Watch this match,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXfmgpyvYPs
and tell me why you think the call for multiple technical fouls on 900 would stand if official video reviews by the HR were allowed. This cost alliance 3 the match and the semifinals.
Why don’t we have video review again?
This is one of those things that FIRST ought to quietly study and take a position on every off-season. At some point, the perceived balance (between practicality and justice) will shift, and it would be good to have a framework sketched out and largely ready to go.
A ChiefDelphi thread every few years doesn’t hurt either.
From the zoomed-out view, this seems like it’s obvious that a red robot had options to acquire Cargo game pieces (Blue Launchpad, spots right at the edge of the Hangar, etc) but from the wording of G404 Blue Box Section b:
Examples of restricting access to Cargo includes, but are not limited to,
b. using HANGAR contact protection afforded per G208-A to prevent an
opponent from legally reaching 4 opposing ALLIANCE CARGO cornered in
the back of your HANGAR.
4 Cargo in what is now a “protected zone” by 900’s climb (ahead of the 30 second mark, though admittedly they had very few options) is a really dicey situation for any red robot to challenge. I certainly wouldn’t.
This all seems unfortunate for both alliances, with no clear intent by anyone to force this situation, but I think the ruling stands. Am I missing something?
Edit: Adding the “not limited to” note at the top of the Blue Box to indicate that this is not the literal situation to look at.
It’s the 4 Cargo in a protected zone. Tell me that 900 was climbing early…
And looking at the video, YEP. Foul + 3 techs, G404, blue box B. That ruling would stand.
Where is the back of the hangar? Were the red balls there?
What if the video replay was limited to 1 per team during quals, and 1 per alliance during playoffs? At most, you’ll have + 8 reviews during an event. This should give adequate balance between delaying the published schedule and giving teams recourse for a “bad” ref call (not implying malicious intent, but sometimes things get missed). Thoughts?
They were not. I am assuming that the Cargo in any part of the hangar is considered to be unsalvageable during the climb. Which the video shows technically isn’t true.
Exceptions made sometimes.
We had video review of Finals Match #3 in Montreal. Kate P. was also at our event, and a phone call was made to headquarters. As a result, they concluded we had won the event. The final score posted was 1-0.
Another thing we have questions about (drive captain for 8727 here) is what the back corner as stated by the rule is. Only 3 cargo were clearly in what our alliance would call the back corner. One is not in any corner whatsoever, on the same plane as the trusses on the right side of the hanger. So far, we have been unable to get clarification regarding this rule because the ref only mentioned the total number of the hanger mattering, rather than 4 cargo being in the back corner.
And for the record, the head ref was very good, communicative, and helpful. A pleasure to work with. What we see to be the issue is the rule.
The back corner is just an example of what would be considered restricting access to cargo.
We couldn’t drive properly for a control issue.
Edit: Watch other matches and tell me why else we would be doing that if we could be scoring balls.
Oof.
Did you eventually get the control issue sorted?
No Eric. It’s the last match of the event for us.
We will be at DCMP for NC and we will resolve it. We are not certain what it was yet.
The true unfortunate thing is that 3737 fell. I loved their climber and I’m sorry they fell and had to call a backup.
Same thing happened @ CVR yesterday in QF2-1.
G404 as currently written punishes teams for simply playing the game if they climb before 30 seconds and get particularly unlucky on ball entropy. You can prevent G404 by trying to clear the cargo with your drivetrain, just don’t intake them to do so otherwise that’s also a potential G404 violation.
It’s really inspirational.
Definitely agree, as we’ve seen a few climbers that take longer than the allotted 30 seconds. Most that you can do in the Hangar is to try giving your opponents the balls back.
What is the better way to write this rule? The current rule is enforced in a pretty blanket “no-go” zone way, would we prefer referees use their judgement as to whether or not a ball is accessible by a team?
I’d prefer the refs use their judgement to assess if an alliance or team is actually hoarding, or if balls just happen to end up in the hangar… but that’s probably asking for too much. @EricH might have some ideas.
Fouls that you can stumble into through no fault of your own by literally just playing the game have no place in FRC.
The issues with the rules for balls in the hanger with respect to climbing needs to be resolved somehow. I cant see a situation where rules can be clearly and uniformly enforced here.
Something else that makes these G404 calls particularly frustrating is that balls in the Hangar up against the driverstation wall can be challenging to see and easily forgotten.
The infrastructure to accommodate video replays is inconsistent from event to event. That needs to be addressed first
I support relying on the referees without technology as a crutch.
I support making the infrastructure consistent