ok again.

I agree, well allmost, The people who where queuing us (waiting to play) where very nice and orginized.

On the other hand, the lady who was trying to get robots off the field, was quite the opposite, We had the smallest car there. and we where constantly being yelled at, not told, to move hurry up and leave, she didn't even want us to remove our flag from the bot before leaving. If we where any longer then about a full 5 seconds i would get an earful every single time. I found her to be quite rude.

Besides that, that was a perfectly ran event, everything was planned spot on and it ran like clockwork.

- Bochek

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by danshaffer

there is no difference (in the eyes of the rules) between hurdling and placing from your own homestretch

Exactly right. It's a little unintuitive, but HURDLING doesn't mean that you are in the act of completing a hurdle... it has a very specific definition given at the start of section 7 of the manual.