State Championship and Winter VRC Turning Point Tourneys


#1

Hello, I’m a mentor from a team that had been on the team for the previous 3 years before accepting a mentor position from my fellow mentors. During a competitition , which my team participated in, featured a host that, had problems starting the competition due to technical problems, and then wouldn’t post results of the entire competition until the end of the group they were on(aka qualifiers, and finals). Once the competition got underway and most stats and results were posted everything ran “smooth”. During the final match, is was two of my teams robots against teams that had been know to alliance before. During the match the blue alliance started with 6 people, perfectly legal. As the match went on, team alone had 6 people in the driver box. As our team showed the video to the referees they claimed that if a student(We had a really small team this year and everyone was on a drive team) didn’t take the video they couldn’t review it. We lost the competition due to this and we fought the ruling up to the regional manager of our state .The better of the 2 teams of ours made it to states on skills.

Now at states, to prevent what happened before they had pits divided, drive boxes roped off, and drive team members had tags, very worlds like. After our teams 3rd match, the regional director of the state came over, and picked us apart for about 15 minutes, and our competition was running slow so we still had a lot of time to fix problems and auton. As I watched from a far,I heard the regional manager picking apart our code for using a pro code as a middle school team and said that we had a mentor setting up the code, in which he only scolded us about this when many other team BLANTENTLY had mentors coding. He claimed that we had to have someway of measuring our polycarbonate that we used as a rebounder. Which, again many other teams didn’t have. He then came over to us, the mentors and scolded us about what he just scolded the students for. Later the same day, we were in the semi finals and our team that we were paired with had there battery driven over by the by the opposing team having it knocked out of their robot and making them unable to compete.

So I guess what I’m asking is what should have been done for this to not happen and what do does everyone think to what happened hear


#2

wait wait how did you lose to them exceeding the drive team limit? sure, maybe they broke that rule, but would it really have changed the outcome of the event?

and then on the second point, you should’ve just been more prepared for this kind of thing, and next season you should probably be ready for that stuff.


#3

I feel like the rule where only 3 drive team members are allowed in the driver area of the field for each team is broken very often at local tournaments, especially where the queuing tables or stands are close to the fields. While I don’t believe it is that big of a deal, referees should try to make sure there are only 3 drive team members to make sure things are fair. For reviewing footage, referees have never been allowed to review footage to make decisions on a match. I disagree with this rule, as referees cannot pay attention to each and every little thing in a match, but this rule is in the game manual so we have to follow it. At almost every tournament some team tries to show the referees footage of a match, but the referees are not allowed to look at it. The regional manager accusing you of mentor made code is very interesting. While I don’t know if your code was made by mentors or not, I have never seen somebody accuse a team of having something mentor built. Having things done by mentors is not illegal, but definitely not in the spirit of competition. It is better for a team to lose with their own robot, then win with a robot built by a mentor. And finally with the robot driving on top of your partner, that is not a penalty for the other team. Robot interaction is common and part of the game, so I would try to build your robot so that it can be abused. My best advice is to put the battery in a position where it cannot be pulled from the brain or removed from the robot.


#4

More input …


#5

but did this really cause them to win? if they had only the set amount would you have won?


#6

Rules are still rules.I would personally not DQ them if I was ref, but the ref can do what they want. If a ref thinks they should be DQ’d then they can do it.


#7

my argument as a ref would be to give that team a warning, but not a DQ seeing as it was probably not match affecting.


#8

We saw it as match affecting because people that weren’t on either team were there


#9

Also it was taken to the regional manager who made the call which is the entire reason the post was made


#10

but what did they do that effected the outcome of the match?


#11

Extra input…Also wasnt the first warning either
Happened in their previous match as well


#12

That doesn’t fit match affecting definitions in VEX


#13

What did he pick you apart for, exactly?
It seems odd, from my experience, that anything would come up about code unless someone specifically requested that it be looked into. It doesn’t sound like you are denying that a mentor put a major assist into the code - my rough guess (based solely on logic, experience, and what you’ve said) is that someone associated with your team mentioned to another person that the team had coding assistance & that somehow it got booted up the chain. Saying little things at a low level can easily get compounded at a high level (think the old game “Telephone”, where you whisper something in a person’s ear and what comes out at the end of the game is totally different). For the future, I would make sure that any coding assistance done is clearly & fully done as part of code training so that if someone ever questions who worked on the code it can be clear (from the knowledge of the team) that they had a major role in developing / implementing it. I’d also remind team members that an off-hand, throw-away comment (“Yeah, Mr X did a lot of that”), even if inaccurate (maybe Mr X sat with John Doe and taught him), can end up at an official level sounding a lot more like “we never learned coding, Mr X just did it” (which is, as someone mentioned, not in the spirit of the competition).

I don’t understand about the rebounder… clearly you need to measure your polycarbonate used in order to verify it fits into the size specifications. Fitting is a rule. Proving it fits falls on your team. It doesn’t matter if they ask just you or everyone.

I don’t understand how the number of people in the opposite alliance driver box is match affecting. Was your team just too distracted by the presence of people to drive? Did someone from that box come over and interfere with your driving? We’ve been at a small competition where the field is about 5 steps from the tables and the entire thing is closely surrounded by students & adults watching & commenting - I still wouldn’t consider it match affecting (unless someone actively did something to interfere with the match).


#14

No Mentor did little to no code


#15

I have to remind my qual partner sometimes that they can only have 3 people on drive team. It’s a little embarrassing when I’m paired with a sister team and they have 4 people in the driver box. It wouldn’t have made any difference in the outcome of the match (only better training for the people that were on drive team could do that, besides the driver), but I didn’t want to risk the alliance (or just them) getting DQ’ed because of this technicality.
Sure, it’s an issue, and while it should be enforced, it usually won’t affect much.


#16

We, again,thought it was a big deal because it wasnt the first time the alliance had that many in the box…and pits were in a different room as well