Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

On the contrary, if it's not in the rules, it's not a rule. Discussion on this point seems quite necessary. The head referee should have been informed that he was "enforcing" a nonexistent rule.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I disagree with the "If the head ref says it's a rule, it's a rule." At the beginning of the LA regional the safety guys said -no- shaded or even -tinted- glasses at any time. We kindly went and talked to them, showed them the rule, and the update that said tinted were allowed, and then they made an announcement stating that tinted glasses were allowed. You just need someone to go and talk to the ref for a while. I know the outcome of LA would have been soooo different if this rule was enforced. And I don't think it would have been fair.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

lets not complain. read the thread on complaining. it's near the top now that im writing this post.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

He original poster has a valid point. It is not whining or complaining but rather just making us aware of what could happen at future regionals.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

the original poster no. it sounded as if a couple other people were. but it's hard to tell people's expression on the internet isn't it? =]

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Please don't quote out of context. I was alluding to the futility of trying to "respectfully insist" on a ruling to head referee. <G35> makes it perfectly clear.

<G52>When making a ruling, the head referee may receive input from other sources, particularly Game Design Committee members, FIRST personnel, and technical staff that may be present at an event. However, the head referee's decision is final.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Although it isn't explicitly stated as a rule, I agree with it. It allows the intent of the game to occur, which in this game, is to score ringers on the rack and to strategically place spoilers over the opposing alliances ringers.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

How do you know that is the intent?

The most you can infer the intent to be, above all else, is to score more points than your opponents using the methods described in the rule book. That's it.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I'll go on the record with the "If it's not in the rule book, it's not a rule" crowd. The rule book is there to inform teams of the rules during the design and strategizing phase. Enforcing a rule not in the rulebook and backing it with the intent of the game is simply blindsiding teams that are pursuing a strategy you've suddenly made illegal. Unfortunately, the head GLR ref is not a ref I would feel at all comfortable bringing this up with, so our team simply worked around it. I suspect I know from where this misinterpretation stems.I imagine someone read the first sentence and extrapolated that this was the only time you could defend another robot, thus no defending robots without tubes. I think the section on robot-robot interactions contradicts this interpretation, however.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Here is my concern... I am not complaining... But...

We all have been living and dying the past first 6 weeks with the rule book and the Q&A forum. We all designed robots to play the game within these rules. There has been tons of "Lawyering" which has been frowned upon, but is necessary.

So, now we start to play and a "rule" is made by a local ref to enforce what he thinks is the intention of the game "To hang and score ringers" which could totally either help or hurt certain teams based on their design.

For example, I stated in my post earlier that it helps the teams that are "scorers" by ringing.

But, after thinking about it, it really helps non ring scorers. If you have a ramp bot with no arm, you can't ever have a ring. Which means, nobody can defend you. Ever. Even if you are playing defense against a robot that does have a ring, nobody can hit/push you...because you have no ring...

Anyway... "As the FIRST World Turns"...

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Correct. The referees have the authority and responsibility to enforce the rules that have been provided. Rule <G53> provides them with the final authority on all decisions regarding how a particular rule will be enforced and the applicability of a particular rule to a given situation (i.e. "rulings"). It does NOT give them the authority to change the existing rules or make up new ones.

There is a difference between obsessively "lawyering" the existing rules that have been provided to all FIRST teams, and having someone create a new rule on the spot and expecting everyone at an event to respond. Neither should take place, but for entirely different reasons.

-dave

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

No - I am rather confident that the head refs are not gods or even demigods. They are humans to whom a certain amount of authority has been delegated. Nothing more, nothing less.

Rule <G52> and the rule <T04> that it refers to appear to be designed to avoid looking in a rear-view mirror.

Given an advance detection of a conspicuously obvious misinterpretation of rules that I presume the referees are duty-bound to enforce (and I further assume that they are allowed to "interpret" them only when ambiguity exists), I again would recommend to my team or to any other, that we/they should politely and respectfully insist the referee consult with other experts, and/or that we should play within the published rules (not the interpreted ones) and let the chips fall where they may, and/or that we should not play until the matter is corrected.

Whether this would make me a patriot or a traitor would depend on whether the observer is a rebellious colonist or a Tory loyalist...

Blake
PS: A little rebellion every now and then is a good thing.... :-)

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Our team was a definite benefactor of this rule "change." We can handle defense when placing tubes, but our method of picking up ringers didn't allow for much defense (at least at the beginning of GLR). When the head ref made this announcement Saturday morning, our driver and I were elated-- we knew we'd be able to score more. However, I have to fault myself for not recognizing that this wasn't an actual rule. As a driver, it was my responsibility to have known that this was a mistake. To my knowledge, no one questioned this at GLR. As drivers and coaches, we should accept a little bit of the responsibility here, too.

I understand the frustrations that this discrepancy created, but it's also a perfect illustration of the lessons FIRST teaches us. Everyone makes mistakes and a thorough understanding of the rules can solve a lot of a problems.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

<G52>, but who's counting? :)

Thanks for speaking up here, Dave. Most of us understand that the GDC makes the rules, while key volunteers like Head Referees and Lead Robot Inspectors are responsible for applying them. Sometimes we need to be reminded of that.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

This is just another example of a rule made up by the head ref at GLR. I have been in this for 7 years and this is the forth year that I can remember that he has made up his own rules.

We all put a lot of work into this project and to waste an event to his rules changes is very disappointing. We have never had any problems at other events.