During our last qual match, the judges incorrectly scored our robots in the hangar. We had two teams that contributed to the total hangar points: one team on traversal bar and one on low bar. However, the judges counted the traversal robot as a high bar climb and only awarded our alliance 14 hangar points and robbed us of a ranking point from our alliance. The robot on traversal was clearly on the top bar with a few seconds to spare in the match, and not touching the high bar.
Once we saw the scores announced, our alliance immediately went to go talk to the judges, who basically said they couldn’t do anything. They wouldn’t accept our close-up video taken by our media person, and they wouldn’t review the official footage that FRC filmed. They basically told us there’s nothing they were going to do about it and to go pound sand.
This was kind of a big deal for a lot of teams on our alliance in terms of getting picked for finals. Our team specifically would’ve jumped from 19th to 16th (tied for 17th with 3 other teams post match). I understand why they don’t want to include a review process, as it would take up a lot of time and they want to move quickly between matches. However, this was the last qualifying match of the day on Saturday, and it literally would’ve taken 3 minutes to review footage and fix the rankings of 3 teams that were in a position of getting picked for finals.
Sorry if this feels like I’m venting, but I’m still pretty bitter about this. It put a sour end to our year. FIRST should definitely have some type of way to contest points that the judges award. They could possibly give each team one challenge for the entire event, or have similar rules to some sports. They could even have a harsh punishment if you lose a challenge (e.g. lose a RP) to prevent teams from spamming a challenge. Either way, it needs to be a thing to review footage. The judges do a good job, but they’re not perfect.
To confirm, did you talk to a person with a blue shirt, a person with zebra stripes, or a person with a yellow/black shirt? These are all different people, and “judge” isint the person to be talking to about calls on the field.
So I just watched the end of that match. You’re right, your alliance should have been credited with a traversal climb. It’s disappointing that the refs didn’t want to hear you out.
I’m also of the opinion that a formal review process should be put in place by FIRST to rectify easily verifiable situations such as this.
It’s not surprising that they wouldn’t review match footage, as FIRST has long had a “no video review” policy.
Small point. It is the referee and not judges. They can not and will not look at video or pictures. Take that up with Big First. It is beyond local control. We had a similar ruling at an earlier event. The head referee did ask the referee to confirm the ruling. That is pretty much all they can do. It does not make it feel any better.
Having worked with all of the field volunteers at the event for a long time, I doubt they were as ungracious as you make it sound, but I’m sure that’s just frustration. It’s a terrible situation to be in, knowing that something was scored incorrectly and not being able to fix it. Unfortunately, FIRST does not allow them to review video, as stated in section 11.2 of the Game Manual:
The Head REFEREE has the ultimate authority in the ARENA during the event, but may receive input from additional sources, e.g. Game Designers, FIRST personnel, FTA, and technical staff. The Head REFEREE rulings are final. No event personnel, including the Head REFEREE, will review video, photos, artistic renderings, etc. of any MATCH, from any source, under any circumstances.
It sucks that a mistake was made. Sometimes, they are able to recognize such a situation as a data input error (the ref says “yes, they got it, the computer is wrong”), sometimes, in the haze of reffing 89 matches, they aren’t able to say for sure what happened. I’m very sorry this happened during the event.
I am the drive coach for 3928 (one of the 3 blue teams from this match), and we made a separate post of our experience. I was the first to the question box to dispute the score, and I discussed with the head ref (and subsequently he discussed with his scoring ref) for ~10 minutes before 3610 and 2654 got in the box. They would not revisit the score or ask anyone who saw it, but I want to be clear that I showed NO match recordings. Match footage was not a deciding factor when they told us there was nothing they could do. I also want to be clear that the head ref did all he could, and we’re not trying to discredit him. The event as a whole ran smoothly and he was always welcoming to discussion about calls. We merely want to ensure this doesn’t happen to teams again.
Something very similar happened to my team this year, which probably cost us the event. I agree that video evidence should be used to change these outcomes. At the end of the day the game and refs will never be perfect, but I can also understand why they don’t review footage. I know I would be really salty about that for years, so I understand your frustration too.
I’m not trying to attack you or the head ref, but these statements are conflicting. The head ref absolutely has the ability to change the score and ask other event volunteers for input, but they didn’t.
We had a similar climb mis-count shut us out of worlds in 2018. Not a fun feeling. I am sorry you got bit by this too. There is no reason, especially with the post-buzzer rules this year for this to happen.
From his statement, it would appear that he did ask others for input. I wasn’t anywhere near the field at the time (doing reinspections for playoffs), but I think it’s important we look for these details when reading statements on CD, before forming our own opinions about events we didn’t directly observe ourselves.
FWIW, I have never seen this happen. It sounds like a wonderful situation, but usually teams get a shrug from the refs. At this point it is very much “part of the game”. Which is to say, randomness plays a big part in some wins. Very frustrating until some kind of video review becomes possible.
I have - specifically, with my team at one event back in Steamworks we initially got a red card for the pilot moving a gear in the airship. The ref who flagged it was able to confirm what our student said - that the gear was moved to the top rotor, which had been missed. As no rotors were moving at the time, it was impossible for that rule to be triggered. The Head Ref then had the red card removed.
Back to this incident, I wonder if there’s anything in the FMS with the transition from the last qualification match to alliance selection that has an impact. If there’s a transition that “locks in” the rankings, it may not be possible to change anything past that point.
Full disclosure: I am an alumnus and current mentor of team 3928. Obviously, I am very happy with the outcome of the 2022 Minnesota North Star regional, but would like to address an incident in the last qualification match.
In Qualification Match 89, we were hoping to score 4 ranking points and take the third seed position. Our team was ecstatic when it appeared that we had accomplished that in a close match.
However, after a several minute delay for scores to be released, we were shocked to see that we had only been awarded 3 ranking points and that we had only received 14 hangar points. On our alliance, 2654 had accomplished a traversal climb and 3928 had cinched the low climb. Unfortunately, 3610’s climb was not counted due to vertical overextension. Our student drive coach immediately went to the question box to inquire why we had only received 14 hangar points.
Our student drive coach, as well as five other students, including student representatives from all three members of that alliance, were all rebuffed by the head referee and were told there was no way to change the outcome of the match at that point. The head referee asserted that the referee closest to the blue alliance hangar “didn’t see” a traversal climb and that he could not overrule that. A consistent theme was that we had been too late to dispute the call despite having 2-3 volunteers ushering us and our robots away from the field following the conclusion of the match before the release of scores and our students immediately making their way from the pits to the question box following the delayed score release.
We were thankful that for the playoff matches, the head referee ensured that multiple referees checked each hangar and that all steps were taken to make sure that the correct scores were given before being released.
This had significant seeding implications and meant that 3928 seeded 4th instead of 3rd and ended up captain of the 3rd seed alliance instead of the 2nd seed alliance. While we ended up being able to select 2987 as we had wanted to, this still left a sour taste in our students and drive team’s mouth. Is there anything our team could have done differently to have resolved this call in a better way?