Does anybody have a video of the match from a different angle where we can see the 10 point and wave fouls that can’t be seen from the match replay?
The thing is, there must be 9 fouls in this match to reach a 27 points penalty.
How could there be 9?
Right now I would say the “leading theory” is that they were extending outside of their frame perimeter while on defense.
Hi Carlos and amazing team 1771 and amazing Roebling,
I was watching the stream too, i do have the same feeling as u since my hometown team is in Roebling.
First of all, no matter whether the robot was againsting rules or not, let’s say THANK YOU to all volunteers especially to Refs, they worked so hard over weeks. However we do need to follow rules all times. the Refs suppose to indicate
Besides the secret Referee Manual(which i hope it could be public sometime in future years since it’s useful to teams) .(I believe it rules certain actions Ref suppose to do like flag, since the drive team would know and stop repeating violated action, but i only want to express my opinion based on public manual).
in Game Manual 5.4, it says
FOUL: a credit of 3 points towards the opponent’s total score.
Ref did not wave flag or tell driver in any action during 2:30 period, in stead, issue 27 points all together. There is no sign saying Ref could not tell drive team when they against rules, the Ref’s action is against Game Manual.
in Game Manual 12.2, it says
The Head REFEREE rulings are final. No event personnel, including Head REFEREE, will review video, photos…of any MATCH, from any source, under any circumstances.
Surely we are not suppose to bring up the past event ruling results. If drive team follow the rules and didnt argue with Ref with past event, Ref are not suppose to review the video/photos, i dont understand how the Ref could tell there were 27 foul by just looking the still robot on the field at the end of game, the robot is definitely within perimeter…is this a symbol of Double Standard to different teams and to Ref and students?
in Game Manual 12.2, it says
1 pre-college student from that DRIVE TEAM should address the Head REFEREE after the ARENA Reset Signal…the end of the subsequent MATCH as necessary.
so Ref(not Head REFEREE) is not suppose to talk to your drive team student, this is correct, but the Head REFEREE has to ask the student in box, until upcoming match. if problem not solved they should continue solve issue when Head Ref has time or delay the next match.
i believe 1771 would stay inside its opponent’s CARGO SHIP LINE if Ref tell them the issue in previous match like quals so they can avoid in the future. Ref shouldnt using the advantage of knowing the rules better and more than teams to change the result of elimination Match. i do see couple of this action couple times over the past years, such as issue a FIELD FAULT when the lost alliance driver told him the field mistake and caused a replay in Elimination Semi FInal. im not sure about Roebling Semi 2-3, but some matches in other event, some field crew has relationship and tilt to specific alliance/team. Audience do have negative mood and i’ve seen at least 2 rookie teams quit FIRST due to “uncleared rule”. i wish this wasn’t happen on Roebling but based on past games, audiences will think in this way.
Personal opinion to semi 2-3 is Ref should avoid adjusting perimeter foul after game ends. if do, Ref should have evidence they have told 1771 in previous matches/event. As we all know there are so many mistakes on field and mistakes of robot that none of us didnt find out. Judgement like this will cause FIRST Robot Competition to FIRST Rule Competition.
<quote=“Gary, post:24, topic:355363”>
Personal opinion to semi 2-3 is Ref should avoid adjusting perimeter foul after game ends. if do, Ref should have evidence they have told 1771 in previous matches/event. [/quote]It can be very difficult to get a bunch of late fouls in before end of match. It may be impossible to call a bunch of fouls and also get them in before end of match.
Also… each match is called as a separate match with no relation (other than cards) to previous matches. If it’s called any other way, then teams could be affected very negatively.
I always thought that FRC was a very fair and fair game, but this game let me very disappointed. After watching the replay, I didn’t find any serious fouls. Why was it fined 27 points? I hope I can give an explanation. I can’t let the friends who took part in FRC feel unfair and disappointed.
Hi Eric, im not saying shouldnt adjusting all all fouls, but for this perimeter thing…also i think in game manual 12.2, GDC doesnt expect Ref to recall fouls. so if they do they suppose to have reasonable and firm explanations.
edit: Keep in mind that Match is over, even season is over and we are not argue for changing result, we just want to learn from mistakes, find out why, solve the problem and try to let everyone avoid same issue.
From camera, it seems like 1771 does have approx 6-11 times the intake extends out of perimeter (G10), however the camera is completely out-of-focus. It seems occur when 1771 hit another robot or field element with intake side with high acceleration. However if the robot is not in malfunction or modified, Inspector should have notified them as either when robot is in still mode it’s over perimeter or the robot mechanism is flying around.
First, you’re being inconsistent. You’re saying that the refs aren’t expected to recall fouls, but then you want a reasonable and firm explanation for any fouls that are added/adjusted? How do you expect that explanation if the refs don’t recall the fouls?
Second, if you’re going to say “don’t adjust this foul after the end of the match, but you can adjust others”, you’re being extra inconsistent. That’s a great way to mess with the refs’ heads, and trust me they don’t need that. It’s all or nothing on that, and honestly sometimes you have to get the fouls in afterwards.
Now, looking at the match: I can’t see more than 1-2 fouls being called. However, at least one took two refs with different points of view to enter once, at about the 1:10-1:15 mark–that would likely be a perimeter violation, and from the video, 1771 COULD have racked up an easy half-dozen more. (The clear sign shortly afterwards was waving off a G9 on red.) The problem with slight perimeter violations like that are that you have to be at the right angle to see it, and be reasonably sure that it is in fact over. And teams are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt.
There’s one other thing I’d note: I can’t see the near ref on the blue side at all in the video. For all we can see, he could be calling blue fouls on a regular basis, in which case it’s likely to be HP fouls or two-ball fouls, not on 1771.
Plausible scenario: HR called 2-3 G10s on 1771 (those being ones he was clearly seeing), and one or more of the other refs called in the rest for “various” offenses.
That being said, being unable to get an explanation from the HR as to “what were those fouls for?” is, IMO, not acceptable. If the HR simply said “I don’t know, and I’m not sure my refs remember”, that’s one thing. But if it was more along the lines of “the match is over, rulings are final”… yeah. But not being at Houston at all I couldn’t tell you which way it actually was.
Hi Eric sorry for the misunderstanding,
Ref shouldnt recall this foul, but they did so, so they should have explanation.
Game Manual says follow FMS Fouls so i would assume fouls that are recorded or any Ref noticed during match(but questionable) could be adjusted. If any Ref except the one we cannot see noticed, he should keep his eye on it for the entire match, i didnt see any sign of that from video/stream. i might be wrong. Assuming Ref didnt noticed, how do Refs know there is a perimeter issue? if Ref noticed, shall they at least make some action to indicate potential issue to drive team?
1771 de-scores a (tenuously placed) hatch panel at the 90 second mark, and you can see the head referee waive his flag and point at that moment. That’s at least one of the fouls.
You’re interpreting that slightly incorrectly. If you violate G10 for longer than 5 seconds, you get MULTIPLE fouls for the SAME violation (because it’s a longer violation). There is no mandatory countdown between violations. Each time an appendage extends beyond the frame perimeter is a new foul, without any need for a 5-second count.
In other words, if you extend, retract, and extend again all within a 5 second period, that’s still two separate G10 fouls.
Yes, they should (and I would note that for one match at least it’s likely that the ref will have a general idea). HOWEVER, it’s unlikely that the referee making the call was the one at the question box, and I wouldn’t assume the Head Ref asked. Not all of them will.
And what I’m saying is that we don’t see that on the video. I did see one case that was almost certainly a perimeter violation, seen through the Rocket by the HR, and called. It’s no guarantee that the drive team can see the call either–if you haven’t been in the driver’s station, depending where you’re at, anywhere between two and three refs won’t be very visible.
There is a standard set of foul calls used by the referees, and every driver on the field should have seen them at least once: Flag wave (foul), flag wave followed by crossed arms (tech foul), “chop” (a 5-count foul is being counted), and “safe” (indicating a cleared count/no foul).
It’s possible–but in anything but what I saw, unlikely–that a ref saw several fouls and DIDN’T signal before entering them. It’s rare for that to happen. It’s also plausible that one or more fouls were entered twice–also uncommon for that to make it past the HR and scorekeeper.
agree, if extend, retract, and extend, and retract again, and extend again all within a 5 second period, Ref could go with 3 fouls instead of a foul and 5 second foul i guess(if robot intend and G9 happen)?
gonna leave the question box thing to 1771, im not their mentor.
maybe i missed? i didnt see HR had action that visible from camera. when is it? i do know the driver station FoV is terrible, but as long as one of Ref waved or so, it’s drive team’s own’s responsibility to figure out a way to see the gesture, either from robot camera or human player.
That’s the one that stood out to me–it wan’t the hatch panel, though the HR did call that one too. I may or may not have experience looking at video to see what the refs may or may not have called…
that Hatch Panel was supported by ROCKET only, so it counts as scored game piece, sorry for misunderstanding. But it was hanging there and it is in the way where it’s blocking robot going through. 1771 did dislodge Hatch Panel by contacting Game Piece directly(Manual says only contact with ROCKET/CARGO SHIP are not considered a violation - G5), but they cannot avoid hitting that Hatch Panel since it’s just hanging there, blocking the way and that’s not where it suppose to be(it supposed to be placed to retain CARGO - 4.3 ROCKET). Therefore personally think 1771 just INCIDENTAL knock off although it is in a way of contacting with Game Piece directly rather than with ROCKET only. This FOUL is suspicion to me, im opening for more opinions.
1:10-1:15…from Ref gesture i cannot tell is for perimeter…it feels like for knocking down hatch panel, However the hatch panel wasn’t knocked down, it didnt got on rocket for scoring. From G10 it says
Foul per GAME PIECE de-scored and opponents are awarded 1 Complete ROCKET Ranking Point if neither of their ROCKETS are completed at T-minus 0s.
So HR is not suppose to wave flag for 1771 G5 at 1:12 or T-89s. i do see the Ref on blue far side was doing a “clear” action, it might be for telling HR that Hatch Panel wasnt knocked off, or might be something else for other robot’s G20.
So why the Ref is waving G5 when a Robot is only possibly violating G10…and why not waving for other G10…
Does anyone know who to contact about this situation? I’m from 231 and as you obviously can tell most students (especially seniors) here are troubled because of the refs not giving reason to the penalties. I thank the refs but this isn’t the first time we got a odd penalty this year. In the State Competition in Austin we revived a yellow card and the same lady ref. (the one on the bottom right) She gave us a yellow card for something we didn’t do. (they told them the technician talked to the driver)
And at the semi-finals minute 2:43 she might have been that put in the penalties. The driver of our team tried to get a reason as of why but she chose not to talk to them.
Although there was some fouls such as the hatch descoring we’re kinda reasonable the hatch panel was misplaced deeming it incidental. Also the pinning of spectrum at minute 1:45 was safe according to the gestures of the bottom left ref.
Some believe it is a bias judging and others think its inconsistent judging. I know we can’t change what happened but we would like to see a change in the way judging is handled.
In this case, I would suggest a NMIR. I’d ordinarily be somewhat hesitant to suggest that for referee issues–the better move there would be a conversation with the HR, the VC, or the RD/ED, depending on who’s available–but if you think that there’s a referee with a bias against your team across multiple events, then it may be worth it, particularly as it’s after the season. Unexplained inconsistency would be another reason. An email to the Team Advocate may also be in order.
If your driver was trying to talk to the referee, not the Head Referee, I’m not surprised she didn’t talk to you–you’re supposed to go to the HR. It’s not a choice of the referee. ALL questions are supposed to go through the HR. And as it’s the playoffs, you’d probably need your Alliance Captain to do the talking.
As the driver on 1533 I would like to aplaud 1771 for their stellar defense, especially against us in Quarterfinals on Roebling. You did everything you needed to and played arguably the best defense ever played against us. We were rooting for you guys the rest of elims and are just as confused as you guys about all of those penalty points (especiially considering none were called against you when you played us XD). The refs on Roebling were anything but consisntent and were hesitant to reveal any information about fouls, if any, to the teams. That on top of the insane latency issues added to the stress of the of the event and left me personally unimpressed with our particular field. Thanks FIRST, very cool.