San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals

Competition Rules/Strategy
21

This is one of the most Gracious Professional posts I’ve seen in my time in FIRST. On behalf of the W.A.R. Lords and the FIRST community, I’d like to thank you for exhibiting exactly the values FIRST most tries to promote. And I completely agree with you about the refs; I just think it’s too bad when the outcome of a match and even a regional is placed on their shoulders like this.

One of the team parents actually got a video from directly behind the ref; it’s uploading to youtube right now, and I’ll post it as soon as it finishes. It’s always good in these situations to consider how it could be seen from as many angles as possible. However, I will say that in my personal (and admittedly biased) opinion, this does nothing to support the idea that it should have been called a foul.

22

This should be live in about 7 minutes:

Edit: Video is now live.

Edit 2: The incident in question takes place at around 2:05 (I recommend watching a few seconds before the pass itself, as it seems to become apparent that 2485 was trying to move into position to take a human player pass).

23

A very similar thing happened at the Arkansas regional finals. Technical fouls called and deliberated on after the game was over and not in real time were levied on the blue alliance for both the last games. These technical fouls changed the results of the game.

This particular game puts too much control in the referee’s hands with the size and human judgement aspect of the penalties. An honest mistake on the referee’s part can literally cost an alliance an entire regional championship. This is not an isolated San Diego regional problem, it is systematic and showing up at other venues.

24

I think this is the problem at the moment. The technical fouls are punishing teams way too much especially for what are, in most cases, accidents. However on the flip side if they are too small teams won’t try to avoid them as much and possibly (although I know of no such teams) abuse these fouls… At the end of the day it sucks that this happens but game design is tricky and stuff happens. Although I would have loved to see one more round those final matches were intense.

25

Here is the logic I can see behind the foul being called:

It looks as though the human player is attempting to throw the ball to 2485 when it hits 330. BUT then 2485 never goes to retrieve the ball, they appear to play defense against 330 (as per the second video). 3250 actually ends picking up the ball in the last few seconds (as shown in the first video). This could lead the ref to believe that the ball was intentionally thrown at 330s robot and not intended for the following 2485 to inbound.

26

I watched both posted videos a bunch of times and it seems clear that the human player is trying to get his alliance the ball and should not have been a foul. But I will be honest when I watched the first posted one the first time (and mind you I could not see the human player) it looked like the ball was thrown at 330. So I understand how a referee could make the call. And not reverse it because they can’t look at video. As quite a few posters have said, the high point value for inadvertent fouls is a problem. I think smaller point values would make for a better game. If you are really concerned with keeping play clean perhaps the point values ratchet up for multiple instances of the same infraction in the same match. One thing I think that would dramatically improve the game would be to have six scorekeepers, whose only job is to watch one team for possessions and scores. Then the referees could look just for fouls and not have a divided responsibility.

27

Let me preface this by saying what an incredibly difficult job the referees have this season. They have too much to watch, and are working with sub-optimal input system. It would be difficult to find fault with any referee call this season, just because of the terrible position they’ve been put in by the written rules and Q&A.

Even if this was an intentional move, the fact that something so inconsequential was worth 50 points is mind boggling to me. From my vantage point, this seems completely accidental, and definitely not warranting a foul. I feel bad for both alliances here, the red alliance for having to lose due to a ridiculous penalty value, and the blue alliance for having their well earned victory being drawn into question. I also feel for the referees, who are in for a long season of being the focal point of match results. These overwhelming penalties for inconsequential actions are definitely marring Aerial Assist.

28

Glad to hear that others see what kind of job the referees have this year. It takes all of Thursday just to learn the tablets while having to learn how the game is going to be played. There are two different screens that can take a couple of seconds to navigate between just to enter fouls, then a couple of seconds to navigate back so the can enter the points accumulated. While navigating the screens your eyes are off the field and things happen. When we look up situations can look like penalties and they get called. But we all would do our best to help each other out to make sure the points were added though, the radios are well used during the match for this and for penalties.

This is the first time in my history with first that game was designed to be this rough. When standing 4 feet from a demo derby of robots beating each other up situations can look like a foul. Please be kind to your referees all the crashing and hard hitting can make intent and who initiates the contact really hard to figure out.

Not knowing how your regional was played by the human players, it looked like the ball was thrown with some force wether to their alliance robot or at the blue ball. In our regional the balls were barely making it on the field because they were thrown in so passively all weekend (they did not want the technical for passing the plane). So looking at how the ball was thrown and the the fact that the red robot playing strong defense for so long before the ball was thrown, and little to no actions to go and pick the ball up after the blue ball was thrown towards the goal, I could see why the referees said the red robot was not playing the ball thus throwing the ball at the blue robot. It looks like the red robot was coming in to intercept the blue robot and pin them against the wall to stop there movement while the ball was thrown in the direction of the the scuffle, I say this from a referees perspective who was standing 4 feet from a demo derby all weekend.

29

Brandon spoke for our team. Our team doesn’t like the idea of our win being questioned because it was a hard fought victory. Having to win a match “on account of a penalty” is never optimal, but it’s just part of the game.

I’ve been involved in FRC for 10 years and have seen ref calls decide matches and lots questionable calls. I’ve watched the replay and was on the field when the call happened and I honestly can see why the ref could have made that call.

Picture the scenario; the game was close and the beach bots scoring that last ball could have put the blue alliance ahead, but as the beach bots are going to score the ref sees a red ball move across the field with some force hitting the beach bot robot and no attempt by the red team to grab the ball. Seconds later 330 shoots and misses.

This is probably what the referee saw. Intentional or not, we need to understand that this is a difficult call but it’s understandable why it was made. 987 and 2485 were fierce competitors and I have great respect for both teams. 987 has been one of my favorite teams since I started frc and I have looked up to their organization ever since. 2485 has a special place for me because I remember when our original mentor and myself as a student helped your team get started in frc and vex. You guys have turned into such an amazing team! Team 1266 apologizes tremendously for having to win under these conditions. Having been around so long though, I accept that penalties are part of the game and I instruct all my students to be very careful with everything they do during a match, especially during elimination because the threat of game deciding penalty are always present.

We will be seeing 987 and 2485 again at the Vegas regional and our team is looking forward to it! Once again I’m sorry for our team having to win by technical foul, but props to our alliance partner team 330( my favorite team besides my own). Their driver was amazing and saved us quite a few times with his ability to weave through defenses and score in the high goal!

30

After seeing the match in question… I have to say it was another great example of fouls ruining game play. An alliance bot was clearly in position to accept the pass. This is one of the subjective fouls which can be called as the ref sees it. IF he thinks it would likely a defensive strategy to win the game, it is likely he will call it. Regardless of contradictory supporting evidence.

31

To me it looked like 2485 was playing defense on the Beachbots, not looking to receive a ball.

32

Let this outcome stand as a precautionary tale…it appears if your inbounders attempt to add any force to propell the ball outward toward their receiving robot anywhere away from the low goal they may incur a g32 call or even g31 should it make contact with an opposing ball or robot. Results from yesterday may continue to reinforce typical soft short toss into inbounders bots as a prevailing strategy. Unfortunately this means defenders jobs become easier as they know balls will almost always be inbounded next to the low goal. Are you willing to risk giving 50 pts to your opponent every time you in bound to a robot away from the low goal?

Keep in mind even one errant or intercepted inbound may apparently be percieved as a “strategy”…

Having said this I want to convey my congrats to our opponents. Unbelievably tough defense, great shooting and driving. Hats off to the whole alliance.

33

I just wanted to drop my two cents in and hopefully provide some clarifying insights.

First, congratulations to the winning alliance, 330, 1266, 4583 and 4486. No matter what I (or anyone else, IMHO) may think of the final call, it can not be denied that the winning alliance earned their win. They had a remarkable and impressive rise through the eliminations. I deeply respect all the teams involved, and 1266, just FYI, you guys have a special place in my heart too. Our team would likely not even exist if not for the support provided by your team and 1538.

Lest I seem remiss, I want to thank our alliance members 987 and 3250 too for competing along side us and being so gracious even in defeat. It was an honor and a pleasure.

Following that, I want to thank the refs. They have a very hard job, and they are good people that strive to make these competitions fair and outstanding. While I may disagree with a call at times, I fully respect their calls and even often understand how in different shoes, an event can seem contrary to how I interpreted it.

I know my drive team well, and I can assure you all, that no matter how it may look in the video, it was certainly not the intent of our human player to disrupt 330 with the toss in. In fact, I think that was the first foul he has caused for the entire season. Furthermore, we always discourage our drive team from employing any kind of what we call “sweep the leg tactics” (for those of you that have not seen Karate Kid, I mean malicious or questionable intent tactics). Even so, I understand how in the heat of competition this event could have been perceived that way by the refs, and respect their ruling. Their job is exceedingly difficult this year. IMHO, in this year’s game, they have been tasked with too much to do, and even so they are striving to make it all work. Truly commendable.

Finally, I have to say our team had a ton of fun at the San Diego Regional and was very fortunate at the competition. Thanks to all involved, especially all the volunteer staff and all the teams that helped make the event memorable. I look forward to seeing many of those same teams, and some I missed seeing at our regional this year, in Vegas.

34

I know my drive team well, and I can assure you all, that no matter how it may look in the video, it was certainly not the intent of our human player to disrupt 330 with the toss in. In fact, I think that was the first foul he has caused for the entire season. Furthermore, we always discourage our drive team from employing any kind of what we call “sweep the leg tactics” (for those of you that have not seen Karate Kid, I mean malicious or questionable intent tactics).

I’ve met all of the drive team members of 2485 and I couldn’t agree more. What I’m concerned with though is people perceiving the technical foul as an ungraciously professional act from 2485.

Also, I’m very happy with the responses that 987 and 2485 were giving. We were kind of concerned that people would say that the technical foul was a cheap win (it kind of was though) and would say that we shouldn’t have won.

Also also,

and 1266, just FYI, you guys have a special place in my heart too.

Oh you guys :rolleyes:

35

The judges and referees should have weighed available video evidence considering the importance of the final matches. I watched the YouTube video half a dozen times (at the crucial moments - took about 90 seconds to reach a conclusion) and it was clear that the RED ball was heading toward a RED alliance robot when #330 turned into the path of the RED ball. So if it was a ‘strategic’ move to inbound a ball to deflect an opponent’s ball tucked safely inside an opposing team robot then isn’t it equally likely that #330 turned into the path of the RED ball in order to create the foul? Sure it is.

Do I believe that? Of course not! What we had here was a spirited match and given the situation neither the HP nor 330 were intentionally attempting to cause a foul. Had the ball been clearly over-thrown past all the RED robots to an open part of the field containing only a BLUE robot and its ball, then the refs have a ‘strategic’ foul to deal with. From what I understand, only a single referee saw the event and video evidence presented to the refs seconds after the match ended was not given due consideration.
I also agree with the assessment from Hayes92107: “Based on my GoPro video, the ball was being inbounded to 2485 when 330 tried to pass our robot to get into scoring position and the ball bounced off the blue ball that was within the passing robot”.

:confused:

36

An important thing to keep in mind when something like this comes up is the reason we have foul points. The foul points awarded should be directly related (though not necessarily equal) to the amount of harm done. Fouls exist to keep unfair play from changing match outcomes. Changing the outcome of a match is exactly the opposite of what they’re intended to do!

Sure we can argue back and forth over whether the rules were violated or not, but there comes a point where you should question a rule that is causing undesired results. Rules are tools, if they aren’t working, let’s fix them.

37

I remember watching one of 2485’s last qualifying matches and saw their human player use the same type of pass (long pass with some backspin) when their robot was across the field from him. At the time another mentor and I even commented to each other on how good of a human player he was (very careful on the truss catches too).

The match was almost over, our robots couldn’t reach the loading spot, and he was trying to quickly get the ball back in play. He shouldn’t feel bad about this play in any way.

38

There seem to be two questions being debated.

  1. Was the foul called correctly? I’ll pass on that question.
  2. Is 50 points an excessive penalty for this penalty? No, it’s not. Every year very smart people analyze the game looking for strategies of play that provide a net benefit. There are CD threads created where people debate whether the benefit of intentionally committing a foul outweigh the cost of the penalty points. If a ball has three assists on it, and a robot attempts a high goal score with that ball, it is potentially worth 40 points. If a human player throws a 2nd ball that interferes with the first, and prevents those 40 points from being scored, that’s a benefit of 40 points. To dissuade this behavior, the associated penalty MUST be greater. Otherwise, the cost/benefit analysis shows that it is actually beneficial to throw balls at certain high goal shots to prevent them from being scored. Yes, there is a whole question of whether this behavior is GP. But, it has been persuasively argued by Chairman’s award winning teams (the ones we are supposed to look up to) that game play other than what the game committee intended (scoring into opposite alliance’s goals, for example) is smart rather than non-GP.

Add in the fact that referees are overworked and miss penalty calls all the time, and you have teams which may decide that committing this sort of foul is worth it EVEN IF the penalty is 50 points. It was against the rules in logomotion for human players to throw tubes to prevent robots from hanging. But there were teams that did it. Teams calculated that for certain situations, the risk of getting called for the foul was low enough and the benefit in points denied vs the cost in penalty points made committing the foul a beneficial strategy. Note that people in this thread are arguing that an action has to be performed TWICE before it becomes a “strategy”. The flip side implication is that the first foul is “free”. To discourage this type of game play, penalty point values MUST be high enough so it’s just not worth it.

39

Just want to add my 0.014490 euros to the discussion of the call itself. Let it be known that I wasn’t a ref there, or know any of the teams involved.

If this same exact thing occurred at my regional, I can honestly say I would have called the foul almost the same way. I would have called a G31 instead of a G32, that’s my only change.

Watching the replay, it looks to me like the red robot is playing defense while the human player is trying to inbound the ball. Couple that with the very hard throw from the HP, and it looks even more like a strategy to inhibit the robot.

Keep in mind that referees see the actions of the robots, and don’t know what the drivers’ intents are. So while you may not be doing something to commit a foul on purpose, if it looks like you are, then a penalty will be called.

40

What is hardest for me is that many other obvious fouls occurred and were not called or even considered after the match had ended.

Within the first 30 seconds of the match our belt, which drives our intake rollers, was snapped off due to 330’s intake being extended. This was obviously unintentional yet it caused us to not be able to pick up off of the ground for the rest of the match. No foul was called.

Image of when 330’s intake snapped our belt:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WIckwxMG9FN3I0NXc/edit

Image of our belt dragging on the ground:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WILXB3OFZNWlRjR28/edit?usp=sharing

Later in the match 1266 was heavy defense on 987; however, they drove up onto 987 for a solid 4-5 seconds making obvious contact inside their frame perimeter.

Image of 1266 on top of 987:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WIUUNEdEpQMEhRWGc/edit?usp=sharing

Both cases were protrusions into other robot’s frame perimeters and one caused major damage to our robot causing us not be able to score for the rest of the match. When we went to the question box after the match with video evidence of what had happened we were told that the match score would not be reconsidered. It just confuses me how in such an important match the refs made such a controversial call yet didn’t make any calls on two such obvious fouls…

I only post this in order to provide feedback to refs and any FIRST employees that may read this response. As my teammates have already said, congrats to the winning alliance.