Galileo playoff match 13 uncounted cubes

FIRST General Forum
1

It would have probably been better for me to wait a little before posting this to make sure I organize my thoughts and what I want to say, but I feel like those kind of things need to get addressed as soon as possible for them to get the attention they deserve.

The situation at the end of the match was like so:
Alliance 1 had 5 super charged nodes, while our alliance had 8 with an expected final score of 214-212, when the scores were shown we were all shocked to see our score drop to 183 points with no announcement of the justification being made for everyone to understand the situation, the head ref did come to talk to our alliance and explained the situation - saying 2 of our super charged cubes got weirdly wedged together between the 2 node separating legs slightly levitating off the carpet and that after thorough deliberation with the highest officiating authority at the event, and according to the way update 21 was written those 2 cube are therefore uncounted, making our grid be considered unfilled and taking away 31 points from our alliance’s score:

The head ref also noted that this situation was something FIRST never accounted for and that it makes zero sense for those cubes not to be counted.
In my eyes, if you admit to having a situation happen that you hadn’t accounted for in the rules, the least that should be done is for the match to be replayed with both alliances now being aware of that specific anomaly and the way it’s being officiated.

Our team is gutted and we’re feeling cheated by FIRST, if this competition has anything to do with sports, FIRST needs to take accountability when making such ruling mishaps and have a way to deal with them mid-season/competition, however hard it might be.

I don’t want to take anything away from alliance #1 - congratulations for winning the division and going on to represent the Galileo field. I also don’t blame the ref, but in my eyes our alliance never got eliminated from the competition but was cheated out of it by FIRST!
Coming from a team that lost Einstein finals on a tied match, that’s the stupidest way we ever got booted out of the championship event.

Here’s a photo of the aforementioned node:
IMG-20230422-WA0016

On the other hand, I want to thank 7197 for believing in us, picking us to join the #8 alliance when it started to feel like nobody saw the value in our robot and specifically it’s cube shooting. Along with 8033 and 2630 we managed to form what I believe was one of the 3 best alliances at the event, that would have possibly gone all the way if it wasn’t for a super unlogical game rule.

See you all next year - hopefully with a game that’s giving teams the credit they deserve and not requiring a last minute rule change for it to not get over saturated and boring by the time championships roll by (not that I’m against it, the update itself was super justified and done almost perfectly in my eyes).

Tom - Orbit #1690’s head coach

87 Likes
2

absolutely incredible reading of team update 21 you love to see it

5 Likes
3

I understand your frustration and although it’s unlucky that the cubes got wedged together, it simply isn’t supported by the carpet. Just like how it wouldn’t be a score if the cube rests on the divider, it simply wouldn’t make sense to change the rule. Would you be looking at the vertical projection of the scoring node instead? How would that work if a cube was resting on the divider? What about cubes that are naturally deformed and poke over the barriers? Cones that rest on the barriers? I don’t see a plausible rule change here that would make sense. Judging scoring by the fact that it is supported by the carpet is the best way to determine scoring.

21 Likes
4

I feel like the hybrid nodes needed a change in their shape early in build season. Sorry for your loss.

3 Likes
5

It was super disappointing that it had to end this way, but it was amazing to get to be a part of this alliance. Thanks 7197, 1690, and 2630 for an amazing elims run.

9 Likes
6

Yeah, relevant section is below:

Fully contained in GRIDS and touching FIELD carpet, BARRIER in only 1 HYBRID NODE, and/or GAME PIECES touching FIELD carpet and/or BARRIER in only 1 HYBRID NODE.

I myself was mistaken previously and thought that maybe (like the team field) the square tube was split down the center (and called the BARRIER) and a CUBE/CONE couldn’t be crossing the center between two HYBRID NODEs. Not that it has to be touching carpet.

2 Likes
7

Posting this here before it gets too crazy as I think it will help clarify the wording of hybrid node scoring criteria:

Game manual text:

Fully contained in GRIDS and touching FIELD carpet, BARRIER in only 1 HYBRID NODE, and/or GAME PIECES touching FIELD carpet and/or BARRIER in only 1 HYBRID NODE.

This is how I read the requirements:

  • Fully contained in grids
    AND
  • Touching one or more of the following:
    • Field carpet
    • Barrier in only one hybrid node
    • Game pieces, which themselves are touching one or more of the following:
      • Field carpet
      • Barrier in only 1 hybrid node

Again, this is how I read it after breaking it down. FIRST definitely could use some better grammar here.

16 Likes
8

We never questioned the rule interpretation, given how the rules are written that’s the right call. It’s the rule itself that’s bad and is missing the point of differentiating between a successfully scored game piece and a missed one.

30 Likes
9

(post deleted by author)

14 Likes
10

While Tom’s wording in the OP is a bit harsh, something needs to be said about weird definitions and strict interpretation of rules in edge cases, missing the intent of the rule, something which FIRST has struggled with in the past. I can recall a few cases where these calls have decided key matches in weird ways, such as the definition of “supported” in 2019:

Screenshot_20230422-215417_YouTube
Screenshot_20230422-215417_YouTube1920Ă—864 111 KB

Or the definition of “strategic” in 2018:

Screenshot_20230422-214544_YouTube
Screenshot_20230422-214544_YouTube1920Ă—864 100 KB

Overall it’s just kind of frustrating to end what was very exciting playoff run in this manner, sadly not for the first time

Huge props to the #1 alliance, you played incredibly well and definitely earned your Einstein spot

13 Likes
12

Empathy diff

25 Likes
13

Not cool dude

8 Likes
14

OP might be incorrect, but is this really the way to be telling them this? Not posts i expected from either of you honestly.

25 Likes
15

I think their comments are primarily a function of the posting history of the thread creator.

I actually agree this is a really crappy situation and a function of a last minute rule change right before champs, but I know as well as anybody that complaining on CD isn’t the play in this situation.

14 Likes
16

I think that OP clearly explained what they thought was wrong and made sure to not take away from the other alliance. I don’t think it deserved the sarcastic quips that it got.

As the OP said perhaps the timing isn’t right but I think having a community discussion is valid. Posting on CD and reaching out to FIRST aren’t mutually exclusive.

4 Likes
17

hey yall, 8033 kid here- we saw that too and asked the refs about it and they told us the same thing they told you. it’s definitely disappointing that this (rather predictable) situation wasn’t foreseen in the game manual, but replaying would also set bad precedent for changing rules during comp. we were devastated too, but it’s more of a problem with the rules in the first place and the fact that the goals aren’t designed for 2 pcs rather than a ref call

fwiw, we would have lost by 1pt even with the supercharged nodes bc of a foul

regardless, thank you 7197 1690 and 2630 for a fantastic time in elims!! it was wonderful playing with y’all. and congrats to 1678 3476 461 and 59, I know you’ll make galileo proud at einstein!!!

16 Likes
18

The first cube would have given us another link for 7 total points + the second would have made it 8 supercharged nodes (24 points) totaling in a 31 point swing, the difference was 29, so no, we would have won…

2 Likes
19

Bro???

9 Likes
20

Bro???

3 Likes
21

you may be right, I personally haven’t done the math but that’s just what the refs told me