<G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

Here's the situation:

At the beginning of our 2nd match at DC, our alliance human player put all 4 empty cells in our robot during autonomy (unaware of the G24 rule). We proceeded to deliver those empty cells to the corner stations and were expecting 30 points in penalties for this mistake. Instead we only got one 10point penalty for controlling more than one empty cell.

Our team has questioned that if this is the case, is it worth the gamble of 10pts in penalties to quickly deliver all 4 empty cells to your alliance? In our case we only scored one super cell of the four, which resulted in a net score of 5 points, but we think the chances of getting more scored may be worth that gamble.

Thinking this didn't sound like a correct interpretation of the rule, we clarified with the head ref who said this case is, in fact, only 10pts. We then told her if that's the rule, we may choose to do this all the time.

What does the community think? Was the rule written this way so that teams could make the decision on if carrying 4 empty cells at one time was worth the gamble? Or is this just a loophole in the rules that needs to be clarified?

Maybe it's not worth the gamble, but if it is, we want to know what people think.

Thanks,
The Robonauts

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

Definitely sounds worth the gamble to me. But at the same time I think that this should be clarified by the GDC for future regionals. I somehow doubt that this will remain true.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

There was a clause in prior rulebooks about intentionally taking penalties for some kind of gain elsewhere, and how that was not legal.

That clause is not in this year's rules.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

I think the better question is why they were chosen to be HP when they did not know the rules?

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

The rule itself reads that "ROBOTS may be in POSSESSION of a maximum of one EMPTY CELL, or may HERD a maximum of one EMPTY CELL at one time. A ROBOT may not be in POSSESSION and HERD EMPTY CELLS at the same time. A violation will cause a PENALTY to be assigned."

It could go either way. You could say that the robot had 4 ECs, which means the rule was violated 3 times (1 per extra), which means 3 penalties. On the other hand, and this is what the ref is saying, each case of multiple EC possession is 1 violation and therefore 1 penalty.

Now taking bets on how long this'll last... I'm sayin' no longer than Tuesday's update.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

After speaking to our head referee in Traverse City, he said that it was most likely a miss rule, but he would rule it as one foul per empty cell.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

I was watching a regional with a flaky connection (hospital) and I remember the commentator said something about a "double penalty" regarding scoring a super cell without swapping it for an empty. If that can be a double, i'm guessing knowingly breaking the rules would be penalized the same way.


Without thinking about "the rules," I wouldn't allow my team to continue to do this based on what is "fair" and not a good example of GP.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

Let's suppose for a minute that the ruling stands, one penalty for four empty cells, and that's the approach for future Regionals. Further suppose that it's the consensus of the FIRST community that "taking advantage" of this ruling is not a violation of gracious professionalism.

The question then boils down to, given that 10 points will be lost, "is it good strategy to load four ECs in one robot in autonomous?" That's a tough question that needs to be answered by the alliance together. I am inclined to say it may be worth the risk.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

I bet this lasts about as long as stacking robots at the beginning of the match did in 2007.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

<offtopic>I loved that strategy, one of my favorites of all time</offtopic>

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

<OT>Pictures or it didn't happen</OT>

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

[also OT] There are. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27756 [/also OT]

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

If this is the ruling for the head referee at your regional, I do not believe that that calling will be the same at others.

Also, intentionally breaking rules can cause more penalties if the refs. catch on not to mention that there is NO GP in that strategy and the example you are setting for other teams would not be good.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

We were discussing this on Gameday. 9.5.3 is the ONLY manual section that would cover this that we found. And then, it depends on what your ref finds to be "egregious". There is no rule that says you can't take a penalty for a competitive advantage.

As for the "No GP" comment, maybe you should think about this spotlight: "Only think of Gracious Professionalism as a standard to work toward personally. Never use it as a gauge to point out someone else’s shortcomings."--Rich Kressly

Whether or not it is GP is kind of up to your team to decide. If you decide that you won't use this, fine. If you decide to take advantage of a ref's interpretation, fine. Your choice.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

So, are you equating GP to personal integrity or morality?
I think it's much easier to peg down. Act as if you out of school and at your first real job. Before you do anything, ask yourself this: Would my boss/colleague/grandmother look at me and say that was professional behavior? Would those same folks define that as 'gracious'? Knowingly breaking the rules to get an advantage in a silly game is neither. This is my personal opinion and I am not making a call on the rules of the game.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

Am I? Sort of. It sort of is, sort of isn't. But what one person thinks is not GP, another person thinks is GP, and both can be right. It depends how you look at it.

It's more like ethics.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

I wouldnt expect this to continue being interpreted this way so not worth arguing about.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

My interpretation is that my Grandmother would approve if my team took the 10 point penalty like adults and didn't complain. If I take spare points by little work (like prestacking bots in 2007) than it would be unfair.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

who's arguing? I think we all agree that this ruling will be "patched" in the next update. What I think we are discussing is the idea that a team would continue using the same tactic knowing that it was against the rules.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

True. However, there is a hole/miscommunication in the interpretation of how the rule is applied. Where it is, I don't know. I pointed out what the hole was earlier. The question is, if you can actually get an advantage by breaking the rule, should you exploit that? That's a call each team must make for themselves, with their alliance assisting.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

What would your Grandmother think about it if you continued to take those 10 points for the hopes of getting 40? 30 free points that takes a major portion of the game away. That seems to me like "little work" and "unfair."
If you do it once, I can see that as an accident. If you do it twice, it's a strategy.

Now to what Eric said. If a team were to do this little scheme more than once, I would guarantee that my team would never give an alliance slot to that team or accept a selection from that team for eliminations.
I can hear the question now: what if that means you don't play in the eliminations? Easy answer: Oh well. There is always next year.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

Than we would have, for the most part, played within the rules, and for the rules we broke we took the punishment. What you are saying is the same as Eric's view. The rule is not clear enough and needs clarification.

I am not saying my team would do it, but I think my grandmother would approve.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

The fact that anyone would want to break the rules just to get an edge is a little upsetting. What message does that send to rookie teams, new members, the community... The list goes on and on. Play the game fair and to the best of your ability and even if you do lose, you can walk off the field knowing that you and your partners gave it your all but lost to a better alliance. Don't take advantage of a poorly written rule. Put yourselves in the other teams shoes and what it would be like to lose that way.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

You are only considering to take advantage of that loophole because you aren't on the receiving end of that decision. Consider if your opponents found another loophole and by exploiting that knocked you down in the rankings. In other words don't do something if you don't want other to do the same. However, lets say that you don't care. "So what if they use loopholes?" Are you then saying that "fairness" has no meaning; that rule have no purpose?

Is winning really that important to you? Do you crave that trophy/medal so much that you are willing to use whatever small methods you can find? Are you that afraid of losing?

"Find me a person who is afraid of losing, and I will so you a person who is easy to beat" - (I'll come back with the author)

Its understandable that nobody likes to lose, but does that mean that being the winner justifies any action taken?

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

Many contracts require certain things, and many have penalties built in if you don't meet them. Sometimes, it is cheaper to pay the penalty than to pay to rush to get the requirement. Do this, or this negative action occurs. I don't think that it is necessarily wrong to do something like this.

That said, <G12> makes this an illegal starting position for the empty cells.

Wetzel

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

You sound like a guy I could get along with. Such hard headed understanding of morals is an admirable trait. Hopefully all your students learn it well and carry it on. Too many people waver about whether or not something is right. I honestly don't care if people agree with me on an issue, but I do get annoyed if they don't take a stance.

Sorry for the ramble. Just felt like it should be said. Not really sure why though. Let's not turn this into a debate though.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

I'm sorry...GP or not, this is the kind of thing I love about FIRST. Like stacking "dead" robots two years ago... It's the simple ingenious things that are so completely out of the box that really make me say to myself "wow...why didn't I think of that".

Unfortunately, all the the rules in the last few years really seem to limit the amount of crazy out of the box winning strategies that escape 99% of the FIRST participants so when moments like this come up (granted, this was by accident...but Raul's move in 2007 wasn't), it really inspires me to try and take a different look at the game to try and find a different way to play. It's almost to me like there is a secret puzzle in there somewhere and if you solve it, you can use it to your advantage...

It's going to be updated to be a penalty for each empty cell carried over one... But if not...it will be just another trick in the bag for autonomous...

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

Wetzel, they started in the outpost. The PS there loaded all four very quickly.

I don't advocate using this strategy, especially since it's borderline at best. Once the GDC figures out what will happen (probably within hours of the use), they will issue a clarification, possibly to the teams via an update/Q&A, and almost certainly to the refs via other channels.

I can appreciate the Robonauts' honesty in telling the head ref that if the rule is being enforced the way it is, they will likely do it often. This will call out the effect of this ruling, which will help the GDC in clarifying.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

I'm currently too lazy to quote the arguments against taking advantage of this ruling by loading up with 4 empty cells, but I have this to say:

This is not breaking the rules. This taking an action that can be penalized, and it's a somewhat minor penalty at best. It is exactly akin to fouling someone on a breakaway or in the last 30 seconds to force them to make free throws. It's an action you know will be penalized, but you do it because you're hoping to make up for the penalty in the long run. If the game is designed properly, then it should be unlikely to give you a benefit, provided the opposing team knows what they're doing. If I'm playing against a team that does this, then the obvious correct move is for all my robots to stay away from the loaded up PS for the last 30 seconds of the match. If all your robots are across the field from the super cells, then it's highly likely that this strategy is going to fail miserably.

So I think that either ruling would likely work well, and I don't think I'd mind playing against a team willing to shoot themselves in the foot for me.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

The correct ruling is one penalty for every ball over 1, so 4 empty cells at once was supposed to be 3 penalties. This was clarified at DC today.

Wetzel

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

Thank you for clarifying. However, I think this whole arguement shouldn't be about what we think because we're not the game designers. If the game designers say we want to leave the rule, then it would quiet everyone that says it's unprofessional. It would be completely professional if they wanted to leave that as the interpretation because that would open up an entirely new area of strategy, and that could be an aspect that the designers want. If they deem it three penalties then it would be unprofessional and stupid for your team to attempt that, because it is against the intent of the game and a big disadvantage. It is all up to the game designers.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

(I know this particular issue has already been laid to rest, but I'm perpetually intrigued by this line of thinking...)
Do you guys get upset when basketball teams make intentional fouls to stop the clock? How about when a baseball pitcher issues an intentional walk to avoid giving up a home run? Or when a football team takes a delay-of-game penalty to get some extra space in front of their punter? Every sport I can think of has some notion of purposefully accepting a punishment for the sake of attempting to gain an advantage. Can anyone who felt that the strategy Lucien described was somehow unethical explain why this scenario is different?

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

All these examples are from well established games with a history behind them. What gets me is the team knew the rule wasn't enforced quite right and was going to use this gray ruling to help them out. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between using a rule (that has been subjected to scrutiny and evaluated) for a strategic advantage and using the rule to circumvent the intent of the game. The intent of the game is for one robot to take one empty cell and take it to the fueling station.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

That's misrepresenting what he said. The scenarios described (intentional walk, fouling to stop the clock, spiking a football) are all analogous to what Mr. Natchez was saying. IF this rule was going to be enforced this way, a smart way to play is to load up all the balls in autonomous, take the 10 point hit, and beat the pants off everyone.

What really happened was this: he knew that the rule wasn't being enforced quite right, posted it to the message board here, and ensured that the head ref in DC (and everywhere else) got it cleared up by the start of the next day.

Kris

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

And the intent of baseball is for one guy to throw a ball at another guy who tries to hit it with a stick. Intentional walks is against this intent.
As for knowing a rule wasn't enforced right, the head ref at a regional is the final recourse for a team. They may consult with others, but their decisions are final. If the head ref tells a team, this is what the rule means, then they would be foolish to ignore that.

Wetzel

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

What part of this statement did I "misinterpret?" I'm in no way trying to slight a team's rep here. I would just like to state, for the last time, that my team would not do this, not would we accept an invite from a team that did this as a strategy. Just remember, your team asked for CD's opinion. Don't be surprised if you don't get a bunch of "warm fuzzies" and folks don't agree with you.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

Short answers: Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

I see other possible rules violations here:

<G12> Prior to the start of the match, EMPTY CELLS are on the cell racks in the outpost. After the start of the match, they are available to the payload specialist. Whether this is a 10 point or 40 point penalty is ambiguous.

<G21> only allows EMPTY CELLS to be introduced into the crater via the porthole in the outpost when loading the robot. No other means are allowed. Did the payload specialist pass each ball through the porthole? If not, there are up to 40 points of penalties incurred.

Compounded with the 10 to 40 penalty points from <G24>, this "clever move" could have occurred between 60 to 120 points in penalties. A team could score 60 points if they make good on all four SUPER CELLS, but the odds are most definitely against this. I just don't see this as a viable strategy if the rules are correctly applied...

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

I don't beleive they were using a grey rule to their advantage. It was initially an accident that they cleared up. They immediately informed the head ref of the misunderstanding. If it turns out that this rule stays as is, it is not grey and if it changes it is not grey. By going to the head ref they made it either black or white. His interpretation is what is what changes the rule from grey to either black or white. What this team did was perfect and if he had kept a 10 point penalty instead of a 40 they are allowed to use that for strategic purposes and remains completely professional by staying within the rules.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

There's always one. See, this is the part I don't get. If the Committee of People Who Decide How Basketball Ought to be Played thought intentional fouls in the waning seconds of a game were a violation of the intent, it wouldn't be that hard to change. Instead of two shots, the fouled team would get one shot and the ball back. Now there is no reason whatsoever to foul away from the hoop on purpose, and the behavior stops immediately. Again, this is all hypothetical, but if the people who write the rules decide to let it stand, how can you get upset? Is it difficult to watch sports when you're getting mad all the time?

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

So lets say your favorite team was playing against their arch rivals. Your team is losing and the opponents know this. They stall and take some penalties but are still ahead. When this happens are you sit on your couch say, "Good strategy." Or are you at the edge of your seat yelling?

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

I'm not talking about the "dang, we're losing" kind of upset; that's entirely expected. I'm more concerned about the...
...kind of upset. That's roughly equivalent to "I'd never want Lebron on my team because he made some fouls to stop the clock", and I'm really struggling to understand that position.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

I would rather have a team (alliance) who feels the same way about the rules, the intent of the rules, and a certain way of playing the game rather than the "best" robot who's team will use what I consider to be questionable tactics in a match. Does that mean we might not win? Yeah, it might. Does that mean I can sleep well at night? yep. It also means at the end of the day I can look my students in the eye and be proud of how they played the game.

Do we have to agree on this? Nope, that's what makes the world, and FIRST, so cool. There are many different folks out there doing very different things. Are they all wrong? Lord, I hope not. I'm I right? Who knows.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

I personally dont like the rule, but anyone on the other side of the field from 1114 will quickly appreciate it. If they can win a 1 vs 3 match, I think they can due without a supercell....ah man, now I'm starting to sound like one of those socialist I'm always debating:rolleyes: .

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

Every year there is a rule (or two) that could be "worth" intentionally breaking to gain an advantage in scoring.

Despite being legal from a rules perspective, intentionally breaking a rule to gain an advantage goes against the spirit of the game and the whole concept of what FIRST is about.

PS - the reference to the strategy Raul used last year is not the same. There was no rule or penalty for starting with robots stacked - he employed a great strategy for the situation they were in.

Re: <G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC
 

Your assuming that the idea annoys me because of the 'intent of the game'. It doesn't. To be honest, I don't think they had any intentions in this regard. Even if the GDC intentionally put the rules as such to allow some 'creative' teams to use. I still would not want this sort of behavior on my team. It just isn't honorable. I'm an old age kind of guy. I miss the times when a war was a place where people stand in the open and fight to the best of their ability. I guess I'm just a bit outdated in my ideals. But personally, I do believe in honor. The mentioned strategies in various sports above do not break any rules. They are in complete compliance with the intentions of the sports. However, that does not make them honorable. And that is why they annoy me.