2010 NASA/VCU regional!!!

[RKElectricalman]

Ah! I'm so excited for this weekend! What makes it even better is that I'm on spring break, so there's no feeling guilty for coming to the competition this year!

VCU is going to be way fun this year with all these teams coming from everywhere, and many already having experienced a competition or two. I feel one of the most competitive Virginia Regionals in a while, and I truly do believe in the feeling.

This year, our week three regional should be fun to watch, amazing to compete in and a bliss to experience!

... Just a few more days...

[delsaner]

Originally Posted by RKElectricalman

... Just a few more days...

1676 is leaving in an hour or two, to head down to VA.

[chris31]

Is there a webcast for this regional? According to this there isnt but I would like to watch the matches as I wont be at Richmond until Saturday.

[Mike o.]

Typically there is. The best thing would be to check back later today or early tomorrow. They usually don't have any video taping on practice day. Jeff Seaton (MC for the Regional) usually brings his equipment and sets it up on practice day too.

[Wetzel]

Webcast started midday today, and will be running Friday and Saturday. http://robotics.nasa.gov/ for details.


Wetzel

[1522_Kira]

Team 1522 will be attending once again this year!
Good Luck to all of the teams! And see you there. :3

[Ken Streeter]

I just happened to tune in to the webcast of the NASA/VCU regional. I was astonished by two of the penalties called in the first match (#21) which I watched.

1 - The blue alliance racked up 39 points in "DOGMA" penalties, because one of the balls that they returned to the field near the beginning of the match went over the "ball return counter", resulting in DOGMA penalties accruing every 2 seconds for the remainder of the match! This doesn't seem right to me. I could see 1 penalty point being assessed, but to continually assess a penalty every 2 seconds for the remainder of the match defies common sense, especially since the ball was returned to the field. My reading of <G17> is that the penalty is for balls that are not returned. Arguably, this ball was returned to the field (on time even), but simply missed the ball return counter. For 39 points of penalties to accrue from a single violation is clearly not the GDC's intent. Furthermore, once the team realizes this has occurred, they have absolutely no way to remedy the situation for entire remainder of the match! This basically means that if the human player with the trident makes a simple mistake at the beginning of the match, the unavoidable conclusion (even if they could manage to score 30+ points) is that they lose the match.

2 - One of the blue alliance robots (I think it was 1655) was also given a red card (disqualified for the match) due to being the second robot to enter the opponent's zone (the red zone) and failing to immediately remedy the problem. (See G29.) It turns out that the webcast was on the robot at the time the violation occurred, and the robot tipped over while it was crossing the bump to enter the red zone! Thus, since the robot tipped over as it entered the red zone, it had no way to remedy the problem. Again, I think a single penalty would have been appropriate, but to issue a red card for this violation, while strictly within the letter of the rules, is clearly not the intent of those rules.

This year, I had been extremely impressed by the discretion exercised by the referee crew at the Week 1 BAE Systems NH Granite State Regional (GSR) -- the referees exercised common sense with regard to issuing penalties, rather than simply following the letter of the rules for situations where common sense and gracious professionalism would indicate a different outcome. For example, at GSR, the referees clearly enforced rule G46 (Ball Penetration Restriction) with the intent that was later codified by the team update after week 1 by not penalizing "incidental protusions of the ball within" the frame perimeter when the offending robot immediately attempted to rectify the situation, or if the problem occurred as a result of robot-to-robot contact (for example, when two robots get into a pushing match with a ball in between and one of the robots ends up with a ball under the robot.)

Similarly, at the NH Granite State Regional our team accidentally drove up on top of a ball during QF1-1 when we used our robot to right an opponent's robot that tipped over during a pushing contest with our robot. We were pleased to see that the referees at GSR used their understanding of gracious professionalism to not issue a penalty to our team for this incidental (and accidental) driving up on top of a ball while we were clearly assisting an opponent robot, even in the midst of an elimination match!

My initial impression of the Virginia regional is that the referees are enforcing a much stricter (absolutely literal) interpretation of the rules. I don't think this strictly literal interpretation of the rules is in the best interest of the game, or of FIRST.

Have others that have watched more of the webcast or are actually at the regional have a perspective on whether the referees are utilizing a strictly literal interpretation of the rules, or are they exercising their discretion for common sense and gracious professionalism?

[Jared Russell]

Who is the head ref at VCU?

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

My initial impression of the Virginia regional is that the referees are enforcing a much stricter (absolutely literal) interpretation of the rules. I don't think this strictly literal interpretation of the rules is in the best interest of the game, or of FIRST.

Have others that have watched more of the webcast or are actually at the regional have a perspective on whether the referees are utilizing a strictly literal interpretation of the rules, or are they exercising their discretion for common sense and gracious professionalism?

To be fair, why should we not play by the rules, particularly in the 2nd scenario you're describing? In other words, how is it in FIRST's best interest to not play by the rules they set?

The first scenario sounds like it's unprecedented (how can you even return a ball without putting it through the cyllinder?) and thus the referee would rather error on the side of literal rather than subjective. If anything, the head ref may receive clarification tonight and simply change the score tomorrow. I would much rather a referee error on the side of literal rather than interpretive, and at least in these two cases the rules are very clear.

For the second scenario, if the bot flipped then the other bot should have left the zone.

Edit -- After some research, it would appear that the alliance in scenario 1 should be issued a <G16> of 2 penalties + Yellow Card. So perhaps if the team challenges the ruling with what the rules state, their score can be changed even without GDC intervention.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Jared341

Who is the head ref at VCU?

My assumption is that it would be Lisa Evans, who is typically the head ref there.

I have attended many many events head reffed by Lisa during my tenure in FIRST, including the Washington DC regional a few weeks ago.

In my experience, Lisa has always made it abundantly clear how she's going to enforce the rules during the driver's meetings. She's stricter than some other refs, but definitely within reason (and definitely not the strictest I've encountered).

In DC she was somewhat strict with the red cards for entering the opposing zone, but she identified that as a major issue during the driver's meeting. Teams should have been prepared to be called on it. She specifically mentioned needing to have only one robot in the zone, even in cases where a robot becomes disabled or tipped (it's then the alliance partner's responsibility to get out).

She was strict on Friday in DC about ball incursions, but got much more forgiving on Saturday after seeing how it was impacting the game.

I didn't see the incident in question about the ball return, so I can't comment. However, I don't recall many DOGMA penalties in DC. Additionally, DOGMA penalties are automatically asigned by FMS, not the refs.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

I just happened to tune in to the webcast of the NASA/VCU regional. I was astonished by two of the penalties called in the first match (#21) which I watched.

1 - The blue alliance racked up 39 points in "DOGMA" penalties, because one of the balls that they returned to the field near the beginning of the match went over the "ball return counter", resulting in DOGMA penalties accruing every 2 seconds for the remainder of the match! This doesn't seem right to me. I could see 1 penalty point being assessed, but to continually assess a penalty every 2 seconds for the remainder of the match defies common sense, especially since the ball was returned to the field. My reading of <G17> is that the penalty is for balls that are not returned. Arguably, this ball was returned to the field (on time even), but simply missed the ball return counter. For 39 points of penalties to accrue from a single violation is clearly not the GDC's intent. Furthermore, once the team realizes this has occurred, they have absolutely no way to remedy the situation for entire remainder of the match! This basically means that if the human player with the trident makes a simple mistake at the beginning of the match, the unavoidable conclusion (even if they could manage to score 30+ points) is that they lose the match.

2 - One of the blue alliance robots (I think it was 1655) was also given a red card (disqualified for the match) due to being the second robot to enter the opponent's zone (the red zone) and failing to immediately remedy the problem. (See G29.) It turns out that the webcast was on the robot at the time the violation occurred, and the robot tipped over while it was crossing the bump to enter the red zone! Thus, since the robot tipped over as it entered the red zone, it had no way to remedy the problem. Again, I think a single penalty would have been appropriate, but to issue a red card for this violation, while strictly within the letter of the rules, is clearly not the intent of those rules.

This year, I had been extremely impressed by the discretion exercised by the referee crew at the Week 1 BAE Systems NH Granite State Regional (GSR) -- the referees exercised common sense with regard to issuing penalties, rather than simply following the letter of the rules for situations where common sense and gracious professionalism would indicate a different outcome. For example, at GSR, the referees clearly enforced rule G46 (Ball Penetration Restriction) with the intent that was later codified by the team update after week 1 by not penalizing "incidental protusions of the ball within" the frame perimeter when the offending robot immediately attempted to rectify the situation, or if the problem occurred as a result of robot-to-robot contact (for example, when two robots get into a pushing match with a ball in between and one of the robots ends up with a ball under the robot.)

Similarly, at the NH Granite State Regional our team accidentally drove up on top of a ball during QF1-1 when we used our robot to right an opponent's robot that tipped over during a pushing contest with our robot. We were pleased to see that the referees at GSR used their understanding of gracious professionalism to not issue a penalty to our team for this incidental (and accidental) driving up on top of a ball while we were clearly assisting an opponent robot, even in the midst of an elimination match!

My initial impression of the Virginia regional is that the referees are enforcing a much stricter (absolutely literal) interpretation of the rules. I don't think this strictly literal interpretation of the rules is in the best interest of the game, or of FIRST.

Have others that have watched more of the webcast or are actually at the regional have a perspective on whether the referees are utilizing a strictly literal interpretation of the rules, or are they exercising their discretion for common sense and gracious professionalism?

Originally Posted by JesseK

To be fair, why should we not play by the rules, particularly in the 2nd scenario you're describing? In other words, how is it in FIRST's best interest to not play by the rules they set?

The first scenario sounds like it's unprecedented (how can you even return a ball without putting it through the cyllinder?) and thus the referee would rather error on the side of literal rather than subjective. If anything, the head ref may receive clarification tonight and simply change the score tomorrow. I would much rather a referee error on the side of literal rather than interpretive, and at least in these two cases the rules are very clear.

For the second scenario, if the bot flipped then the other bot should have left the zone.

Edit -- After some research, it would appear that the alliance in scenario 1 should be issued a <G16> of 2 penalties + Yellow Card. So perhaps if the team challenges the ruling with what the rules state, their score can be changed even without GDC intervention.

<G16> BALL Return - HUMAN PLAYERS must place BALLS on the BALL RETURN using the TRIDENT. No other means are permitted for TEAMS to return BALLS to the FIELD. Violation: Two PENALTIES and YELLOW CARD.
<G17> BALL Return Timing - BALLS must be returned to the FIELD within a specified period of time to prevent delaying the game according to the following algorithm:
Texpire = Tscore
• where T - [11 + (4 * n)]
expire
• T, is the match time, in seconds, assigned to each individual BALL, at which point the Field Management System automatically assigns a PENALTY if a BALL is not passed through the BALL RETURN COUNTER,
score
• n is the number of balls that have passed through either BALL COUNTER of the ALLIANCE, but not yet passed through the BALL RETURN COUNTER. is the remaining match time, in seconds, on the match timer when the ball enters the BALL COUNTER, and
Violation: One initial PENALTY

From what I can see all rules were followed to the letter (with the possible exception of an additional <G16> penalty), which is what I would hope would happen. By doing it any other way you will get variations in refereeing, which is exactly what we don't want.

39 points in penalties is a bit excessive, but I betcha no one will make that mistake again

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

From what I can see all rules were followed to the letter (with the possible exception of an additional <G16> penalty), which is what I would hope would happen. By doing it any other way you will get variations in refereeing, which is exactly what we don't want.

39 points in penalties is a bit excessive, but I betcha no one will make that mistake again

Well, if a team puts a ball on the rails and it somehow misses the ball counter, then it may not be there fault (i.e. if the rails were bumped and the ball fell off beforehand).

However it could also be that the human player tried to give the ball a push using the trident, and the ball fell off. That's only conjecture and I seriously doubt anyone except for the human player knows for sure.

[fnsnet]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

From what I can see all rules were followed to the letter (with the possible exception of an additional <G16> penalty), which is what I would hope would happen. By doing it any other way you will get variations in refereeing, which is exactly what we don't want.

39 points in penalties is a bit excessive, but I betcha no one will make that mistake again

I see this long discussion going on, so I will give you a little insight. I'm Matt Glennon, the Field Supervisor for the VA regional (and I'll be FS on one of the fields in Atlanta too.) As far as the large DOGMA penalties, the rules state that the team must return the ball using the provided slide. This much I know. I do not know (someone help me here) if their is actually a rule stating the penalty for throwing the ball over the glass or otherwise bringing it into play by another means.

As for your "but I betcha no one will make that mistake again" comment; they did. We only had this happen twice. Both times it was the same human player. He kept getting the ball stuck in the end of the slide when taking it off of the trident. In order to get it unstuck, he would smack the bottom of the ball, launching it over the upright wall. He came up after the second time and questioned the build of the field. While I have no control over the score nor the rulings given by Lisa, I was brought into the conversation because I am in charge of the field (to include setup and breakdown.) I simply told him it was build to standard and that he was the only one that had popped balls over the wall. I would have offered him more suggestions toward not doing it again if it weren't for his really poor attitude and lack of GP while talking to me.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by fnsnet

I see this long discussion going on, so I will give you a little insight. I'm Matt Glennon, the Field Supervisor for the VA regional (and I'll be FS on one of the fields in Atlanta too.) As far as the large DOGMA penalties, the rules state that the team must return the ball using the provided slide. This much I know. I do not know (someone help me here) if their is actually a rule stating the penalty for throwing the ball over the glass or otherwise bringing it into play by another means.

As for your "but I betcha no one will make that mistake again" comment; they did. We only had this happen twice. Both times it was the same human player. He kept getting the ball stuck in the end of the slide when taking it off of the trident. In order to get it unstuck, he would smack the bottom of the ball, launching it over the upright wall. He came up after the second time and questioned the build of the field. While I have no control over the score nor the rulings given by Lisa, I was brought into the conversation because I am in charge of the field (to include setup and breakdown.) I simply told him it was build to standard and that he was the only one that had popped balls over the wall. I would have offered him more suggestions toward not doing it again if it weren't for his really poor attitude and lack of GP while talking to me.

As far as a rule goes ... here you go (emphisis mine):

<G17> BALL Return Timing - BALLS must be returned to the FIELD within a specified period of time to prevent delaying the game according to the following algorithm:
Texpire = Tscore
• where T - [11 + (4 * n)] expire
• T, is the match time, in seconds, assigned to each individual BALL, at which point the Field Management System automatically assigns a PENALTY if a BALL is not passed through the BALL RETURN COUNTER,score
• n is the number of balls that have passed through either BALL COUNTER of the ALLIANCE, but not yet passed through the BALL RETURN COUNTER. is the remaining match time, in seconds, on the match timer when the ball enters the BALL COUNTER, and
Violation: One initial PENALTY plus one additional PENALTY for every 2 seconds that a BALL is not returned.

... and Yeah, I heard he did it again. Just goes to show that not everyone learns the first time through.

Oh, and in case nobodys done it recently, Thank you for volunteering. Without the volunteers FIRST couldn't exist, nevermind inspire the next generation of problem solvers.

[JMT]

Thank you everyone for the kind words! 122 worked really hard all season (and the 12 prior) to be able to win our first ever RCA.

1676, 1086, and 1418: Congratulations on the win! You had some very good robots out there.

1086: Can't wait to see your team again in NC (and Atlanta.)

617, 346, and 1895: You were a great alliance. I know my team will remember those semi-finals for a long time. Your win was hard earned and well deserved.

To all the volunteers: The tournament was amazing! The field issues were dealt with accordingly and the teams kept informed of the problems.