Some of you may have seen the curie quarterfinals between alliances 4 and 5. Before I explain what happened I want to be clear on what im trying to prove here. I am not upset with any teams at all. I am upset with the head ref on our field.
So here’s the set up. 308 chose us(121) and 188 to be partners. 126 chose 322 and 781 for partners. The first match, while tying to protect our stack 126 gets us in the gray starting area on our side. We could not get away since we could only go under the bar forwards. The proceeded to push us and with thier wdge get us up on our side leaving us immobile for the remander of the match. 308 also blew something up in their drivetrain leaving them immobile. It became a 2 vs 0 match with the EP’s coming out 70-8.
Next match we realize we need to do something drastic to win the round. So we set up a 6 stack hoping to get most of the bins on our side. 126 and 781 lost autonomous since they were going for a zero score. Us and 188 get onto our side and keep 126 and 781 in the starting area respectivley. If you haven’t seen, we like 126, have a wedge on the front of our robot. In the same manor and area of the field and in the same time bracket, we hindered 126 useless as they did in the previous match to us. The hood of our robot is actuated by a pnuemaic cyclinder to prevent boxes going over us in autonomous. The refs thought we were trying to get 126 on top of us and then using this hood to literally catapault them off of us. In reality this hood cant even lift a battery. The 6 stack survived and we are looking at 23 x 6 for a score (138). This would have won the round but the head ref decided to call us on intential tipping. As soon as i can get video up ill let you all see what i mean.
What makes me so bitter is that we didn’t lose the match. It was hard fought on all the teams sides. All I wanted was to have the refs be consistant in rulings. Maybe since we flipped over the first time they thought we were trying to flip them over. Being manipulator i can tell you that i was merely trying to remove 126’s 5th wheel out of our pnumatics.
We have the ability to flip anyone if we want to. If you can drive up the ramp you can drive up our wedge and end up on your back. The refs also did not give us any warning whatsoever on our wedge all 3 days.
And was anyone else called for intentional robot tipping in houston?
Unfortunately I had to watch the competition from home this year. I did get a great view of everything that was going on, and I will say that even I was suprised that you guys got DQ’ed. I think the only thing FIRST could have got you on was because of the top of your robot moving around. They may have viewed that as means to tip, even if it wasn’t. Reguardless, I think FIRST is going to have to be more clear on robot wedge designs and so forth, so that things like this don’t happen in the future. As always it was a great battle, and hopefully there will be a rematch in our futures at Battlecry.
In our final match on saturday, in the semifinals, our opponent, which was buzz and miss daisy, got intentional tipping called on them for attempting to tip our partners, Truck Town. I couldnt really see, but apparently the bot trying to tip Truck Town used their arm to try to tip them, and it was pretty blatant that they were trying to tip 68. So, it has been called before. Of course, if we had known they would have called intentional tipping, we would have gotten on the ramp at the end, but because without the call we would have lost we did not. Just shows that the refs on different fields were prepared to make this call, and it wasnt just a random call made because the ref was thinking about it at the time.
I went over to watch the matches on Curie… specifically 126’s matches since, well, I’m an alum of their team and my two cousins were drivers… so I saw it all.
Yes… pushing matches were engaged in in both matches. 126 got under 121 in the first match and managed to get them stick up on their side. In the 2nd match, 121 went head on into 126 who got stuck there and then kept pushing until 126 flipped completely over onto their back.
The hood, whether or not it was powerful enough, was lifted during that.
At first I kind of laughed… because knowing the typical ‘mentality’ of 121, I pretty much guessed they would attack 126 the second match. When the flip occured… I thought “turnabout’s fair play”. However, I do not think that the referees were wrong for making the call. They do not know that your wedge “isn’t even strong enough to lift a battery”, they only know that you were moving it which looked like, to the observer, an attempt to tip their robot. The only thing 126 did when you were on top was drive around. 121 both drove around AND lifted your hood.
I do not think it was unfair, and I think it was consistent with the rest of the calls I saw at nationals.
And Ricksta, given your profile saying that 121 has had ‘11 Brutal Flips’, I would say that your team (or yourself as a representative of your team) thinks that tipping is correct and that you do so with somewhat of an intention, otherwise I’d highly doubt you’d brag about it. So I really don’t think the judges were wrong in assuming that was your intent.
The referees calls in both matches were absolutely in line with my interpretation of the rules.
If you look closely it appears to me that 121 has their hood extended the whole time and it keeps popping down when 126’s bot puts full weight on it. It honestly looks like 121 is trying to get 126 off of them, plus if you note 126 is driving forward the whole time almost as if trying to drive over 121. So i would not call it an intentional flip.
I really approve of the fact that everyone seems to be keeping a calm head while discussing this lets keep it up.
*Originally posted by Chris Nowak *
**In our final match on saturday, in the semifinals, our opponent, which was buzz and miss daisy, got intentional tipping called on them for attempting to tip our partners, Truck Town. I couldnt really see, but apparently the bot trying to tip Truck Town used their arm to try to tip them, and it was pretty blatant that they were trying to tip 68. So, it has been called before. Of course, if we had known they would have called intentional tipping, we would have gotten on the ramp at the end, but because without the call we would have lost we did not. Just shows that the refs on different fields were prepared to make this call, and it wasnt just a random call made because the ref was thinking about it at the time. **
This kinda ticked me off because Buzz didn’t even use their arm to flip Truck Town. What happened was-
Truck Town was guarding a stack of about 4, and Buzz was pushing them, trying to knock over the stack. Then both robots leaned up on eachother, and Buzz fell down under Truck Town. They proceeded to push Truck Town through the stack, knocking it down. Truck Town’s arms prevented them from flipping, as there were bins right under the arms. They never completely flipped over, but the refs disqualified us… It ended up 10-0…
P.S- It took the refs about 10 mins to decide if it was intentional tipping or not, so it wasn’t a definite yes or no…
FIRST needs to change their rules, and it needs to go something like this:
(Some is the same)
No robot can have a device to intentionally damage another robot or aspect of the playing field
No robot can have a ‘powered’ device (pneumatic or motor) to get underneath another robot.
A robot may not tip another robot by wedging them between themselves and a part of the playing field.
This would make wedges ok, but catapults illegal, and would also eliminate the no tipping rule. If two robots are pushing up against each other in a match and one is tipped, it should be alright. It is wrong however to tip a robot when they can’t back up and run away essentially.
Either this, or they take away the tipping rule entirely. Maybe then teams will start developing clever ways to upright themselves :yikes:
*Originally posted by OneAngryDaisy *
**This kinda ticked me off because Buzz didn’t even use their arm to flip Truck Town. What happened was-
Truck Town was guarding a stack of about 4, and Buzz was pushing them, trying to knock over the stack. Then both robots leaned up on eachother, and Buzz fell down under Truck Town. They proceeded to push Truck Town through the stack, knocking it down. Truck Town’s arms prevented them from flipping, as there were bins right under the arms. They never completely flipped over, but the refs disqualified us… It ended up 10-0…
P.S- It took the refs about 10 mins to decide if it was intentional tipping or not, so it wasn’t a definite yes or no… **
Yeah, from where I was driving I couldnt see what was going on, and I was concerned with watching our own robot. I guess it may have been a bad call, but you ended up winning anyway, so I guess it doesnt matter. Good Match though, I did go away from that thinking that we were beat by a superior alliance.
Tell me one thing before I say anything. Did you or did you not open your hood?
I was not back there but I believe that the hood was just up the entire time. As 126 drove onto the hood it was pushed down and it would return out when 126 was off.
I agree that it does seem as though we were using the pneumatic hood to flip them but the fact is that that not only can the hood not lift a battery but not even a bin. We tried catapulting bins originally but it never worked because the pistion is poorly placed and there is not enough pressure.
I think one way to slove this problem with refs is to have them be part of the inspection process. If the refs knew more about the robots then that would help them make more accurate calls. After the ref told us we were using our hood to flip them he would not even listen to us when we tried to explain that its not possible.
and on those 11 brutal flips… atleast 9 of them have to have been the flipped robots fault… when you see a wedge at the top of the ramp…don’t drive up it becuase you will fall on your own.
The way i look at it, if you build a robot with a wedge, that is legal.
However, if you choose to build a wedge, you are putting yourself in a grey zone, where the only thing judging what you do in the competition is what the referees see.
therefore, if you choose to build in the grey zone, you are taking a risk, and you should be prepared to accept the consequences of any ruling that may disqualify you because you have constructed something that is controversial.
This occured to my knowledge with the CheesyPoofs 254 and Kingman 60 with the Mesh grabbing feet. While they were allowed at Silicon Valley and Sacramento (for the poofs) they were called on for modification at the Championship. (Correct me if i am wrong on this, i heard this 3rd hand)
When I was watching the match, it looked clear to me that it was intentional flipping. (Whether or not that is the case is not really the question) but to a spectator is seemed obvious, and you should expect that a ref would see a similiar thing, (after all they are volunteers and not members of your team who would know that the panel “could not lift a battery”)
After carefully looking at the video I would have to agree that it was not intentional. The Refs on the other hand did not have that luxury and I can see why they made that call. Our team 188 was involved and were dissappointed however I believe that the Refs made the right call with the info they had at the time. Being the announcer I was able to talk to them after and got their side of the story. All in all they did a great job. Remember if you think you can do a better job, volunteer next year. I found when on the other side of things you get different perspectives. Great job by everyone in Curie and I thought GP ruled supreme in all circumstances.
When I watched the Curie QF involving the team 121 tipping incident I initially thought the referees made a bad call. I was probably clouded with emotion, but the actions 121 took seemed no worse than anything I had seen all season long. Granted I was watching the match on the web, so I may not have gotten the full effect.
Upon watching the match again (thank you SOAP 108) it did appear that team 121 used their pneumatic wall to flip team 126. It doesn’t matter that the pneumatic device can’t lift a bin. To someone who doesn’t know the specs of 121s robot the wall seems rather powerful.
This being said, I still think their were more obvious incidents of tipping that went by as “non-calls”. The job of a FIRST referee is very difficult. I propose, in an effort to make things easier on the referees and clearer to teams, that next year FIRST attempts to clearly define the rules on tipping and tipping device. If teams bring their ideas on these definitions and rules to the team forums, hopefully we won’t have to have any of these tipping debates next season.
I think Joe was right on the money when he said that Refs should go on inspection. Or they should at least walk around together and ask questions of a robot that has any questionable features whatsoever. There is no doubt that wedges are gonna come under alot of scrutiny after this season.
Our reasoning for going for a wedge was after hearing and thinking about “wall bots” we felt we needed to make a wall remover. Of course naturally it became a great defensive asset as it made robots think twice about going straight at us due to the fact that they could ride up on us easily. However, we always stressed to our drivers to not lift the wedge if a robot was riding up on us in fear of exactly what happened to 121. Perception is everything to refs, and what they saw was movement of the hood of the 121 robot, and that is what they called the tipping for, eventhough 121 did not lift the hood with the intention to tip us.
When looking at all the evidence, and seeing the matches, there is no doubt that there needs to be some sort of clarification on this for next year…kinda funny when you think about it too…last time there was a tipping debate in FIRST, it revolved around the famous tipping mechanism of team 121 in 1997! Maybe you guys should just like drop an anchor on other robots or something so you can avoid all this tipping controversy!!! Thank you for being good sports guys, I look forward to working in the future with ya.
Have the refs go to all inspections? I visited every team in Curie Division and spent 6 hours doing so. While I was doing this the refs were busy in meetings going over all of the rules. It is almost imposible to ask this of the refs. Watch the video as if it were a first time and see what you think. I watched 2 or 3 times before I could come to a conclussion. I still say the Refs did a great job!!!
ok…I have an interesting take on this situation because I was standing less then 3 feet from the action
at first sight it did look like you guys were trying to flip the robot but up close you could see that the other robots caster was stuck through the top of your robot, (through your light hole?) and from what I saw it looked as though you were trying to get free from them and lifting your ramp was the only way that was going to be possible… I think that it was a tough call to make and I can definitely see how it could have been seen as intentional flipping…I also think it didn’t help your situation when your whole team cheered when they flipped
the picture is where I was standinghttp://www.geocities.com/aza817/match.txt
hmm… that is maybe one of the main drawbacks of FIRST’s rules… although everyone knows that flipping a robot is pretty underhanded and illegal, and i personally believe that all teams seek never to build a flipping mechanism specifically for robots, we cannot help but cheer or gasp or at least go wow… if you notice… steve even exclaimed oh theyre they go… or something along that line. Obviously flipping over another robot draws attention
but i stand by my and first’s belief that intentionally flipping other robots is not condusive the idea of the game and cooperation. sure its cool and fun to watch, but nevertheless its not particularly right in most situations. my two cents, it doesnt look like 121 was intentionally trying to flip 126, and that their wall was being pushed down by 126. However, i cannot say for sure, and in these kinds of cases, the refeerees always have the final call. (good job)
i certainly agree wtih clarity for the rules…hopefully we can get some for next year’s game.
thanks to 121 and 308 for a great (if short lived ) alliance
Thank you for being good sports guys, I look forward to working in the future with ya.