Chief Delphi - Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93850)

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

Originally Posted by artdutra04 (Post 1043666)

Add four more bars and turn it into a Peaucellier-Lipkin straight-line linkage.

The problem is that with 469's 4-bar, the two fixed pivots are parallel to the link with the minibot on it. With the Peacellier-Lipkin linkage, the two fixed pivots are perpendicular to the axis of motion (and the minibot would not always be parallel to the ground).

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Posted to Q&A... We'll see what kind of answer we get back...

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Wright (Post 1043159)

In this match, we no longer have a mini-bot so we are scoring tubes until the end of the match. We received a red card for this match because the last tube we picked up touched the tower base as we picked it up and it was during the end game. Right or wrong...you decide... Just be careful around those towers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQoHIFCLWs

This one is totally the right call. I think that the rule could stand to be improved, but its the right call. This has happened to several big name teams at several events, resulting in a DQ in elims. It happened Week 1 in QTR1-1 at FLR. 2056/217/1518 were up against us, and in the endgame 1518 brushed one of our towers.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

<G23> Contact (via ROBOT or GAME PIECE) with the opposing ALLIANCE‟S TOWERS is prohibited. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD

<G61> The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.
Unless otherwise noted, all PENALTIES assigned by referees are applied to the entire ALLIANCE.

G61 does not apply to G23. We were pushed into a tower at WI and received the card. Discussions with the ref confirmed that G61 does not apply in this case (I am sure it is written somewhere - I will find it). Message is - stay away from the towers.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz (Post 1043853)

Most of the other posters here seem to disagree with you. All other exceptions to <G61> are specified, and I can't find one in this case.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 1043179)

They are of the highest integrity and more any team I have seen in FIRST in recent years. If you question that then you just don't know them at all.

After winning against them (and, later, losing to them) last year at CMP, I can testify to the truth of that statement. What an inclusive, generous and friendly team!

It may be an unfortunate fact, but their unconventional (but brilliant) strategies may have painted a huge target on their backs :mad:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Line (Post 1043547)

It's a lousy way to lose, but it's in the rules.

I looked Tom but could not find that. Not that I doubt you, but if you could give me a place to look?

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonRotolo (Post 1044032)

I looked Tom but could not find that. Not that I doubt you, but if you could give me a place to look?

<G39>--it's a Penalty plus a Red Card, no qualification exceptions.

If you descore your opponent's tubes, score for your opponent, or mess with your opponent's tower, be prepared for the head ref to show up in front of your driver's station with a red card in his/her hand.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

Originally Posted by artdutra04 (Post 1043666)

Add four more bars and turn it into a Peaucellier-Lipkin straight-line linkage.

Take it off, and make an entirely new Peaucellier-Lipkin straight-line linkage. I really want to see that in action, and you're the team that would pull it off :)

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

Originally Posted by bduddy (Post 1043873)

Most of the other posters here seem to disagree with you. All other exceptions to <G61> are specified, and I can't find one in this case.

The point remains that they were given a red card when they were pushed into the tower, whereas team 3096 was not given a red card when they were pushed into the tower. This scenario needs to be addressed, and a referee response needs to be standardized.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEE (Post 1044049)

Most definitely. As any baseball player would tell you, incorrect enforcement is a lot better than inconsistent enforcement. My understanding of the rules is that being pushed into a tower should not be a penalty on the pushee, and if anything the pusher should have a pin count begun.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Also, although this is not one of the three situations previously mentioned, the following is another interesting one that caused us to replay Match 60 3 times (we won the first 2, but lost the second 2, and so ultimately lost)

"<T17> If, in the judgment of the Head Referee, an “ARENA fault” occurs that affects either the play or the outcome of the MATCH, the MATCH will be replayed. Example ARENA faults include broken field elements, power failure to a portion of the field, improper activation of the field control system, errors by field personnel, etc.

In match 60, the clock that the blue alliance looks at started displaying random numbers and figures with about 4-8 seconds left in the match, and so we had to replay the match. When I went and asked the head referee how this fault affected "either the play or the outcome of the MATCH", he said it didn't matter; the field personnel classified it as an arena fault, and so the match had to be replayed. I showed him the rule, and he said "team 51 came and told me that the clock malfunctioned and affected their game play, and that's all it takes" (which was not the case. If I understand correctly, it was someone from 903 who came, and it actually malfunctioned before deployment and hindered the blue alliance's team to deploy minibots). He then continued to say that he didn't care when the clock malfunctioned, that the fact of it malfunctioning at all was enough to replay the match. Later, when the blue alliance won, but the clock still malfunctioned, we replayed the match again anyways, in spite of the fact that it had no impact on anyone's gameplay.

If this precedent, and my reasoning, are correct, an arena fault doesn't actually need to affect anything for there to be a rematch. O.o

Thoughts? Comments?

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Given 469's design last year, I can see why some teams could say that they once again found a loop hole or (depending on your perspective) lawyered the rules.

However, I think it's clear that there is vertical motion that is assisting the minibot up the pole and is therefore illegal. Nice looking bot though.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGCO (Post 1044071)

Given 469's design last year, I can see why some teams could say that they once again found a loop hole or (depending on your perspective) lawyered the rules.

...but last year, 469 neither found a loophole nor lawyered the rules. They looked at what was allowed, asked for clarification from the GDC in public where everyone could see what they were asking and what the answers were, and then built a robot that was completely and unambiguously in line with those rules.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfreivald (Post 1044074)

Not going to get into this right now. It's a matter of perspective. Personally, I respect their design from last year tremendously, and I know it encouraged us to attempt to think outside of the box many times this year.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEE (Post 1044065)

Also, although this is not one of the three situations previously mentioned, the following is another interesting one that caused us to replay Match 60 3 times (we won the first 2, but lost the second 2, and so ultimately lost)

"<T17> If, in the judgment of the Head Referee, an “ARENA fault” occurs that affects either the play or the outcome of the MATCH, the MATCH will be replayed. Example ARENA faults include broken field elements, power failure to a portion of the field, improper activation of the field control system, errors by field personnel, etc.

In match 60, the clock that the blue alliance looks at started displaying random numbers and figures with about 4-8 seconds left in the match, and so we had to replay the match. When I went and asked the head referee how this fault affected "either the play or the outcome of the MATCH", he said it didn't matter; the field personnel classified it as an arena fault, and so the match had to be replayed. I showed him the rule, and he said "team 51 came and told me that the clock malfunctioned and affected their game play, and that's all it takes" (which I'm unsure if that's true or not... it seems absurd that a clock malfunctioning after the deployment period started would affect the play or outcome of a match). He then continued to say that he didn't care when the clock malfunctioned, that the fact of it malfunctioning at all was enough to replay the match. Later, when the blue alliance won, but the clock still malfunctioned, we replayed the match again anyways, in spite of the fact that it had no impact on anyone's gameplay.

If this precedent, and my reasoning, are correct, an arena fault doesn't actually need to affect anything for there to be a rematch. O.o

Thoughts? Comments?

Edit: Members of the blue alliance, if the malfunctioning clock actually did affect your playing, I apologize for calling it absurd :eek:

In the original match in question, the clock malfunctioned with approximately 15-20 seconds to go in the match. It was not after the deployment period had begun.

Team 903 from the blue alliance was lined up with the tower waiting to deploy their minibot and did not deploy at the 10 second mark because they didn't know how much time was left and they didn't want to risk getting their tower disabled. They ended up deploying well after the start of the deployment period and lost the minibot race. I believe the red alliance won the original match by 5 points, so the minibot race affected the outcome of the match.

I was sitting in the stands and the referee question circle was right in front of me (about 6 feet away). Members from 903 stood in the circle after the match. No one from team 51 was present while I was in the stands. Just about the time the head referee came to talk to the 903 student representative, I left the stands so I guess it's possible that someone from 51 later showed up. At that time, 903 was ranked in the top 8 so a win was very important for them.

I didn't find out the match would be replayed until about an hour later.

To be honest, at the time I was more upset at us for losing that match so I didn't care about the the clock issue. We delayed significantly before deploying our minibot (due to the clock issue) so we weren't going to win the race, but just getting the minibot up the pole would have won the match. That was the ONLY unsuccessful deploy we had all weekend (the minibot bounced off the pole) so all I could think about was what were we going to do to keep that from happening again. The clock issue was a bit of an afterthought at the time.