Originally Posted by Luke (Post 590863)

When I watched that event happen my first thoughts was that the rules as stated meant the NJ ref should have DQ'ed the team instead restarting the match. Each new match the ref continued to prevent the DQ offense from happening by walking onto the field and wrestling the tube off the robot after autonomous. My thoughts were that this is not what the rules says. But wait am I going defend a rule which I believe is too harsh? What I believe now is, we were seeing the ref was trying not to DQ a team due to a rule which carries an undue and too harsh Penalty and needs updating.

Why should this carry a DQ penalty? This is the goal of the autonomous and if you just missed but accidentally put the keeper on after, why a DQ? Usually a DQ is due safety or equipment damage or unfair advantage; I do not see that here. :confused:

I think FIRST should rethink this harsh penalty. From the actions of the NJ refs, I believe, that they DID NOT wanted to make that DQ call either.

GOOD CALL NJ REFS!!! :D

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom (Post 590895)

The NJ match in question was stopped because of a mis-communication between the head ref and the scorekeeper/field controller. The match should have been paused until that keeper was removed from play.

One of the main jobs of the head ref at the end of autonomous is to remove any "precariously perched" keepers to specifically avoid that situation (an inadvertent score at the start of tele-operated period), THEN signal to the field controller to continue the match. You should see this happen regularly at all of the competitions this year. The DQ penalty is in place more for a deliberately placed "late" keeper.