Our team was at Kettering for the first week of competition. During our tie-breaker match for the semi-finals we lost 111-115.
This score did not include a clear foul that was given by the ref on the far side of the field for what it looks like on video as a 5 sec defense on our alliance robot
Please see the video at 8:14
We all, half of the crowd, questioned this?? We asked why the foul points were not given?? Their answer is that they gave us strength in our tower.
What I question is looking very long and hard I could not find that they can only give us strength only. I seen that a Foul is 5 points and a Tech Foul is 5 points + a tower increase??? If the foul given would have been awarded in 5 points we would have advanced to the finals.
Maybe someone else can help me out so we understand going further into our competitions.
A foul (if indeed that’s what it was) should award the other team +5 points.
But as unfortunate as losing a high-stakes game is, this weekend a friend of mine lost her brother, another friend her husband, and yet another his mom. While it may be disheartening, frustrating, aggravating, even enraging, there is nothing even remotely “tragic” about a blown call or a missed assignment of points.
G28 During the final twenty (20) seconds of TELEOP, ROBOTS in their COURTYARD may not contact an opponent ROBOT, regardless of who initiates the contact.
Violation: The contacted ROBOT is considered to have SCALED an open side of the TOWER at the end of the MATCH.
Look at the end result. Your alliance only had 1 robot on the batter. That is 5 points. Your alliance got an extra 15 points in scaling for the foul. They referees followed the rule correctly.
pfreivald - as what you have mentioned those are TRULY TRAGIC; and I am sure in my post I didn’t say anything that would diminish those. For this occurrence it was a more tense problem that could possibly cause one not to qualify for states and more. Some Seniors on our team who have worked hard all year for years would deem this a bit tragic! Maybe Monday Mornings are not a happy time for you?
3175student17- you are correct that is what they said they had done–however I am looking for clarification where it states that in the rules??
I don’t think from the video it was for a 5 sec pin.
I think it may be for …
G28 During the final twenty (20) seconds of TELEOP, ROBOTS in their COURTYARD may not contact
an opponent ROBOT, regardless of who initiates the contact.
Violation: The contacted ROBOT is considered to have SCALED an open side of the TOWER at the
end of the MATCH.
Teams are encouraged to consider rule G11 when developing their
strategies, such as attempting to draw violations of this rule.
The ARENA will play a warning sound when thirty (30) seconds remain
in TELEOP as a reminder that violations for this rule will soon be
enforced. When twenty (20) seconds remain in TELEOP, an additional
sound will be played.
It happened at :19 so your received a SCALE and extra 15 IF the penalty stood.
The BLUE robot did not heed th 30 second warning and violated your “attempt to scale” at 19.
Which it appears they did (but why the extra tower strength? too)
During the final twenty (20) seconds of TELEOP, ROBOTS in their COURTYARD may not contact
an opponent ROBOT, regardless of who initiates the contact.
Violation: The contacted ROBOT is considered to have SCALED an open side of the TOWER at the
end of the MATCH.
Thanks for much for the clarification. They had told us they gave us points for the tower strength, per a student who asked; but obviously he misunderstood and should have said that they gave us points for scaling the tower!
As in the past we have our students talk and communicate with refs and staff if they have any questions and we HOPE they remember what they said so we can better understand
Once again, THANK YOU and 5150 for the opportunity to be seeded with you as the #1 Alliance for the playoffs.
I had posted about our match yesterday, but as you are seeing the bashing and posts about being overly dramatic and to lighten up about the call made me just go ahead and delete the thread all together. I don’t think those people being rude understand the complete details of what we were told versus what really happened. If it had been explained to us correctly in the first place, it would not have ever been even posted.
They are correct it was a G28 violation NOT a G22 foul. While not everyone was rude on my post and answered our concerns, which I greatly appreciated, a lot were. The purpose of CD I thought was to get answers and clarification, but this has left a bad taste in my mouth. Too bad the “gracious professionalism” isn’t carried through even on this site by all users.
Again,
Thank you for choosing us as a part of your alliance. And, our experience forever more will be one of our teams most memorable events!
Good Luck with all of your future matches, and we’ll be watching!
Please know that we are really, REALLY happy with the Kettering U event, refs, volunteers and all that was at the event. We are gracious that 5150 picked us up and that they and us saw vision in your bot capabilities through the fog you were experiencing with the incorrect IP address and no robot control for your first 7-8 events that day!
Please don’t let a few bad apples here deter you from seeking information here. I chose to come here to ask because I wasn’t finding all that I needed to get my facts straight. The individuals that guided me was super helpful for our team and who knows how many more on scoring and fouls.
Basically if you can’t help with a question or clarification DON’T RESPOND and MOVE ON!!
Hope you have a great rest of the year at your events and this game is all that we were hoping for from the last year games for sure!!!
I wish to help with a clarification on what’s going on here.
Your wording (“tragic occurrence”) is over the top, and seems chosen to draw criticism. It did exactly that. Your joke about Patrick’s situation was completely uncalled for. Hopefully you’ll learn more appropriate ways to express yourself in public as you grow.
Please take this as not as an attack, but as an attempt to help you more suitably project an attitude of professionalism. If everyone merely moved on when they had a chance to offer guidance, the mission of FIRST would not be furthered. The mission of FIRST is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting Mentor-based programs that build science, engineering, and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.
I fail to see how Patrick’s first post is even relevant or appropriate here. The argument of “you shouldn’t be sad because someone else is sadder” is as illogical as the equivalent “you shouldn’t be happy because someone else is happier”.
While I am very sorry for Patrick’s loss, I am quite interested in seeing the justification for going off-topic and nitpicking the word choice of someone who just wants some input.
The argument was not that “you shouldn’t be sad because someone else is sadder [sic].” The argument is that the word “tragic” was erroneously used in this instance.
The thread was hijacked by its title. Having been through difficult losses in playoffs, including robots torn in half, I’d say “tragic” is not the right term for anything robot related, barring a very serious accident involving a person (which thankfully hasn’t occurred so far this season, though the child who made it into the field could have been one). Sorry to be pedantic, but there it is.
I think what he was getting at was different. Okay so lets continue this situation. What if I go and say…
“Patrick I know you had a few people die but that isn’t tragic. Did you hear about the bubonic plague now thats tragic.”
Isn’t that out of line? Isn’t using a dictionary definition to invalidate someone elses feelings and make them look (frankly petty) something that we don’t want to be okay in the CD community?
I’m going to get so much heat for this I already know…
Keep in mind you guys also had atleast thirty people screaming at the head referee for about ten minutes when you weren’t even supposed to be able to
As a process improvement, in this year’s REFEREE training we
instructed them to not record details about FOULS and TECHNICAL
FOULS; as a result, we don’t expect REFEREES to recall details about
what FOULS or TECHNICAL FOULS were made, when they occurred,
and against whom.
The goal is to increase consistency across events while enabling and
empowering REFEREES to focus on the play on the FIELD (instead
of worrying about keeping detailed records during the MATCH). Any
reasonable question is fair game in the Question Box, and Head
REFEREES will do good faith efforts to provide helpful feedback (e.g.
how/why certain FOULS are being called, why a particular ROBOT may
be susceptible to certain FOULS based on its design or game play,
how specific rules are being called or interpreted), but please know that
they will likely not be able to supply specific details.
You guys still put up a good fight and a good performance at your succeeding events will probably book a ticket to States so it is nothing to lose sleep over.
Thanks for the coming into to defend my opening subject line.
If I offend anybody with the word “tragic” do not take offense. Simply move on.
Being as I was an ER AND ICU nurse for 12 years plus worked in an ambulance I can better judge tragic than even Webster himself.
That being said–
I am unsure about the yelling and would profusely apologize if anybody on my team reacted that way. As my family was leaving we were able to personally acknowledge and congratulate the winners. I truly felt we had a winning time and all around wonderful experience for all.
As stated previously I needed clarification because of what I was being told by a student the explanation he was given by the ref still did not make sense to me. After the above clarified it now it is crystal clear.
Thanks to all who has been very helpful and informative.
