Originally Posted by samthesnake (Post 1580563)

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?

Originally Posted by nandeeka (Post 1580566)

They got two yellow cards. Someone tethered without permission and someone touched the driver station during auto. Two yellow cards makes a red.

Originally Posted by TylerHarmon (Post 1580571)

What do you mean by tethered?

Originally Posted by jodge1706 (Post 1580573)

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

Originally Posted by ollien (Post 1580575)

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

Originally Posted by CalTran (Post 1580577)

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

Originally Posted by ollien (Post 1580575)

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?

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1580863)

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.

Originally Posted by apache8080 (Post 1580865)

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.

Originally Posted by PatEhrgott (Post 1582436)

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

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace (Post 1582525)

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 earlier in this thread, and on TBA.

**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.

Originally Posted by rtfgnow (Post 1582756)

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.

Originally Posted by rtfgnow (Post 1582756)

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.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1582782)

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

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1582782)

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

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace (Post 1582792)

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

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky (Post 1582797)

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.

Originally Posted by PatrickSJ (Post 1582901)

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sheridan (Post 1582812)

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.

Originally Posted by PatrickSJ (Post 1582901)

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.

Originally Posted by apache8080 (Post 1583010)

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

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1583132)

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.

Originally Posted by martin417 (Post 1583151)

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.

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1583171)

.... 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.

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU (Post 1583018)

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

Originally Posted by martin417 (Post 1583151)

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. ...

Originally Posted by martin417 (Post 1583151)

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.

Originally Posted by Arevan (Post 1583242)

...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.

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1583336)

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.

Originally Posted by samthesnake (Post 1580622)

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

Originally Posted by martin417 (Post 1583393)

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

Originally Posted by martin417 (Post 1583393)

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.

Originally Posted by martin417 (Post 1583393)

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.