Poofs Red Card Question? [Archive]

adamm

30-04-2016, 12:32

The Poofs' alliance scored 289 (if my math is right) but an alliance member must have been red carded because they got zero. My question is, why were they red carded?

If I recall, There were two yellow cards given to the alliance. One for an unauthorized tethering of the robot, and another for touching the controls during auto.

Field crew spent a long time discussing that before revealing the results.

Adithya Balaji

30-04-2016, 12:32

It was 1241 according to people on twitch chat

kgzak

30-04-2016, 12:33

The score was 289 before the red card. 35 points in penalties. If you take away the 35 penalty points they would have scored 254.

TylerHarmon

30-04-2016, 12:33

They got two yellow cards. Someone tethered without permission and someone touched the driver station during auto. Two yellow cards makes a red. What do you mean by tethered?

FrankJ

30-04-2016, 12:36

What do you mean by tethered?

Connecting wired to the robot.

jodge1706

30-04-2016, 12:38

They were tethered on the field before the match started, but there was an FTA with them. How could it be illegal?

Dave McLaughlin

30-04-2016, 12:41

They were tethered on the field before the match started, but there was an FTA with them. How could it be illegal?

1983 was given a yellow card for this during elims at PNW DCMP. Is it a new rule this year? I can remember resetting on the field between finals 1 and 2 several times in the past.

ollien

30-04-2016, 12:51

Hold up, G10 states (emphasis mine)

ROBOTS will not be re-enabled after the conclusion of the MATCH, nor will Teams be permitted to tether to the ROBOT except in special circumstances (e.g. during TIMEOUTS, after Opening Ceremonies, etc.) and with the express permission from the FTA or a REFEREE.

Violation: Yellow Card

If they were with an FTA and this was *PRIOR* to the match, how is that a yellow card? Furthermore G15 states (emphasis mine)

During AUTO, DRIVE TEAM members in the CASTLE may not contact anything in front of the STARTING LINE, unless for personal or equipment safety.

Violation: FOUL

How is that a yellow card? That's clearly a foul if anything.

CalTran

30-04-2016, 12:57

How is that a yellow card? That's clearly a foul if anything.

It's G14 in this case, because they started using the controls.

ollien

30-04-2016, 13:56

It's G14 in this case, because they started using the controls.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification!

samthesnake

30-04-2016, 14:52

Hold up, G10 states (emphasis mine)

If they were with an FTA and this was *PRIOR* to the match, how is that a yellow card?

I'm curious about this as well. Maybe because it was after their last match in addition to being before the match they got carded, but I just don't understand the ruling

dubiousSwain

30-04-2016, 14:54

Does anyone have a link to the video?

Arhowk

30-04-2016, 16:39

Also, the second yellow card wasn't for the Auton thing, it was because a team member entered the field before the green lights were on

Sperkowsky

30-04-2016, 21:28

I have a lot to say about this as I was a few feet away from the whole thing. Except a very in depth post tomorrow.

Jared Russell

30-04-2016, 21:38

apache8080

30-04-2016, 21:43

The refs made two very tough calls for our alliance, but were trying to do the right thing in the face of imprecise rules and indirect observations of what actually happened on the field. I cannot in good faith fault them for either call when I look at the letter of the rules, even though I think there is a bit of disparity between the way the refs called things on Newton and how they called things in our previous events both in 2016 and previously.
I am still confused as to why the tethering yellow card was called. When I was watching the stream, 1241 was with an FTA when they were tethered to the robot. By the rule isn't that legal. It was an unfortunate incident to an otherwise great event. Despite this 254 and 1241 were a great alliance to watch on Newton.

AWoL

01-05-2016, 07:41

I am still confused as to why the tethering yellow card was called. When I was watching the stream, 1241 was with an FTA when they were tethered to the robot. By the rule isn't that legal. It was an unfortunate incident to an otherwise great event. Despite this 254 and 1241 were a great alliance to watch on Newton.

Did the tethering happen after the field timeout, or started during the field timeout and continued once it ended? That would be grounds for a yellow card.

PatEhrgott

03-05-2016, 11:47

Link is here for anyone interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60k9XvKra0Q

Richard Wallace

03-05-2016, 13:17

Link is here for anyone interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60k9XvKra0Q

I would like to see a video that includes the usual pre-match "thumbs up" to the head referee, usually given by all referees and the FTA. Neither of the yellow card violations can be seen in any of the videos I've found so far*, and I could not see them from Section 125 either.

What I did see was the red alliance outrunning and outgunning us, while we committed several fouls and missed the capture. We were clearly outplayed.

As Jared said, this was a tough situation for the referees. Over the season, Stronghold found out many weaknesses in robot design, in game play strategy, and especially in durability -- both of the robots and of the field. In this match it found out another weakness -- in the rules themselves.

Generally, the remedy for pre-match infractions is to correct the situation before starting the match. In this case it appears the match was lost on cards before it even started.** That can't be what FIRST wanted.
--------------

*Linked (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60k9XvKra0Q) earlier in this thread, and on TBA (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016new_sf1m2).

**I am going with some earlier posts in this thread stating that the yellow cards were for entering the field early (G2) and tethering without express permission (G10). While some red alliance drive team members did touch controls during auton, it appeared to me they were just picking them up after a blue robot shook the castle wall, causing them to fall. This is allowed for operator console safety per G14. Please correct me if you saw something different.

rtfgnow

03-05-2016, 18:05

I would like to see a video that includes the usual pre-match "thumbs up" to the head referee, usually given by all referees and the FTA. Neither of the yellow card violations can be seen in any of the videos I've found so far*, and I could not see them from Section 125 either.

What I did see was the red alliance outrunning and outgunning us, while we committed several fouls and missed the capture. We were clearly outplayed.

As Jared said, this was a tough situation for the referees. Over the season, Stronghold found out many weaknesses in robot design, in game play strategy, and especially in durability -- both of the robots and of the field. In this match it found out another weakness -- in the rules themselves.

Generally, the remedy for pre-match infractions is to correct the situation before starting the match. In this case it appears the match was lost on cards before it even started.** That can't be what FIRST wanted.
--------------

*Linked (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60k9XvKra0Q) earlier in this thread, and on TBA (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016new_sf1m2).

**I am going with some earlier posts in this thread stating that the yellow cards were for entering the field early (G2) and tethering without express permission (G10). While some red alliance drive team members did touch controls during auton, it appeared to me they were just picking them up after a blue robot shook the castle wall, causing them to fall. This is allowed for operator console safety per G14. Please correct me if you saw something different.
Listen again to the end of the video in your quote. The second yellow card was was for touching the controls during autonomous. The match was not lost when it started because the second yellow card had not happened.

AdamHeard

03-05-2016, 18:26

Listen again to the end of the video in your quote. The second yellow card was was for touching the controls during autonomous. The match was not lost when it started because the second yellow card had not happened.

I don't see how that yellowcard is valid. Doesn't G14 provide a specific exemption for operator console safety?

Richard Wallace

03-05-2016, 18:35

Listen again to the end of the video in your quote. The second yellow card was was for touching the controls during autonomous. The match was not lost when it started because the second yellow card had not happened.Thanks for the correction. I had missed the audio by not waiting long enough, and skipping to the score. Hearing it now I do recall the announcement but had not caught the part about touching controls.

The announcement does not match what I could see in the corner of the video, which as I said earlier appeared to be red alliance team members picking up controls that had been knocked off the shelf when a blue robot shook the castle wall during auton. Having seen this several times (as a referee) during matches earlier in the season, I did not think it was a G14. I guess the referees saw a team member touch controls in a way that was not required to ensure operator console safety? As Jared said, it was a tough situation for the referees.

Sperkowsky

03-05-2016, 18:45

I don't see how that yellowcard is valid. Doesn't G14 provide a specific exemption for operator console safety?

Yes it does and the hit definitely was worse looking in person. Nothing fell off the console but it was definitely rattled. Looks to me like they are just checking if everything is OK which is perfectly valid.

Regardless it's pretty stupid to card someone for 2 actions that provide no competitive advantage. Especially after all of the fouls the other alliance committed during that match.

rtfgnow

03-05-2016, 18:49

I don't see how that yellowcard is valid. Doesn't G14 provide a specific exemption for operator console safety?
I am not going to comment on validity. I simply stated the fact as it was reported by the head ref and then the game announcer.

Michael Corsetto

03-05-2016, 18:56

As Jared said, it was a tough situation for the referees.

This seems like an easy situation for the referees. Just don't yellow card a team for recovering their operator console after a hard hit from the driver station?

Are adults in this program really looking to penalize teams for things like this, to the level of a red card, and subsequent DQ?

Seems like some discretion in these situations is appropriate?

It doesn't seem like, in these sorts of moments, we're all playing on the same team.

I'm not upset with a call. I'm upset with an attitude.

Semi-relevant thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127911

-Mike

Kevin Sheridan

03-05-2016, 19:04

PatrickSJ

03-05-2016, 20:42

Yes it does and the hit definitely was worse looking in person. Nothing fell off the console but it was definitely rattled. Looks to me like they are just checking if everything is OK which is perfectly valid.

Regardless it's pretty stupid to card someone for 2 actions that provide no competitive advantage. Especially after all of the fouls the other alliance committed during that match.

Do you know what all those fouls were for? I don't really remember that match very well, but when I looked at the score those foul points were crazy.

Sperkowsky

03-05-2016, 21:06

Do you know what all those fouls were for? I don't really remember that match very well, but when I looked at the score those foul points were crazy.
If you watch the Match video you can spot most of the Match based fouls (extending past 15", hitting a robot while crossing a defense, ect)

The cards however are for touching the driver station during auto and tethering to a robot pre match without refs approval.

apache8080

03-05-2016, 23:05

Better view from 1676's full field footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=671pGv2wlmU

The explanation our alliance was given before match 3 was that a referee saw one of the drivers untangling the cords of a controller. While I dont agree with the call that was made, I can see why the ref thought there was a G14 violation.

After watching the video, the call for touching the controllers before auton should not have been called since they were just fixing it after things fell. Michael Corsetto is absolutely right that refs should not penalize teams for an inconsequential action like fixing a fallen controller.

As far as the tethering yellow card, does anybody know what actually happened?

MaGiC_PiKaChU

03-05-2016, 23:23

Do you know what all those fouls were for? I don't really remember that match very well, but when I looked at the score those foul points were crazy.

Our robot's scaling mechanism broke at the end of autonomous, making our scissor lift extend. We played the whole match with it, so we were extended past the legal height all game, and once past the 15". We deserved those fouls

FrankJ

04-05-2016, 08:42

After watching the video, the call for touching the controllers before auton should not have been called since they were just fixing it after things fell. Michael Corsetto is absolutely right that refs should not penalize teams for an inconsequential action like fixing a fallen controller

The touching the operating station exception in G14 is for console safety. Picking up a fallen controller really doesn't fit into this. I agree that there was no competitive advantage, The question is how much leeway do you give the referees in interpreting the rules. My experience with First upper management IE the GDC is they prefer the rules to be enforced literally. My experience with individuals faced with the immediate situational reality varies. We are all human.

martin417

04-05-2016, 09:20

The touching the operating station exception in G14 is for console safety. Picking up a fallen controller really doesn't fit into this. I agree that there was no competitive advantage, The question is how much leeway do you give the referees in interpreting the rules. My experience with First upper management IE the GDC is they prefer the rules to be enforced literally. My experience with individuals faced with the immediate situational reality varies. We are all human.

The rules are never enforced literally. The refs always do as they see fit. MaGiC_PiKaChU just stated they played the entire match with a mechanism outside the 15" limit, by G18 they should have been disabled. I watched many matches where bumpers fell off during the match. This should be a foul and a disable by G19-1 (structurally non-compliant). In at least one match, the robot that lost the bumper continued to play, and was scored as being on the batter at the end, even though their bumper was halfway across the field. They won that match by 5 points. It appears to me that the refs give a break to newer or "non powerhouse" teams, and enforce the rules harshly on more established, better built, or "powerhouse" teams.

FrankJ

04-05-2016, 09:52

The rules are never enforced literally. ... It appears to me that the refs give a break to newer or "non powerhouse" teams, and enforce the rules harshly on more established, better built, or "powerhouse" teams.

I don't disagree with that. I would use a term more tactful than harshly though. :] I do think that if you were to ask the GDC, they would tell you that they should be literally & uniformly enforced. Your bumper example is a great point. Which would you prefer? Strictly enforcing the rule so the robot is disabled, and not allowed back on the field until it is reinspected or a looser interpretation? Both ways have their merit. Easier to be uniform with the first way though.

While this is getting a bit off topic, I think that the conflict comes from trying to be an elite robot competition and a stem outreach program that is not about the robot at the same time.

martin417

04-05-2016, 10:59

.... Which would you prefer? Strictly enforcing the rule so the robot is disabled, and not allowed back on the field until it is reinspected or a looser interpretation? Both ways have their merit. Easier to be uniform with the first way though.
I am all about the rules. People accuse me of "lawyering" the rules, but my position is always consistent and clear: do whatever you can within the rules to achieve the best outcome. If you are non-compliant with any rule in any way, no matter who you are, whether or not it affects the outcome of the match, the remedy specified in the rules should be applied. That is the only way to be fair and consistent, and if a rookie team gets disabled because their bumper fell off, they will learn to fix the issue and improve.

I do not believe in "participation trophy" thinking. If you earn a win, that win means something. If you are given a win , then the win becomes meaningless, and you learn the wrong lesson. That is the type of thinking that has created the self entitlement philosophy that is so prevalent among our youth today.

Richard Wallace

04-05-2016, 11:23

Our robot's scaling mechanism broke at the end of autonomous, making our scissor lift extend. We played the whole match with it, so we were extended past the legal height all game, and once past the 15". We deserved those fouls

The rules are never enforced literally. The refs always do as they see fit. MaGiC_PiKaChU just stated they played the entire match with a mechanism outside the 15" limit, by G18 they should have been disabled. ...What Magic said (and video substantiates) is that 3360's scissor lift was extended past legal height (G17) for the entire match, and that on one occasion it extended more than 15" beyond their frame perimeter (G18). The disablement criteria are "strategic" for G17, and "repeated" for G18, respectively. I think the referees made the right call.

Similar fouls were called on 179 in that match, also because of early deployment of a scaling mechanism.

Arevan

04-05-2016, 11:43

In at least one match, the robot that lost the bumper continued to play, and was scored as being on the batter at the end, even though their bumper was halfway across the field. They won that match by 5 points. It appears to me that the refs give a break to newer or "non powerhouse" teams, and enforce the rules harshly on more established, better built, or "powerhouse" teams.

I haven't seen the video but having volunteered at the scoring table before at different regionals, I can say that it takes awhile to disable a robot. First the refs have to see it, then communicate the call to the head ref, the head ref will want to confirm that the bumper is off, then they will communicate to the scoring table to disable a specific robot, the scoring table has to find that robot in the computer, and finally that robot will be disabled. All of this can take sometime. If bumpers fell off of my robot and I knew it would be disabled, I would definitely try to get on the batter before I was disabled. I couldn't find anything in the rule book that allows the refs to retroactively take back points in a case where you weren't disabled fast enough.

If that is what happened, I would consider that very smart gameplay by that team.

martin417

04-05-2016, 12:47

...If bumpers fell off of my robot and I knew it would be disabled, I would definitely try to get on the batter before I was disabled. I couldn't find anything in the rule book that allows the refs to retroactively take back points in a case where you weren't disabled fast enough.

If that is what happened, I would consider that very smart gameplay by that team.

For the example I gave, the robot did not meet the criteria for a challenge. to challenge, the robot must be fully supported by the batter. If the bumper is on the carpet, halfway across the field,then the robot is not fully supported by the batter.

I know that somebody will say "what if a zip tie falls off a robot, then the robot is not fully supported by the batter" That opens up the whole issue of refs trying to figure out what constitutes the robot. I argue that the bumper is a required component, without which the robot would not be allowed to compete, and as such, is part of the robot regardless of whether it is still attached.

rich2202

04-05-2016, 14:20

martin417

04-05-2016, 15:28

I think the general rule is that anything that falls off the robot is Field Debris, including bumpers. The robot is non-compliant with the bumper rules because of the missing piece, not because the piece is on the floor.

So, a robot could make it to the batter and score.
I disagree. the manual defines a challenge as:
an act performed by a ROBOT, such that at the conclusion of the MATCH, the ROBOT is fully supported by the TOWER, but hasn’t met the criteria for SCALING the TOWER (emphasis mine)

The manual further defines a ROBOT as:

an electromechanical assembly built by an FIRST Robotics Competition Team to perform specific tasks when competing in FIRST STRONGHOLD. It includes all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game: power, communications, control, BUMPERS and movement. The implementation must
obviously follow a design approach intended to play FIRST STRONGHOLD (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD or a ROBOT designed to play a different game would not satisfy this definition)(emphasis mine)

If any part of the ROBOT is not supported by the tower, it is not a successful challenge.

mAYple

04-05-2016, 15:33

I'm curious about this as well. Maybe because it was after their last match in addition to being before the match they got carded, but I just don't understand the ruling

There were rumblings that the FTA in question didn't know what was going on?
At least that is what I remember hearing

FrankJ

04-05-2016, 15:51

If any part of the ROBOT is not supported by the tower, it is not a successful challenge.

I see your point. Another way to look at it is the detached bumper is no longer part of the robot. Otherwise you could also argue for a foul because robots are further away than 15" from your frame perimeter. (Ok that one is a stretch. :]) So the robot gets disabled for not having legal bumpers on it. If it is on the batter, then it gets points. If it is pushed over defenses it gets points for that too. Who is right? Only your head referee knows for sure. The best one can hope it they are consistent and transparent in their interpretations.

While a bit of a corner case, I did see a robot driving onto the batter while being disabled for bumpers. They just beat the referee to the button.

Lil' Lavery

04-05-2016, 15:53

I disagree. the manual defines a challenge as:
(emphasis mine)

The manual further defines a ROBOT as:

(emphasis mine)

If any part of the ROBOT is not supported by the tower, it is not a successful challenge.

So, if my robot loses a drive wheel (part of the "movement" system as defined in that rule), can I also not challenge the tower?

Chris is me

04-05-2016, 15:54

I disagree. the manual defines a challenge as:
(emphasis mine)

The manual further defines a ROBOT as:

(emphasis mine)

If any part of the ROBOT is not supported by the tower, it is not a successful challenge.

Consider this a different way.

A small piece of a corner bumper falls off in a Secret Passage. The rest of the robot escapes to the batter before being disabled. I repeatedly strike this bumper in an attempt to draw penalties by appearing to go for a ball behind it. Would you penalize this "robot"?