Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

Good gravy, you are serious.

If a referee does not know the rules he is basing his calls on, that is not fair to the players, the spectators, or the tournament. Expecting the refs to know what they are doing is a necessary part of the game.

What's not fair to the referees this year is making them do double duty as scorekeepers.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

I don't think it can be put any better than this.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

First off, are you associated with a FRC team? If so please put it in your name card so people can take you seriously.

Secondly, have you ever been a driver? If not, you will never know how annoying it is when a ref makes a call that is different than the rule states. Once you have experianced that, then you can talk about refs not knowing the rules like the back of their hand. Because until then, you are not crediable.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

As I understand it, replays due to field/ref faults are supposed to happen, no matter who they affect. I don't agree with this rule, but it appears to be how its enforced (we had a replay due to our non-lighting pedestal when we won a match by like 60 points). By this logic, the match 'should' have been replayed. The whole timeout thing is a mess, and that's just wrong. I'm so sorry about all of it.


EDIT:
Although, I guess that's not actually the case. "affects the outcome of the match". Sorry guys. The match should not have been replayed either.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

What I advicate for is not that the refs don't need to know the rules, its that if the ref has to make a decision, that they get the call right everytime is unreasonable. What team I have been associated with is not an issue, I have been associated with an FRC team, but it shouldn't reflect on the team, it is for this reason that I wish to remain anonymous. I still don't understand how what 4153 did that was considered sheilding however I do support the decision because that was the best decision that they could make. I was just trying to get a better understanding of why therefs made the call they did.

And I do know what it feels like when the refs make a wrong decision. To base my credibility on that is unreliable.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

Thank you for clarifying what you are advocating for. In past posts it did not appear that was what you were advocating. I respect that you don't want what you post to reflect on your team. I know a head ref won't always make the correct call (but that is what the question box is for) but i believe it isn't unreasonable to expect any ref to know all the rules, and the occasional mis-call will be allowed as long as it either 1, doesn't effect the outcome of a match, or 2, is allowed to be questioned in the Q&A box. If the refs don't know the rules then there isn't anything preventing people from committing fouls that should have been called because a ref doesn't know a rule.

This is my opinion. Either know all the rules, or don't ref. It is that simple.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

I can respect that. I just hope that the refs at champs do a better job than some I have seen at other regionals.

I saw 2996 at colorado at watched your matches from Utah I believe, you guys look good out there. Good luck at champs!

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

Thank you.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

This isn't a tenable position. No one here that I'm aware of pretends to represent the views of their entire team, and no one holds anyone else to that unrealistic standard either. The problems with anonymity here include that, whatever your personal views, they need to be EXPRESSED in a way that represents your team well; i.e., respectful, and well thought out. Anonymity allows for and sometimes encourages troll behavior. It also draws attention to the question of who or what you might represent, rather than diffusing such questions. If you feel your message to CD might reflect poorly on your team if your team were known, maybe you need to rethink the message or your manner of expressing it instead.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

Thanks for the advice and I will take that into account in the future. I would like to apologize to anyone who may have taken my search for some answers, and ,maybe some of my own thoughts, personally, or thought that my intent was not professional or inquisitive. I was just trying to search for some answers on my questions from this season.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

Okay so hypothetical, at colorado in SF 2-1, 2996 got pushed halfway into 4153, now same result only the team halfway into the opposing robot put themselves there intentionally. To clairfy I am not talking about the exact situation in Colorado just a similar hypothetical, would there be a pin and a G28 called. I have no idea, just wanted to know.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

Yes. If a robot was playing defence and they ended up stuck on another robot without being pushed on that robot, then that would be a pin. We got pushed, hence no foul.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

First, there is a G18 violation (supported by another robot). If they are pushed, then G14 applies, and G18 is not called. Note: This presumes that bot rode up onto the other bot to be halfway into the opposing robot.

Similarly for G28 (violating the frame perimeter), if they are pushed, then G14 applies, and G28 is not called.

If "put themselves there intentionally", then that is a clear G18 violation (assuming bot rode up onto the other bot) and/or G28 (deliberate).

You have not explained why pin (G29) applies. If it does (the other robot cannot move), then the same analysis applies. Or, are you arguing that that is pushed onto the other robot is pinned because it cannot move off the other robot. An interesting interpretation of the rule. I would not call G29, and call G14 instead. If they called G29, then they have to explain why they did not call G18 or G28 on you. By calling G14, any violations you have are waived.

The question is: Does G14 get called. There are times when an alliance forces the opponent to violate a rule. Sometimes G14 and the opponent violation are not called because it was an inadvertent G14. The simplest example being: Red is inbounding a ball. Blue is between the Human player and the red robot. Human player does a sissy throw and the ball lands squarely in the Blue robot. Blue immediately ejects the red ball.

Regarding whether the Ref's should know all the rules:

Like I said, if it involves game play, then the Head Ref should know that rule inside and out.

With most rules, the Ref's know a violation has occurred, but could not cite the exact rule at that second. After a match, the Ref's confer on the various fouls observed (whether indicated by a call, or not), and then the fouls are finalized. During this time, they discuss the details of the infraction and the rule (frame violation occurred - was there damage, or did it seem intentional).

In an ideal world, the Ref's could watch hours of video on each rule (all the nuances) so that by the time of the matches, they would know each rule inside and out. In reality, at the Regional, especially the earlier ones, the qualification matches are the first time they see how the rules play out in real life.

And, when they change a rule mid season, such as G27 on ramming, there is a lot of interpretation on what was intended. What do they mean by "Strategies aimed at ... damage ... such as high-speed ... ramming". Does that mean all high-speed ramming is a foul? Obviously if damage resulted, then that is a foul. Otherwise, how do you discern intent in order for it to be a strategy to cause damage, rather than just getting there fast for a good defense? If Red Bot comes across court full speed to hit and move Blue Bot that is positioning itself to catch a truss throw, isn't that the way the game is played?

Also, there is a lot to watch. 4 refs watch the balls - 2 refs for each color. 2 of them only follow the ball - the other 2 break off, such as when a ball is about to be scored they shift attention to the ball on the pedestal. The rest watch everything else. If a Ref is watching the ball, they may not see the opponent coming up until it is upon the ball. At that point, it is too late to figure out what happened prior to the infraction to discern intent. Although a Ref may have seen the incident, they may not have been watching for the infraction, and thus not have enough information to make the call.

Here is a simple one to think about: Ball is sitting on the safety zone rail between the human player and the robot. What happens?

The Human Player can ask field personnel to give them the ball. that is a safe, but time consuming option.

The Human Player can pick up the ball, but make sure they do not go past the appropriate line. What is the applicable line? Well, it depends upon where the robots are. The G40 rule that everyone thinks about.

But, what if a robot is touching the ball? then G41 applies, and HP can't touch the ball, even to push the portion of the ball that is over the guard rail in the human player area.

If that is the first time you have seen the situation (and I only saw it once after being at two regionals), then you are going through all the rules in your head to figure out what you should be looking for. It is the scenario you didn't think about to be prepared when it occurs.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

G14 doesn't apply every time an alliance forces the opposing alliance to take a foul. It only applies when the alliance is employing a strategy in causing the othe alliance to take a foul.

In other words, it must be clear that they're intentionally causing the other alliance to take a foul for G14 to apply.

Whether that should be the case or not is another story.