Re: Should referees signal disqualifications?
 

You're right. We made a mistake and paid the price.

I think you and the rest of the volunteer referees have a very difficult and thankless job. FIRST does things that no other competitive entity attempts. It invents a new, complicated game every year. You guys are on the firing line because you need to make split-second decisions with rules that evolve during the season. Please don't consider my posts as personal criticism, in the heat of battle, the tendency is to cry "foul"...

Re: Should referees signal disqualifications?
 

It's a valid arguement you made, I just think because your team was negativley affected by it, you may not have seen how tough a call it was with 1071. I think the refs had guts to DQ either team that match because from what I saw it was mostly accidents (although I didn't see team 435 go down, but with 3 vetran teams on the red alliance playing in elimination rounds at nationals plus the way all 6 robots played I think eveybody knows it was just hard play, not going out to destroy eachother)

If however if it was no doubt and a team kept ramming into another team, then that should be flagged on the spot since its fair to say they were out to damage another team. I don't think in this match or the next match it would have been practical to make the call before the huddel.

Re: Should referees signal disqualifications?
 

I agree with the dq's, and would have dq'd both teams as well.

However, I am confused about why the teams weren't disabled.

Re: Should referees signal disqualifications?
 

I think it's because neither team was out there to do it on purpose and neither team was acting recklessly. I can speak for 1071 when I say we were just trying to play cleanly but made a mistake. I think the refs could tell the difference between the teams out to damage another team, and teams that just screws up, which I really believe happened in all 3 DQs during those 4 matches.