NJ Elim Yellow Card Oddity

[Kevin Sevcik]

Did anybody else just catch that yellow card issued in NJ QF2-1? 186 rammed the Blue Station Wall and disconnected a Blue Alliance Control Board. So the match was stopped and all. Then the refs issued yellow cards to the entire red alliance. I don't see anything in at all in the Tournament Rules about carding an entire alliance. Carding a team for a robot or team member, yes. DQing an entire alliance for a red card or DQ on a single elim alliance team, yes. Carding an entire alliance for the actions of one robot on the alliance, completely unsupported. I have to think they confused the DQing an entire alliance and decided that meant they should card the whole alliance, but someone should really really call NJ and see if they can de-card the other two improperly carded alliance members.

[Elgin Clock]

I may be confusing rules between years here but what gives the refs the power to disqualify a team (303 earlier in the competitiin) or give a team a yellow card in the first place for ramming into a wall in teleoperated mode? Correct me if I Am wrong but if a robot bashes the wall and makes your control box fall I have no sympathy for your team for not strapping it in with the provided Velcro in the drivers station! It is a sucky situation for you if your control box drops but its your own fault IMHO.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I may be confusing rules between years here but what gives the refs the power to disqualify a team (303 earlier in the competitiin) or give a team a yellow card in the first place for ramming into a wall in teleoperated mode? Correct me if I Am wrong but if a robot bashes the wall and makes your control box fall I have no sympathy for your team for not strapping it in with the provided Velcro in the drivers station! It is a sucky situation for you if your control box drops but its your own fault IMHO.
They quoted "aggressive autonomous driving". T05 says a team can be yellow carded for egregious robot or team member behavior. So I imagine it's up to the refs whether that is or not, and I'm not arguing the call on a yellow card. I just don't think they're supposed to card an entire alliance for one team's actions.

[Brian C]

I'm with you on this one Elgin. I also saw that team 303 was DQ'd in an earlier qualifying match. It's the first time I can ever remember seeing a team DQ'd for hitting into an alliance station wall in hybrid (autonomous) mode. Or for hitting into a wall in the first place.

Teams should have their control system secured in some form or another.

[robochick1319]

I think it is extremely unfortunate that the alliance was penalized for the ramming in hybrid mode.

I agree with earlier statements that no where in the rules does it say that an entire alliance (or even a single team) should be penalized for ramming against the wall.

I know that we have always secured our controls and I recommend that all teams do their best to keep their controls secure during competition!

Good Luck! :)

[dez250]

While i'm not going to comment on the yellow card issue, I find the timeout call interesting during that match. After the teams controls fell to the ground and the match was called to an early end, a team called for their timeout for robot repairs. While reading <T19> it would seem that you wouldn't be able to call a timeout here because in logic it is still the same match.


<T19> In the elimination matches, each ALLIANCE will be allotted one TIME-OUT of up to 6 minutes. If an ALLIANCE wishes to call for a TIME OUT, they must submit their TIME OUT coupon to the Head Referee within two minutes of the Head Referee issuing the field reset signal preceding their match. When this occurs, the Time-out Clock will count down the six minutes starting with the expiration of the arena-reset period. Both ALLIANCES will enjoy the complete 6-minute window. In the interest of tournament schedule, if an ALLIANCE completes their repairs before the Time-out Clock expires, the ALLIANCE CAPTAIN is encouraged to inform the Head Referee that they are ready to play and remit any time remaining in the TIME-OUT. If ALLIANCES are ready before the 6-minute window, the next match will start. There are no cascading time-outs. An opposing ALLIANCE may not offer their unused TIME-OUT to their opponent.

[usbcd36]

I agree that the entire alliance shouldn't have been penalized. Maybe there was a mix-up with <G24>.

<G24> ALLIANCE PENALTIES - Unless otherwise noted, all PENALTIES assigned by REFEREES
are applied to the entire ALLIANCE.

[Spikey]

This has been around for awhile. During 2005 at the Philadelphia Regional our alliance partner received a red card during the finals. As a result our entire alliance was DQed and our alliance was given a loss instead of penalty points. The rules for the Playoffs have always applied alliance wide vs. Team wide. I must I saw shocked when it happened to us 3 years ago, and I was pretty pissed.

Sadly I don't have sympathy when the entire alliance got carded, at least they got to keep playing. I think its a silly rule, but its been around for awhile..

[Swan217]

I may be confusing rules between years here but what gives the refs the power to disqualify a team (303 earlier in the competitiin) or give a team a yellow card in the first place for ramming into a wall in teleoperated mode? Correct me if I Am wrong but if a robot bashes the wall and makes your control box fall I have no sympathy for your team for not strapping it in with the provided Velcro in the drivers station! It is a sucky situation for you if your control box drops but its your own fault IMHO.

Their autonomous hit the players station after already being warned the first time their robot did it. They ignored the warning, so the second infraction was a yellow card.

Regarding giving the entire alliance a yellow, it seems to be an interpretation of Rule <T11>. This should be addressed next week.

[SteveGPage]

Their autonomous hit the players station after already being warned the first time their robot did it. They ignored the warning, so the second infraction was a yellow card.

Regarding giving the entire alliance a yellow, it seems to be an interpretation of Rule <T11>. This should be addressed next week.

As a member of 836, a member of the 816 Alliance, I understand why 816 got the yellow card, and I understand that if they had another infraction the entire alliance would have been DQ'd - but I think the call to give us (836) and 708 a yellow card was incorrect. My reading of the rules show this to be a misinterpretation of <T05> - <T11>. At no point does it say the yellow card goes to an alliance, only mentions a "Team."

Best regards,

Steve

[Kevin Sevcik]

This has been around for awhile. During 2005 at the Philadelphia Regional our alliance partner received a red card during the finals. As a result our entire alliance was DQed and our alliance was given a loss instead of penalty points. The rules for the Playoffs have always applied alliance wide vs. Team wide. I must I saw shocked when it happened to us 3 years ago, and I was pretty pissed.

Sadly I don't have sympathy when the entire alliance got carded, at least they got to keep playing. I think its a silly rule, but its been around for awhile..
The entire Elim Alliance being DQ'd for a red card is very clearly spelled out in T11. Similarly in reply to Dan, T11 doesn't mention a thing about yellow cards or any cards applying to an entire alliance. Just that a red card DQ's the whole alliance, because just DQing one team wouldn't make sense. I agree that this rule is from whence the confusion sprang, but I don't think there's any reasonable way of reading it like this.

[mtaman02]

While i'm not going to comment on the yellow card issue, I find the timeout call interesting during that match. After the teams controls fell to the ground and the match was called to an early end, a team called for their timeout for robot repairs. While reading <T19> it would seem that you wouldn't be able to call a timeout here because in logic it is still the same match.

They called for the timeout not for robot repairs but for control system repairs. I feel that one bad apple spoils the bunch once again yea it's the teams responsibilty to secure their property properly but it's also the teams responsibility to test their robot 100% in the alotted time they have with the robot between build, practicing on chocks and tether in the pits, or on the practice field or even on practice day... theres more then enough time to sit and analyze the code and have it removed completely to have it corrected. I share no sympathy for a team that chooses not to utilize that time properly and agree w/ whatever the punishment is handed down. You have an opportunity and given a fair chance by some of the fairest people around to correct any mistakes... Theres used to be and still is a time where robots are not allowed on the field if the officials feel that the robot can endanger the equipment and or other property and more importantly the safety of all those who need to be within close quarters of the field.

:( It hurts to see a team to see a team penalized but its their fault and must accept the punishment even if it was just an accident. On thursday the head ref and or others probably took notes of all the possible threats and I'm sure he and others took such action b/c the threats still exsisted on game day. Teams were warned in 2 - 3 different drivers meetings and were warned leaving the field on practice day about all this. And if they weren't then she should've asked the questions at the meetings. There's no excuse whats so ever except laziness.

[Danny McC]

Yeah. It was our fault and we know that. We changed our autonomous and we didnt know it was going to do that.

[mtaman02]

Yeah. It was our fault and we know that. We changed our autonomous and we didnt know it was going to do that.

Yea but see thats why we have a practice field and if you can't get on it then you can just chock it and count the sec's that go by and adjust from there. Ok it's an honest mistake but it was correctable before this should've even happened. Thankfully enough the teams that play in FIRST are cool headed people and just get upset at the mis-fortune and don't try and retalliate back.

[thefro526]

Lol we did that and it was a mistake from our programmer/possible IR interference. We personally as the alliance did not get bothered by the yellow card.

[chaoticprout]

Yea but see thats why we have a practice field and if you can't get on it then you can just chock it and count the sec's that go by and adjust from there. Ok it's an honest mistake but it was correctable before this should've even happened. Thankfully enough the teams that play in FIRST are cool headed people and just get upset at the mis-fortune and don't try and retalliate back.

Firstly, I wasn't there so this may be off. However, I respectfully think this statement is insulting to the teams. When in competition with people screaming at you telling you the robot needs to get to competition, and not having the ability to go to the practice field, how does counting the seconds let them know if they have gone too far. If they were at home testing code I would agree, but this is during the stress of competition, and it's bound to happen. It's a part of FIRST , not something that should never happen. Not all mechanical elements of robots work, why should all the software? Don't blame the programmers. =(

[Matt H.]

I personally believe that with the amount of potential interference etc such a call should not have been made. As noted in earlier matches the lap counters are IR emitters and it often becomes uncontrollable. With the number of variables involved in coding it is unreasonable to expect a program to work perfectly after having been warned once.

On a side note why not have lips on the player stations. This would stop OIs from falling far more effectively than velcro and would enforce the size limits as prescribed in the rules.

[mtaman02]

Firstly, I wasn't there so this may be off. However, I respectfully think this statement is insulting to the teams. When in competition with people screaming at you telling you the robot needs to get to competition, and not having the ability to go to the practice field, how does counting the seconds let them know if they have gone too far. If they were at home testing code I would agree, but this is during the stress of competition, and it's bound to happen. It's a part of FIRST , not something that should never happen. Not all mechanical elements of robots work, why should all the software? Don't blame the programmers. =(

If the robot is on chocks, you can watch the motions of the drive train and count down 15 secs. Mark a part of the actual tread / wheel and count the rpms and if it appears that the drive train is too fast and has gone no where but in that direction then adjust the program accordingly to try and slow down the robot OR put a turn command in that way it'll at least nail the side barrier and not the player station b/c to be honest there's not much holding that player station in place to start with but it's little bit of weight, some support from around the field and velcro. Why do you think it moves so much when ever it gets hit? I personally think better re-inforcement of the player stations will solve some problems of the decks being flung to the floor after being nailed by a robot doing 30mph. Look at the team who lost their entire OI b/c the Comp Port ripped right out of the OI after the wall took a hard hit from one robot.

I forget which team and what local event I saw this at but it worked... The practice field was unavailable for w/e reason so they chocked it, had a person with a stopwatch, had another person watch the drive train movements and guess how fast it was moving and adjusted accordingly... In the end they managed to get the robot where they needed it program wise w/ using only wood, a basic watch and good eyes. I'm not trying to say that stuff won't happen but if it does there are multiple ways to do correct it before you get to the Queuing box and even still you can try and tether before we get a hold of you to get on the field like some try and do. Sorry if I insulted the programmers out there :(. Just trying to say that there's more then one way to fix something w/o having the right tool for the right job available for you to use.

[mtaman02]

On a side note why not have lips on the player stations. This would stop OIs from falling far more effectively than velcro and would enforce the size limits as prescribed in the rules.


I thought about that yesterday exactly. Don't be surprised if a control deck specification comes out in the '09 game. Right now the specs say it must fit the current level deck. I think it's time that deck had like a 1/2" lip on it and lock down bars to keep the controls from jumping up. Velcro will wear out too easily if every team used it.

[thefro526]

Also on of the things we thought was that you had one warning before a yellow card. Our programmer made a small adjustment to give the robobees time to clear and we had no idea that the entire system of timers messed up so thats what put us into the wall. It was strange because our auto had worked flawlessly throughout the competion

[mtaman02]

Also on of the things we thought was that you had one warning before a yellow card. Our programmer made a small adjustment to give the robobees time to clear and we had no idea that the entire system of timers messed up so thats what put us into the wall. It was strange because our auto had worked flawlessly throughout the competion

thats odd then, I don't think I remember talking w/ the FTA personell about how well the timers were performing. They couldn't have been that bad since they still were using them this entire event. I mean they had a manual counter as well to make sure that all was ok. Hmmm... Well if the Counters could be whats causing some issues then maybe they'll be a fix for it by week 2. *ponders now*

[thefro526]

lol our programmer put our wait sequence in the wrong spot he told me so himself our other auto still works great, and it was my decision to add the wait in the program so yeah... I like the yellow card though it gave us character lol. Also our auto had been so successful earlier in the competition because we didn't have to worry about other people running. For dead reckoning (no sensor input) we did pretty well getting our three lines.

[Romino90]

Yeah I didn't get that my team was chanting random cheers (1403 cnt shut there mouths lol ) when they explained what was going on with that..was that the match the controller fell?

[thefro526]

This was quarter final 3-1, we went down in auto/hybrid and whacked the wall pretty hard and they originally thought someone's controller dislodged and unplugged. Well they had some kind weird problem and called a timeout and mean while we got yellow carded for ramming the player station in auto.

[StephLee]

Team control panels falling during auto/hybrid isn't necessarily a new thing. It happened to us (1629) in autonomous in 2006. There was no penalty for the opposing alliance, and we were given time to fix the panel before restarting the match. I don't agree with DQ'ing a team for it during hybrid, especially if the other team can run that match. (I'm refering to the match where 303 was DQ'd at NJ; someone correct me if I have information wrong, I was only watching the webcast.) A yellow card, I can understand, and a DQ for a subsequent infraction wouldn't be out of line, but a DQ for a first offense seems entirely too harsh to me.

[Anne Shade]

Their autonomous hit the players station after already being warned the first time their robot did it. They ignored the warning, so the second infraction was a yellow card.

Regarding giving the entire alliance a yellow, it seems to be an interpretation of Rule <T11>. This should be addressed next week.

Actually Dan,

The team was warned during Qualifying matches, not eliminations. When teams enter eliminations, their slate is supposed to be wiped clean. However, this year's yellow card is to be given for "egregious" robot or team member actions. If the head ref thought the one time was egregious, the yellow card could have been given. That is up to that particular head referee's interpretation of the action. I'm not sure exactly which rule the head ref believed was violated "egregiously" in this case because I can't seem to find one. I guess you could lump it under S01...

My question is whether or not the timing of the yellow card was appropriate. The yellow card was given during the reset of the match. To me, that would mean the match had yet to be completed. Can a team receive a yellow card for a match that had yet to be completed? What if their robot had again rammed the player wall when they replayed the match, would the alliance get DQ'ed for receiving a second yellow card in the same match?

This kinda follows Dez's point about the time out being called during the middle of the match...

[George A.]

Actually Dan,

The team was warned during Qualifying matches, not eliminations. When teams enter eliminations, their slate is supposed to be wiped clean. However, this year's yellow card is to be given for "egregious" robot or team member actions. If the head ref thought the one time was egregious, the yellow card could have been given. That is up to that particular head referee's interpretation of the action. I'm not sure exactly which rule the head ref believed was violated "egregiously" in this case because I can't seem to find one. I guess you could lump it under S01...

My question is whether or not the timing of the yellow card was appropriate. The yellow card was given during the reset of the match. To me, that would mean the match had yet to be completed. Can a team receive a yellow card for a match that had yet to be completed? What if their robot had again rammed the player wall when they replayed the match, would the alliance get DQ'ed for receiving a second yellow card in the same match?

This kinda follows Dez's point about the time out being called during the middle of the match...


The match had to be called off due to loss of communication with the field at the competition port plug in. Had the controller just been broken the match would've continued (see the match where 303 was DQ'ed). But since the field itself was broken and needed repair, the match was null and void, which is when the alliance used their time-out.

[thefro526]

The match had to be called off due to loss of communication with the field on the part of the robot. Had the controller just been broken the match would've continued (see the match where 303 was DQ'ed). But since the field itself was broken and needed repair, the match was null and void, which is when the alliance used their time-out.

George, after watching the video today with our robocoach we had assumed that the issue was not with the control panel but the field itself, it's nice to see some clarification though. Btw, nice Job announcing in NJ, also do you have your rap written down somewhere? I can see the yellow card rules being clarified in the next update

I would like to motion that any rule or clarification of a rule on this matter shall be nicknamed the 816 rule. Anyone with me?

[SteveGPage]

I would like to motion that any rule or clarification of a rule on this matter shall be nicknamed the 816 rule. Anyone with me?

How about the 816 Alliance rule! :)

Best regards,

Steve

[thefro526]

How about the 816 Alliance rule! :)

Best regards,

Steve

Fair enough, from now on we will call this rule the "816 Alliance rule". Does anyone know of what rule number refers to this? I searched and could not find it.

I just checked the most recent rule book published by FIRST and there is no mention of an alliance sharing a yellow card in the Tournament section, they just refer to anyone robot getting a red card DQ's the entire alliance

[EricH]

Fair enough, from now on we will call this rule the "816 Alliance rule". Does anyone know of what rule number refers to this? I searched and could not find it.

I just checked the most recent rule book published by FIRST and there is no mention of an alliance sharing a yellow card in the Tournament section, they just refer to anyone robot getting a red card DQ's the entire allianceThere isn't one at this point. On either count (other than the red card rule).

[Elgin Clock]

Lol we did that and it was a mistake from our programmer/possible IR interference. We personally as the alliance did not get bothered by the yellow card.

Not to be harsh to you, but it doesn't really matter if you weren't bothered by the bad call, or penalty assignment given to you.
I know exactly where you're coming from with that statement though, and felt the same way when some calls were missed or made against us and didn't affect the match.
When it does affect you that's really when you start to care though.

It was wrong, and I am glad Kevin caught this.

When things are caught in week one then that leads to updates changing the game from week to week... This is (kind of) inevitable, but also a gray area as well due to an unfair advantage/disadvantage seen by some earlier competing teams when rules change/get more clear.

Bottom line, a bad call that doesn't effect you per-say is still a bad call, and the teams watching the competitions with a fine tooth comb on the rules, and trying to get a feel of how the game will be played (especially in a week one regional setting) are confused when they are made no matter how it affects the outcome of the game, or even just your one match it just happens to take place in.

[dpc131]

Just some additional clarification on the situation. There was some comment on test prior to loading new code. If we can remember 2006 was infamous for changing code on the fly to block good shooters. This was extremely effective a lot of the time. There is some risk with using this approach and this is what can happen. 816 added in some last minute changes so we didn't collide in autonomous and some unexpected results happened.

What frustrated me most was the FIRST's IR receiver implementation and the unexpected results when using in a match. I think alot of the hard crashes were robocoach's signals not being received due to range/interference. Like anything, this is an engineering issue to be looked at during design of the robot, but this is a topic for another time. But again I see FIRST has sent something to the teams to implement that has not been proven (IR receivers in 2005, Camera in 2006, etc.)

[brimcdonald666]

I'm with you on this one Elgin. I also saw that team 303 was DQ'd in an earlier qualifying match. It's the first time I can ever remember seeing a team DQ'd for hitting into an alliance station wall in hybrid (autonomous) mode. Or for hitting into a wall in the first place.

Teams should have their control system secured in some form or another.

Thats really weird, cause our team (503) accidentally rammed the wall, full speed in autonomous, and broke Robostangs(111) controller, we are still sorry about that, im glad it was nothing perminant, but we still didnt get any penalty what so ever

[thefro526]

Thats really weird, cause our team (503) accidentally rammed the wall, full speed in autonomous, and broke Robostangs(111) controller, we are still sorry about that, im glad it was nothing perminant, but we still didnt get any penalty what so ever

That is very strange but I can see why a full speed ram would justify a penalty and possibly it is up to the refs. These issues will definitely be clarified.

[Swan217]

Actually Dan,

The team was warned during Qualifying matches, not eliminations. When teams enter eliminations, their slate is supposed to be wiped clean. However, this year's yellow card is to be given for "egregious" robot or team member actions. If the head ref thought the one time was egregious, the yellow card could have been given. That is up to that particular head referee's interpretation of the action. I'm not sure exactly which rule the head ref believed was violated "egregiously" in this case because I can't seem to find one. I guess you could lump it under S01...

My question is whether or not the timing of the yellow card was appropriate. The yellow card was given during the reset of the match. To me, that would mean the match had yet to be completed. Can a team receive a yellow card for a match that had yet to be completed? What if their robot had again rammed the player wall when they replayed the match, would the alliance get DQ'ed for receiving a second yellow card in the same match?

This kinda follows Dez's point about the time out being called during the middle of the match...

I totally agree with you about the timing issue - the Head Ref should've technically waited until after the match had completely ended before giving out a yellow card. Your second hypothetical is moot because generally a yellow card is severe enough punishment to correct the behavior or at minimum abort the hybrid strategy as to not risk getting a red card.

There is no rule that says that the "slate" is wiped clean for eliminations, only that cards do not carry over into eliminations. Unofficial warnings are given to prevent egregious behavior throughout the entire competition, and aren't official rulings on the field. The head ref might've thought that the team was performing programmed egregious behavior the first time, but gave the chance to correct the programmed behavior. Since the behavior was apparently not rectified to the satisfaction of the referee, and the behavior was not severe enough to deserve a DQ, a yellow card was given.

<T11> allows for red cards to be given to the entire alliance, but gives no procedure for yellow cards in elimination rounds. I'm not saying that this ref's interpretation was correct or incorrect, but giving the most likely reasoning. My interpretation up to this point was that a yellow card was given to an individual team on the alliance, but two yellow cards accrued by an alliance results in a DQ for the entire alliance in elims. This may be an incorrect interpretation of the rules. The correct interpretation will no doubt be resolved by the Head Refs this week before the next round of regionals.

At any rate, in general, yellow cards are really no big deal. If you get one you should take it seriously, but since there is no real consequence of a yellow card, save temporary embarrassment, there shouldn't be this much outrage over yellow cards. They're not attached to your "permanent record" and nobody cares about them after the tournament is finished. As defined in T05, a yellow card is an Official Warning, and nothing more.

[GaryVoshol]

But since the field itself was broken and needed repair ...A Ha! Teams are prohibited from destroying the field or field elements. (That doesn't explain the group yellow card, though.)

[Kevin Sevcik]

At any rate, in general, yellow cards are really no big deal. If you get one you should take it seriously, but since there is no real consequence of a yellow card, save temporary embarrassment, there shouldn't be this much outrage over yellow cards. They're not attached to your "permanent record" and nobody cares about them after the tournament is finished. As defined in T05, a yellow card is an Official Warning, and nothing more.I kinda hope teams don't just shrugs off Yellow Cards like this. Or, at least, I hope any team in the Elims doesn't. If you've gotten a Yellow Card, it's usually for a good reason, and it means the refs are going to be watching you a little more closely. If my team got carded in the elims I know we'd be a little more wary of our actions for fear of getting a second card and DQ'd. I can't imagine that a Yellow Card wouldn't have some sort of effect on a team unless they're completely oblivious and uncaring about how their actions might affect their alliance.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Also, the GDC came back with an answer (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9008) and basically said "Not standard, but if the refs felt a multiple card was appropriate...."

Which seems a bit of a cop out. I can understand that they don't have all the details, etc. But some sort of statement saying the refs could if they felt the card was deserved for some action or collusion on the part of the whole alliance.... But based on even the vague answer provided and the fact that the announcer said it was for the autonomous driving of the one team... I'd say the refs missed the call with the group yellow card.

[Danny McC]

I actually felt pretty bad after I wasn't able to stop the bot in time. So I walked over and asked them if everything was ok and if I could do anything to help.

[pakratt1991]

I saw this same thing at the Oregon regional. A teams hybrid mode hit the other wall at high speeds and it tossed a teams controller to the ground. There were no yellow cards given and the refs just said that teams needed to secure their controllers. We used 3 long strips of Velcro and that worked fine.