[moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

FIRST General Forum
#21

I am not a referee or a FIRSTer, but I sincerely doubt that any of the rules were overlooked.

These other rules also apply:

<S01> If at any time the ROBOT operation is deemed unsafe, by the determination of the referees, the ROBOT will be disabled for the remainder of the match.

S05> A ROBOT may not impede the placement of TETRAS on the loading structures or the hand-off of a TETRA by a HUMAN PLAYER to a ROBOT. No HUMAN PLAYER or field attendant may be accosted by a ROBOT while placing TETRAS. Violations will result immediate disabling of the offending ROBOT, and disqualification of the alliance.

Although there seems to be a conflict in the rules, whenever safety is an issue, I am totally certain that any apparent conflict will be resolved in favor of safety, as it should be. I know of no other competition in the world where people interact with machines. In my opinion, it is only through maintaining the highest level of safety that this interaction can continue. I applaud the referees for keeping this priority firmly in mind.

#22

Ok, this is my view of what I saw happen so it may not be 100% accurate. I was sitting at the scoring table running the Real Time Scoring for the Red Side and also helping with updating the scores on the computer system after each match so I didn’t actually see to the full extent what happened.

THE FOLLOWING IS NOT OFFICIAL RULES SO DO NOT READ THIS AND MAGICALLY APPLY IT. It is an example.
As far as the rules go, I suppose the refs were just not in the know on that specific rule. They made an error. They did however use their judgement. The logic isn’t that far out. If a redrobot01 gets hit by a blue robot in the loading zone, the blue robot is assessed a violation penalty of 30 points, therefor if a redrobot02 caused a blue robot to hit the redrobot01 then it’s the redrobot02’s fault for hitting the blue robot into the redrobot01 make an unsafe situation so the second red robot should be given the 30 point penalty.
So it’s easy to see they followed their own logic and best judgement on what the ruling would be.

After the match they halted the posting of the scores and briefly explained the penalty. They then retracted everything while members of FIRST tried to figure out the official ruling. No one outside of the people at the regional were reachable whom they were supposed to call for guidance on referee calls and the rules. Someone suggested that the rule would be newer and the latest update was not with us. They flipped through the hard copy of the rules on site while two members working at the scoring station got online and searched through the pdf files. Since it was suggested they were in the later revisions of rules (since they were based off the Q&A I belive) it would seem to make sense they would be newer rules. Since we were told to try Update 15, we did with no luck, and then started going backwards through the rules. The second match was won by 254 and their alliance. Again the scores were halted while attempting to come to a better conclusion on the previous match. We did not come across Update #4 (i believe my browsers being slow so i can’t go back and confirm whether its 3 or 4) until about 10 minutes after the Second Finals Match scores had been posted so by that point it was a moot point, 254’s alliance had already been told they’d won the second match, and the first based on the origional call. They won. It would be just as much a travesty to post the 2nd match results and then decide to tell other teams that no, they in fact did not win as they were told by the scoring and refs they did. You can’t allow complete questioning of scores, there would be no end to it. Good calls are made. There was no “BAD” call. The referees used their best judgement to assess the situation.

#23

Ok, this is my view of what I saw happen so it may not be 100% accurate. I was sitting at the scoring table running the Real Time Scoring for the Red Side and also helping with updating the scores on the computer system after each match so I didn’t actually see to the full extent what happened.

THE FOLLOWING IS NOT OFFICIAL RULES SO DO NOT READ THIS AND MAGICALLY APPLY IT. It is an example.
As far as the rules go, I suppose the refs were just not in the know on that specific rule. They made an error. They did however use their judgement. The logic isn’t that far out. If a redrobot01 gets hit by a blue robot in the loading zone, the blue robot is assessed a violation penalty of 30 points, therefor if a redrobot02 caused a blue robot to hit the redrobot01 then it’s the redrobot02’s fault for hitting the blue robot into the redrobot01 make an unsafe situation so the second red robot should be given the 30 point penalty.
So it’s easy to see they followed their own logic and best judgement on what the ruling would be.

After the match they halted the posting of the scores and briefly explained the penalty. They then retracted everything while members of FIRST tried to figure out the official ruling. No one outside of the people at the regional were reachable whom they were supposed to call for guidance on referee calls and the rules. Someone suggested that the rule would be newer and the latest update was not with us. They flipped through the hard copy of the rules on site while two members working at the scoring station got online and searched through the pdf files. Since it was suggested they were in the later revisions of rules (since they were based off the Q&A I belive) it would seem to make sense they would be newer rules. Since we were told to try Update 15, we did with no luck, and then started going backwards through the rules. The second match was won by 254 and their alliance. Again the scores were halted while attempting to come to a better conclusion on the previous match. We did not come across Update #4 (i believe my browsers being slow so i can’t go back and confirm whether its 3 or 4) until about 10 minutes after the Second Finals Match scores had been posted so by that point it was a moot point, 254’s alliance had already been told they’d won the second match, and the first based on the origional call. They won. It would be just as much a travesty to post the 2nd match results and then decide to tell other teams that no, they in fact did not win as they were told by the scoring and refs they did. You can’t allow complete questioning of scores, there would be no end to it. Good calls are made. There was no “BAD” call. The referees used their best judgement to assess the situation.

#24

Everyone keeps talking about safety being the concern.
In re-reading Gordon’s post, I don’t think he mentioned they made the call due to safety. He said that it was a “rule violation” based on the chain/cascade rule (?) and from what I gather, called a 30pt penalty because of a robot interfering with another in the loading zone. Disabling is the result of a safety issue… a 30pt penalty is the result of a G15 violation.

If safety were the concern, then one would figure that almost anytime you interfere with a robot in a HP loading zone, it should be disabled, because any interference there *could * cause an unsafe condition. So why have all the examples in Update 4 or a 30pt penalty at all in this case…Now the refs have to decide whether or not to penalize for being unsafe, or for interfering, or both… the penalties are different in each case though. Yes -it’s a tough job those refs have! They are volunteers and give us their time. But it would seem like someone in that group would have come across Update 4 in their preparation for becoming a ref.

So this is why I ask, if someone that made that call could clarify. Was it called because of safety…which if it were, disablement instead of 30pts should have been the penalty… or was it a penalty solely based on the G15 violation…I am not saying that the Update was definitely overlooked, but if it were looked at, how was the conclusion made, that even though it clearly states this exact case results in no penalty, that a 30pt penalty was given?

I am not pointing any fingers, or asking anyone to say they were wrong, or trying to beat a dead horse. I am trying to figure out why this happened (which I personally don’t think is too much to ask), and how it will be called in the future for others, because this could very well happen in the future to anyone and would like to know an official take on it. I also hope that nobody is offended by the questions I ask, it’s simply looking for feedback on what may have been an incorrect call. It’s slightly different when you have inconsistencies on aggressive play, or intentional tipping, etc, because it’s up to different interpretations… but if a rule clearly states something, then it’s not a judgement call and one might have a hard time justifying why a call was made.

This particular case has no impact on me directly. But with seeing all the controversy talked about lately on inconsistent calls, I am wondering how the rule update 4 was not followed. There may very well be something I’m overlooking, but that’s why I’m asking. It could have been a pure mistake. People/Refs make mistakes, and we live with it. But with all the hoopla about G15 early on before competition started, one would hope that everyone knows those rules in and out by now.

#25

I had a chance to look at the ‘official’ video. Unfortunately the sound on the tape is of such poor quality that it is unusable. I will encode the match and put it up later this week as soon as I can get a clean copy of the tape.

The action that is shown on the tape is at about 90 to 81 seconds on the game clock. The official tape has the automatic scoring on the screen, so the bottom of the screen is blocked. The point of view is from the Red Human Player’s station. What I see on the tape is 368 and 254 in a shoving match at the center goal. 254 with a Tetra held high, is attempting to head toward the red home row human player corner. it looks like 368 pushes on 254 (high) and causes 254 to tilt dangerously toward the human player zone (closest to the center) At this time 1097 is in that zone and is being loaded by their human player. From the POV of the camera it looks like that a cascade is about to take place with 254 being pushed into 1097and 1097 falling over and injuring the human player. It looks like 1097 is hit (The robot jerks) just as the human player is loading the tetra. You can see the ref take a flag in his hand immediately hold it up and throw it down.

I think the ref was fully justified in throwing a flag. Now whether or not a DQ of 368 with shutting them down, or assessing a 30 point penalty against the alliance was the correct call doesn’t really matter. Is unfortunate that
some legitimate tough competition led to a situation where a safety penalty decided the outcome of the match. I have lost matches because of bad calls and it really hurts. I don’t think this was a bad call. It seems that all the teams are O.K. with this so I think it is time to close this thread and think about next week and the Nationals. I am sure that all the head refs will carefully review this match and make certain that the correct action is taken, if this situation reoccurs.

#26

If you go to page one of this thread and choose “Find” from the “Edit” menu and type “safe”, you’ll find that “safety” is mentioned three times and that Gordon did mention it in his post, and others who were involved in helping to resolve the matter mentioned “safety” as well. (Use “Find again” to see the second and third instances.)

As to safety being an disqualification matter, as I said in the Silicon Valley Regional thread, I imagine that the safety issue resolved before the referees disabled any of the robots involved. It seems to me that a 30 point penalty is just one step below being disabled, and I think that is as it should be. Disabling a robot should be a last resort, and I don’t think that referees should be told that they have to disable a robot or do nothing in a safety situation. If our team does something that causes the referees to have concern about safety, I expect to get a penalty if the situation is minor and quickly resolves. If the situation continues or is serious, I expect to be disabled.

In any case, I applaud your persistence in trying to eliminate any confusion on the rules as it would definitely help if everyone was on the same page.

I imagine the National Basketball League and other sporting events would have a lot of wrinkles to iron out if they had a new game every year. I don’t know of any other group who would have the nerve to create a new game every year. Thank you FIRST for having the willingness to go where no other group dares to tread in the interests of helping today’s youth and the world to a better future.

I’m afraid that there will always be holes and apparent contradictions in the rules in a competition that is recreated every year with many new rules and situations. Maybe it is time to have several very experienced senior referees available for telephone calls by a “hot line” during all our matches.

In any case, I hope everyone will keep safety as the highest priority during the rest of the season. I would hate to see human player interaction eliminated from the game. (Honestly, can you think of any other group that would dare to have robots getting playing objects from human players?)

#27

Hi all…I am a new mentor to FIRST this year and am just amazed by the quality experience that this provides for students. I am even more amazed at the amount of volunteer power and committment required to make these events work. But I have learned very quickly that FIRSt is a small community where the lines of competitor and supporter are mixed to reach the heights of “coopertition.”
In so saying, it is our charge to must remain cognizant of an apparent, implied, or perceived partiality on the part of anyone involved. Most FIRSTers became dedicated to this cause through their affilition with some team at some time. Though all my try to avoid it, human natures leads us to stand by our own. I must admit that my team at one time or another has felt that a team affiliation of a person with “authority” may have influenced decisions that affect our success. It is this small cast of doubt that we must protect ourselves from as we become one of the strongest competitions in this nation and beyond. To feel defeated on the basis of bais is a hard thing to overcome. We want all to take victory and defeat with pride, knowing that each individual gave their best and it is just a game.

#28

To clarify, as I was the person at the scoring table who found update number 4 for Jason Morella, Jason stated that “in the act of a blue and red robot touching, there is automatically 30 points of penalty, the only quesiton is on which alliance the penalty is assesed.” As I stated in my letter to the FIRST rules commitee, this is the opposite of gracious professionalism, creating a situation where teams try to screw each other. In fairness to Jason Morella, he could not reach any of the rules committe on the phone, and made a judegement call.

THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, as Mark Leon said, the match should not have been called on the recollection of an example in an update to a rule (at the time, Jason could not find the printed rule). Furthermore, numerous testimony of people on the field indicated that the red robot was backing out of the loading zone at the time.

Therefore, yes, a judgement call had to be made, but the call should have been to replay the match, not to call the outcome of a regional.

I have a lot of problems with team 254 (among other things, during the playoff rounds I saw four NASA engineers working on their robot), but I do not believe that they had a hand in throwing the regional. Still, this was the wrong call. How do I know? In three years of FIRST I have never seen the arena boo. Not just one or two individuals, but hundreds of people. As I noted in my letter to the rules commission, this call was the breakdown of gracious professionalism.

#29

OK, after following up further with FIRST, and after reading a few valid and respectfully worded opinions, I can further clarify the issues for everyone. (to be clear, this reply is for those on this thread who have practiced “gracious professionalism” and expressed their views with clarity and maturity. Under no circumstances would I take the time to reply to the original poster of this thread, as his 3rd reply showed that all is views are jaded and colored by a clear resentment, jealousy, and pettiness toward another fellow FIRST team - the values and lessons of FIRST are truly noble, but he proves that they may not reach everyone).

All may not agree, but I think I can put an end to any debate after hearing what various concerns are:

1 - One of my referees did throw a flag for the situation that has been discussed. Let me one thing clear, the human player of the dead robot was in the process of putting the Tetra in/on his robot at the VERY MOMENT that his robot was hit by the Blue robot being pushed by the Red Robot.

2 - There were two issues discussed. One is that of is there a 30 point penalty, and second that there was a safety penalty. Which team, if any, to assess a 30 point penalty was the part we couldn’t find the most recent ruling for. Unfortunately the set of rules we as refs were told were the most current were the Revised Rules (which you can find on the FIRST web site). After some detective work today, we have found that a mistake was made by FIRST: The revised rules, which we were told now included any clarifications or changes from updates, had the changes for G14, G16 and others - but somehow the update and examples for G 15 were not in the rules we were given. The rules at the SVR said that the offending robot was to be assessed a 30 pt penalty, which is what we did. If we had seen the example which clarified the exact situation which happened, neither alliance (Red or Blue) would have been assessed a 30 pt penalty.

3 - HOWEVER, and this is important, NONE OF NUMBER 2 changes the fact that the primary reason the flag was thrown was because the situation was a clear safety hazard, as the human player was interacting with the robot when it was hit by the other robots (Amy, you didn’t think I referenced Safety in my original post, but I did - it was our main concern and I did state that it was “a very dangerous situation”). S01 and S05 are very clear, and while we did not feel the operation of the second robot was intentionally unsafe, there was NO DOUBT that what happened was a violation of S05, since the Human Player was handing off a Tetra to a robot at the exact (yes, exact) moment the second red robot pushed the blue robot into the dead red partner bot.

4 - What does this all mean? We had three choices - here is what we DID decide and what we SHOULD have decided.

We were not 100% sure of the G15 interpretation, went with the wording of the rule in the updated revision we had, and felt it was a 30 pt penalty. We knew it was a violation of S05, which is very clear. While extreme, the wording is very clear, our only choice was to DQ the alliance.

We did not feel the need to assess two penalties, the 30 pt penalty was extreme enough and DQing the alliance on top of that would have seemed like pouring salt in the wound. So once we had found wording that we felt supported giving a 30pt penalty, we went with the less extreme of the two and stopped there. With hindsight, it would have been easier and less painful to just turn in the DQ right off the bat and not spend the time trying to verify the wording for G15. But give the FIRST staff at the event credit, even though they didn’t have the rules revised 100%, they did “know” that something was not right about the wording we went off of and spent a lot of time trying to track down the correct interpretation.

In the end, there is NO dispute about the outcome of the finals of this event. Whether we had the correct version of the updates or not doesn’t really matter, we did incorrectly use our logic pattern as someone said and assessed a 30pt penalty that we shouldn’t have. But the alliance should have been DQ’d anyway per rule S05. We didn’t write the rule, and whether people want to argue if that is too extreme or not is another issue. But the rules were and are clear. Regardless of our mistaken interpretation of G15, the situation that was brought up to start this thread has a CLEAR result under the rules - the Blue Alliance would have won the match if the rules as written were applied correctly. Luckily I think all present at the event would agree that the Blue Alliance was the clear and decisive winner of the second final match (with no penalties if my memory serves…if not, I have no doubt someone will correct me in seconds).

I feel bad that we misinterpreted one rule while we were right about the safety violation. I will admit that I feel much better knowing that under the rules we did not award a “win” to the wrong alliance. That is something which would bother me, as I know and admire how much time and effort everyone puts into their teams. Regardless, I apologize for any commotion our enforcing one incorrect interpretation instead of the one correct violation may have caused. We deliberated the situation thoroughly and did the best we could. I apologize even more for the length of my posts, those who know me know I am rarely long winded and avoid going on at all costs. Since some very false and incorrect claims were made in this thread, and since I was involved and know the true details, this seems like a situation where many want and deserve a full understanding of the facts.

The silver lining is that while the correct alliance still won, and this has helped us and FIRST to see a mistake in the wording of the rules revision. As I am the Head Ref at one more competition this upcoming weekend, I am glad we have found that the revised rules were missing the examples for G15 and we’ll do our best once again to enforce all the rules consistently and fairly at the events this week.

I hope in some way this lets those on the red alliance at least put to rest any anger or fears that they were “robbed” of a win in the first match. I hope even more that those on both alliances know that they did an incredible job, know that every team played great and put on a great show in the playoffs, and that everyone on all the teams can look back on what they’ve accomplished this year with pride and not get caught up in some of the things that ruin other sports in this country.

Again, congratulations to every team that competed at the Silicon Valley Regional, you all have a lot to be proud of.

Gordon Bell

#30

Gordon,
I want to thank you for taking the time to write the well-written post to explain and clarify what really happened and why the call was made.

Doug - I know safety was mentioned in Gordon’s first post and I know it was a big concern… I read it several times. However, I kept reading that the “reason” they made the 30pt penalty call was due to the cascade, robot, interference violation…But because I’m so familiar with the G15 Update4, I questioned why that happened.

I was just trying to understand the “reason” for the 30pt penalty… was it because of G15 violation, or was it because of safety… It seems to have been both. But nowhere in the rules did I read that a 30pt flag (or any pts penalty) should be thrown for a safety issue (just a disable and possible DQ), so I became confused as to what actually happened. But now we know updated information was not available.

I’m sure everyone appreciated the effort put into finding the correct answer during the regional and I can only hope that all refs take that kind of time and consideration.

The reason I kept asking questions was because I wanted to make sure that I didn’t overlook something somewhere along the line, because maybe I was. I had no personal stake in this situation, but I also wanted to bring the possibility of an incorrect call to attention so that it might be avoided in the future. I had no bad intentions, and wanted to help eliminate the possiblity of this issue down the road. Everyone does their best, but everyone makes mistakes, and we ALL learn from them. While pointing it out may not have been the original intent of the thread, I don’t think there is any harm in bringing these points up as they’re seen, as I think it can benefit everyone.

At regionals, are all revised rules and Updates printed out and available for the reffing staff? If not, I would propose that as being fundamental in possibly making a refs job a tad bit easier in certain situations.

Thanks again, and good luck to everyone,
Amy

#31

Singling out a fellow FIRST team in these public forums, and saying that they are cheaters, have everything given to them, or that they don’t deserve what they get is inappropriate, demeaning, and gutless. If you have a problem with a team, go to that team and address it with them. Don’t air your slanderous opinions here for all to see. Jealously is an ugly vice. Don’t let it get the best of you.

This is exactly the sort of thing that not only tarnishes this website, but gives good people in FIRST good reason to focus their attention elsewhere, to a different worthy cause.

Andy B.

#32

This is not a precident I would like to set. The only time there should be a replay at an FRC event, is in the case of a technical failure on FIRSTs side of things. If we decide to have a rematch every time the refs need to make a major judgement call, regionals would run from Thursday to Tuesday. There just isn’t time for this, and it encourages people to challenge the rulings of the referees. It’s the same reason that umpires in baseball will not tolerate people arguing balls and strikes. In the words of Jesse Spano from the classic sitcom Saved by The Bell, “There’s no time, there’s never any time…” (Sorry, I couldn’t resist…)

Funny, seeing four NASA engineers working furiously to help fix a robot is something that I’d find inspiring. Where else can you see “rocket scientists” in action in a pressure packed situation, in person? Doesn’t Hollywood make movies about these types of things, albeit on a grander scale? I remember seeing these scenes at my first nationals in 1998, when I was in High School, and thinking “Wow, that’s really cool. Engineering looks fun…”

#33

It’s obvious that the original poster has a chip on his shoulder, and more than his share of jealousy. I think that several cool heads in this thread have already sufficiently responded to this, but there’s one point that still needs to be addressed.

It’s no secret that well-funded teams tend to perform better (though this isn’t always the case). 71, 111, and 254 (among others… those are the teams that come to mind at the moment) all have a vast amount of resources available to them, and they make full use of them. Is this a bad thing? I don’t think so. You could accuse them of being like the Yankees of FIRST, of buying victories, but if the kids are being inspired, what’s the big deal? Nonetheless, this still troubles me:

Team 254 won the National Chairman’s Award last year. This makes them the ONE team in the whole country that best exemplifies the ideals of FIRST. This award cannot be bought. You can get a huge grant and a whole room full of engineers, but that alone will earn you nothing in the eyes of the judges. How did 254 earn this honor, and how do they continue to deserve it? By reaching down from their “pedestal” of success and experience to help those who haven’t been as fortunate in collecting resources. They’ve started teams in Alaska and Hawaii, and they’ve mentored several other teams. They are helping to start Utah’s first team this year. They mentor FLL teams, support an FLL tournament, and do other community outreach. And, as I’m sure you’ve seen at any event they attend, they bring a machine shop trailer to help other teams fix their robots, which has saved our team and countless others in competition. If you’re still in doubt, you can read their 2004 Chairman’s submission. If you must, be jealous of their success. We all wish we could have as many trophies as them. However, don’t let your jealousy drive you to discount how they have inspired students and advanced the ideals of FIRST.

#34

Personally, I agree with this, but I see where this could be an issue for him. What I think he is getting at is not all of us have 4 NASA engineers at are disposal. But I bet you, if you go and ask for help, they would be more than happy to give you a hand. Gracious Professionalism runs full-circle.

On a side note, wouldn’t it be cool if there was a movie about FIRST?

-Daniel

#35

Thank you for having faith in our integrity, but I would just like to clarify one thing. Our team has only one engineer, Steve Kyramarios, who works extensively with the team. EJ Sabathia, an alumnus of the team; Bill Gold, an alumnus of now-defunct Team 258; and Al Bayer, are all college students, not engineers. Alan Federman, formerly of Team 1043, also helps out.

We do not have 4 engineers, and I can assure you that our students do great amounts of work on our robot. As a student myself, it saddens me that people would attempt to discount our achievements by implying that our students do nothing.

In my eyes, this attitude is the true problem regarding this regional.

Members of both teams 368 and 1097, two of the three teams most adversely affected by the penalty decision, have handled this in an extremely graciously professional manner. In their posts, they have expressed that they accept the decision by the referees, correct or incorrect, because they recognize that FIRST isn’t about winning or losing; what’s more important is the life lessons that all parties learn. This attitude is to be applauded.

There are 1000+ teams in FIRST, and only 3 can be considered “champions.” But the other 997+ teams that also put in months of blood, sweat, and tears to create something that billions of people have never even dreamed of - they are champions too. It is the true mark of the champion to remain professional in both victory and defeat. Teams 368 and 1097 are true champions.

Let’s all emulate their example, for their admirable handling of this unfortunate situation is the life lesson we all must learn here.

#36

I would like to comment on the integrity of team 254. I understand that this thread has moved on from the team-bashing and has come to a good conclusion regarding the flag question. However, I cannot let such a good team be bad-mouthed in such a way.

Being an alumnus of Team 60, from Kingman, Az, I have had the opportunity to work with team 254 on many occasions. During the 2004 season our students (and I say students because it was, in fact, our students who machined the parts) collaborated and created robots together. 60 doesn’t have any engineers, and 254 has 1 and a bunch of college kids. Then, these STUDENTS drove from San Jose to Kingman in early August to build a shift-on-the-fly transmission as a prototype for their bots this year. If anyone needs any proof that these students are working for what they have, they can ask me. I was with them in the shop. We machined and worked for it together.

I’ve talked to them during the preseason when they are doing presentations, hoping NASA supports them and FIRST for another season. I talked to Adrian while he was putting together his Chairman’s Award and Woodie Flowers Award applications for 2004. I know that these kids work hard.

They do have a lot of resources, but they use them for good. They supoprt LEGO League teams, and mentor other teams, supply machine shops. They do everything a good FIRST team is supposed to do, but why do they get the flack?

Is it because they have college students helping them with their robot? And engineers as well?
What is the purpose of a mentor, then, if you can’t use them in the heat of the competition? Mentors are there to help you. They are there to have a design in their head, and to help you come to it, or to come up with something better. THEY ARE THERE TO HELP AND TO USE AS SUPPORT, NOT JUST FOR SHOW.

254’s mentors (both college students and engineers) and their students work together as one unified team. They are not mentors AND students, but mentors and students working together for one cause, no segregation involved. And that’s something every FIRST team should strive for. It’s not something you see very often, but when you do see it, it works, and it works well, producing better teams and better bots.

I think that instead of being ridiculed, 254 should be praised for their unity and teamwork.

#37

I would just like to add that while 254 might have more in the way of sponsors and mentors/college students than other teams i have never seen them do any thing but go out of their way to help all the teams in the area, and any time my team needed help all we had to do was ask and 254 did every thing they could do to help us. they are the ones who bring a machine shop to SVR and SAC, while some people might hold it against them that have the resources to have this shop, they would have them any ways and they deserve credit for the fact they use the resources they have to help other teams. but finally no matter how much money you have unless you can get your team to work together you will not come up with winning robots. And while their mentors might work on the robot, isn’t that their job? to help teach students, and from what i have seen from 254 if there were 4 mentors helping on the robot i would be surprised if there were not students helping or learning. i think the reason why 254 get so much flack for any thing they do is people assume they get it all handed to them but thats not the case, at least from what i have seen of their team. After all they did not win Chairman’s award for no reason.

#38

Hey 1097, 368, and 852. This is P.MAG of 1097. I was sitting in the stands or filming most of the time at SVR. First of all, I never dreamed that 1097 could finish first in qualifying matches and be finalists; in both the Sac and SVR regional. The conclusion to the SVR regional was a sad one for the red alliance. I admit that I do not agree with the call in any way. But I will not sit here and argue this controversy for hours. The regional is done, over, time to move on!
I would personally like to thank the referees, judges, and volunteers at the SVR regional. I would also like to thank ever team that participated in this regional. A special thanks to 254, 22, and 980 for being good sports about it.
To 368 and 852; thanks for the memories. I will remember those playoff games forever. To 1097, I hope our teams future success is even greater. Even though I am graduating this year, I will do my best to help the team in the future. Don’t feel bad about this season’s losses. We made history at our school.

P. MAGNUM

#39

Ah yes… I was at this regional. A lot of… lets say… happened during this regional, and I think the whole 30 point penalty thing was just one of many.

Lots of teams got this penalty. I would say about 99% of them were fair (I might not have been watching for the last 1%) I think this is just very talked about because it may have been the deciding factor in the finals.

Personally, my team (Harker, 1072) lost to the bellermine alliance (254 22 980) fair and square by the rules, but I was rather “anoyed” to say the least. Our first round our robot did nothing. It didn’t move. We got owned. The next round we won against bellermine. The last we lost, and were eliminated. I was furious that our robot did not move. Of course I could have jumped on the FIRST people and blamed them blindly for screwing up the radios or something, and we should get a rematch But… I didn’t. Because in my opinion our alliances were neck and neck. Well, almost, seeing how they beat us. But I knew that stuff like this happens, and that whining about it will accomplish nothing. It is bad luck. I know that my team has recognition. We put up a good fight, and went down proud (better watch out at nationals, bell boys!)

My point is, the team 1097 alliance technically was beaten fairly by bellerman alliance. In my opinion the 30 point penalty was excessive. But the rule is set before the competition, its just like the motors we get or those wierd tetra things we have to stack… its just another part of the challenge. If students from the team 1097 alliance are feeling any emotion, it should be pride that they ALMOST won. Sure, it kindof sucks, but I recognize your three teams as having awesome robots. Just as awesome as the winner’s robots.

If anything is to be done, it should be by the people in FIRST. I think they should take note of this excessively large penalty, and try to avoid this problem next year.

#40

Something that hadn’t been comented on before is that it is against the rules for referees to consult video replays in order to make a call.

I think it’s pretty obvious that there are quite a few misconceptions about our team; how it’s run, by whom, with what resources, who our team serves, and what we try to accomplish. I must admit that when I was a high school student on The Sea Dawgs and even my first year as a mentor running that team that I didn’t have a favorable opinion of The Cheesy Poofs. I disliked getting beaten by them year after year, but that’s where my actual knowledge of the team ended. After a few years I realized that I really didn’t know anything substantive about the team, and that I needed to let go of my bias and try to get to know people on the team. I was lucky enough to get to talk with a couple of the students and Steve Kyramarios and I confirmed that my original feelings towards the team was absolutely wrong.

Adrian was correct when he said that our team only has one engineer (Steve Kyramarios), and that we have only three college mentors (Al Bayer, E.J. Sabathia, and myself). The 2005 season was both my first season with The Cheesy Poofs (I had run The Sea Dawgs, a Cheesy Poof competitor, Team #258, 2002-2004 seasons) and also the first year that Steve Kyramarios didn’t guide this team’s ship. This season Al, EJ, and I basically ran The Cheesy Poofs’ day-to-day activities with roughly halftime guidance and advice from Steve. The three of us easily put in over 450 man-hours each of robotics work this six week build period, and countless more all through last fall and during this competition period. We Cheesy Poof mentors and students are dedicated to keeping this team on track in terms of spreading the ideals of FIRST, “keeping up with the Jones’” in terms of advances in design and technology, and fielding a competitive team every year.

It’s also incorrect to assume that our team has unlimited funds. Our team is very fortunate as most teams go, this is true, but we have far from a bottomless source of funds from which to draw. We have had mentors and students foot the bill for miscellaneous parts this season, and we haven’t been able to pay for many things we had wanted to use or fabricate.

Our team tries its best to help teams in need. This build period we were pleased to host roughly 15 teams at our lab to allow them to practice on our competition field. We also did some machining for three local robotics teams, two teams in Southern California, and one team in Arizona during this build period. In addition to this machining support, members of our team helped give design advice to, did design work for and otherwise shared designs with more than ten local teams, two teams in the Californian central valley, and those two SoCal teams and Arizonan team. Last fall I taught classes for and helped organize the WRRF Workshops as a member of The Cheesy Poofs. This is all I know of for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there was more advice and services that our team had done during the build period that I don’t know about.

In conclusion, coming from a recently folded fierce competitor of The Cheesy Poofs, if I had thought that this team was unethical or somehow not up to my standards (for those of you who know me, you know how strongly I feel about FIRST and how teams should operate) in terms of how it operates and expects its members to behave I would not have joined this team. This year has been a pleasure for me, and I am very thankful to Steve Kyramarios, Robin Kyramarios, Glenn and Krystine Thoroughman, Jim Urhausen, Al Bayer, EJ Sabathia, Matt Yu, John Kiely, Matt Durstenfeld, Justin Madera, Adrian Santos, Ben Margolis, and many others for what has been a huge learning experience for me this year. I hope that I have been a constructive member of the team this year in their eyes.

-Bill Gold