North Star Regional...

FIRST General Forum
#48

Just about everyone I talked to was surprised 4607 didn’t get picked earlier. There was a solid chunk of time where some of us watching from behind the scoring table were saying “well, they have to be picked this time!” It was almost comical to watch your team rep when the number 2 seed made their second pick - I honestly thought your guy was going to start jumping around he looked so happy.

This game was certainly designed for the elimination matches - some of the quals were almost painful to watch when robots weren’t working or teams weren’t communicating well… but in the eliminations the alliances get their act together and play an amazing game - It didn’t matter who was on the field, you knew it was going to be exciting!

#49

I just want to congratulate my alma mater 2169 for thier 5th chairmans award in their 8th year as a team. You guys make me proud to be a KING TeC alumnist! This was our goal when we formed this team back in 2007.

21!!!
69!!!

#50

This is a tremendous understatement. It was incredibly difficult to predict the outcomes of elimination matches. I often thought one team was going to emerge victorious, only to have the other team suddenly surge ahead.

#51

I’ll second that :]

#52

Thanks everybody for the compliments! I think the reason we were passed over was because of the fact that we were severely limited for our first 4 matches due to faulty pwm cables. After we were fully functional the alliance we were on never failed to break 100 pts (except qualification match 94 in which one of our alliance partners broke down). It sucks that we can’t truly show what our robot can do unless we qualify for the Minnesota State Championship (which based on my knowledge of the scoring system it is unlikely that we will make it). We were having slight difficulties with slop in our winch which limited our shot to about 30 feet. Ideally we would have been able to shoot full court to the human player without ever having to leave our corner by the 1 pt goal (a 50’+ shot which we advertised to pit scouts). If by some miracle we do qualify for the MSHSL tournament watch out for C.I.S.!

A big thanks to 967 and 2175 for picking us 2 years in a row! It was unbelievably fun working with your drive teams as we communicated better than any other team in any sport I’ve ever been apart of. The only smile bigger than the Iron Lions’ team representative was my smile as I accepted the invitation. The past 2 years in FRC have truly changed my life and I’m looking forward to what the future holds for me as I hope to start more FRC teams around Minnesnowta.

#53

Well, being passed over wasn’t a bad thing. It gave us a chance to compete alongside 967 and 2175 again!

Much thanks to all the volunteers, judges, inspectors, and officials that make an FRC event possible - especially North Star possible.

A special thanks to FRC Team 2175 - you have helped out 4607 in many ways in the last year, we really appreciate how you have taken us under your wing. Also, a special thanks to Mr. Will Preska - I know my drive team appreciated the perspective you offered up after the tough loss.

Thanks also to 967 - it was awesome watching the teams play so well together. Hopefully there is another chance in the future to work alongside the Iron Lions.

Good luck to those that qualified for the Championships!

#54

I can’t speak for the two instances in quarterfinals, but I our two problem matches in the semifinals were not connection issues. In SF 1-2 we tipped over due to our high CG and some reckless driving, and were obviously incapacitated for the remainder of the match. In SF 1-3, if you watch, we are still connected and controlling our robot. The shield had come off the guardrail and the 2" steel hooks that hold it on got our robot stuck on the field, flailing pretty pathetically just in front of the low goal. Why this was not considered a field fault and the match replayed, I will never know. A big shame too, that 967 didn’t get a chance to fight it out fairly, especially considering their phenomenal performance in the matches just before that, and throughout qualifications the last two days. Without a doubt the best robot at the event, and they didn’t get their chance to qualify for Champs.

#55

The head ref declared it to be “field debris”, similar to a dead ball that comes loose and starts bouncing around. It all depends on whether the head ref determines something like that to be “field debris” or a “field fault”.

It’s a tricky situation, to be sure…

We don’t replay matches when parts break off a robot and sit on the field, even if another robot ends up getting stuck on them - that’s just “field debris”.

All cases of “field fault” I’ve witnessed were caused by the FMS barfing - either crashing or causing issues with the pedestal lights or issues with scoring that couldn’t be resolved after the fact.

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen part of the field come loose and interfere with robot performance before. It is unfortunate, I think everyone there would have liked to see a nice clean match to decide things in the semi’s… but as I told my kids when they had calls go against them “That’s how the game works. Time to move on and prep for whatever is next”.

#56

Doesn’t seem like a terribly tricky situation. Standard practice is to zip tie the guardrail shields in place before the match starts, and a volunteer did so immediately after SF 1-3. We design our robots not to damage balls, and it’s pretty easy to see when a deflated ball is posing a hazard as “field debris.” Pieces of other robots are coming off because of their own construction and robot interactions, and have nothing to do with FIRST. But when the field falls apart due to minor incidental contact with a robot’s bumper and affects the outcome of a match, that is nothing other than a field fault. Unless you want to design a robot that can drive on a field covered in 2" steel hooks just in case (secret end game?).

We couldn’t even tell where the polycarb sheet had landed on the floor until the robot was no longer able to move.

#57

The piece you’re referring to is never zip tied to the field - the hooks are used to hang it over the entrance to the field, allowing it to be quickly and easily moved to load teams and robot on/off the field.

Regardless, it was the head ref’s call and not something worth arguing about after the fact. Per section 5.5.3:

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, and technical staff. The Head Referee rulings are final.

For those not present at the event, you can see the piece come off here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBnr8vUFO00&list=PLzDq_nIYdDAEIsidvxxIBOTIoZp85I9lC#t=117

#58

You are correct (and this has been confirmed by HQ…); zip tying the shield is not part a standard operating procedure used by FTAs or field reset. Sounds like I was getting that from anecdotal evidence of volunteers doing so on their own initiative. I’m surprised the velcro alone has not been more of a problem in the past.

It was the head ref’s call, and it was final, but it was also incorrect. I refer you again to T16. How a broken field element that has affected the outcome of the match does not qualify as a broken field element that has affected the outcome in his judgment is beyond me. So while he is entitled to his judgment, I am entitled to my serious doubts about his judgment.

It does not seem very productive to quiet the issue. I am not asking for a recall. Never once did I complain about how this affected my team. Fortunately, we had already qualified for the Championship. But some other teams were not so fortunate, and were very adversely by several questionable decisions by the refs, for which they showed no accountability. And I never said that 967, with our help, should have won the Semifinals. The opposing alliance played some amazing defense, though I challenge anyone to tell me that playing 2 on 3 in this is not a severe disadvantage. But you’re suggesting they didn’t even deserve a fair shot. And when a team of that caliber that has worked so hard all season and lost their chance at qualification to poor officiation, that is very unfortunate. It’s not worth not arguing about after the fact. This sort of thing is bad for FIRST and I would like for it not to continue.

#59

Perhaps not worth arguing about, but its worth discussing. I’ll admit I do have a certain bias, but I struggle to see how this doesn’t qualify as a Arena Fault given that it is broken field element (the shield came off), and it most certainly affected the outcome. If we don’t talk about it after the fact how can we learn? The piece of the field border they caught on does not have to hang loose, since the velcro was not enough in this case then stronger measures need to be taken to secure this piece of the field border. I don’t expect the head ref to come on Chief Delphi and say he changed his mind, but if there is some way to prevent this in the future, then it is absolutely worth discussing after the fact.

If something like this happened on Einstein I doubt you would say that the head ref’s call is final and we shouldn’t talk about it.

#60

I interpret “ARENA fault” in T16 to mean that the field was broken, but not due to the actions of any particular robot.

If a specific robot can be blamed for a piece of the field coming loose, then that robot could actually be penalized under G10.

In the video that Jon posted, it seems pretty clear that one robot came along and push the gate off, then got caught on it. It was almost certainly accidental, so I’m happy that the robot didn’t get a G10, but it definitely was well within control of the team.

The drivers are constantly going on and off the field to retrieve or place their robots, so they are aware that the gates are not locked in place. Perhaps teams just need to be more aware of which pieces of the field are more subject to dislocation.

#61

A team should not have to go out of the way to put a ball into a goal just because a piece of the field is likely to come off. The gates come off often, yes and a driver knows that they should not slam into it but when just turning and grazing it causes it to fall off, There is a problem.

#62

Looking at the video again, it looks like the team caught the gap between the two sheets with their bumper, then drove forward and turned so that their robot was still moving into the gate at an angle. I wouldn’t call that just a graze.

The other problem here seems to be that the drivers didn’t notice the gate had come off. If they had seen that, they could have gone to the other goal to put the ball in.

I agree that what happened during the match was unfortunate. However, I agree with the ref in deciding that it was not a failure of the field.

#63

I might not call it a graze, but I wouldn’t call it a hard hit on the field either.
Part of section 2.1 in the game manual states “The ARENA is designed to withstand rigorous play and frequent shipping” I would not call this rigorous play by any stretch. I have seen far harder hit on the field that did not result in any noticeable effect. The fact that this field element did not stand up to what was in my opinion normal game-play indicates to me that it was a failure of the field due to a broken field component that affected the match outcome. To me, this is exactly the type of thing that T16 is there to prevent. G10 absolutely should not apply here as the blue box underneath clearly states “ROBOTS may push or react against any element of the FIELD.” 2175 appeared to be “sidescraping” the field border to get their robot lined up with the low goal, something I have seen happen hundreds of times this year. What I haven’t seen happen before is that panel coming off, which should have resulted in a T16 and a replay.

#64

cf. G10 and Sections 2.1 and 2.2.1. Certainly an appropriate action and certainly not appropriate for a G10.

We all saw the gate come off, but no one was positive where it had landed on or off the field until we were stuck. I feel we shouldn’t be looking out for all possible, invisible obstacles not described in the field spec, rather than focusing on playing the game.

Watch the video again, this time from 1:53. The bot pulls up to the ball, picks it up, and comes to a stop next to the gate. Then, in executing a pretty reasonable turn to face the goal, the corner snags the panel. It appears as if the velcro is not even attached in this case, since it immediately slides directly to the side (I doubt the velcro would shear like that from a bumper corner). It slides a foot or so before hitting the human player barrier and flipping onto the field.

When one robot breaks another, a foul is assessed for the damage. When one robot breaks itself, a foul may be assessed for violating other robot rules or leaving parts on the field that may become a hazard to other robots. When a robot breaks the field, a foul is assessed. But when the field breaks a robot, it’s just “unfortunate.”

#65

That is something I would never say, never have said, and would never suggest. If you look back a few posts, I stated that the results were unfortunate and everyone (which includes me) would have liked to see a clean game without this issue.

The gates have been the same way for at least 8 years - the bar locks in place, and the lexan sheet is hung on it. Also note that T16 states “If, in the judgment of the Head Referee…” The rule doesn’t dictate specific situations or items, it gives the head ref the ability to replay a match if he feels its warranted. It’s similar in concept to R08 - the LRI can rule a design or mechanism unsafe or causing an unsafe condition and make the team take measures to correct it, and it doesn’t matter if the team agrees with the assessment or not. A good LRI will explain the issue to the team and work to get them to agree with the danger, but even if the team doesn’t…

#66

And in those 8 years, lots of things have changed. Just because things have always been that way doesn’t mean they need to stay that way.

You are correct, but that isn’t the point. I cannot speak for anyone else, but in my estimation, the head referee’s judgement was not correct. It certainly is true he didn’t feel it was warranted, but I do, and so do several others. It would be preposterous for FIRST to include specific situations in T16. It would tie the hands of every head ref, and lead to even more problems. So it comes down to judgement. It depends on whether, in the Head Ref’s estimation, a T16 needed to be called. I believe that estimation is not correct.

As you mentioned, everyone wants to see a clean game, hence why T16 is in existence.

#67

When you say that the events of the match were merely unfortunate and that the Head Ref was justified in making his decision, you are either suggesting that they did not deserve a fair shot, or you are suggesting that they got a fair shot. From what I saw, they did not get a chance to be beaten fair and square. If you think what happened was fair to Team 967, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.