Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I just wanted to post a couple of things I found interesting that happened at the Detroit District this past weekend.

This is in no means criticism of the refs or any team's gameplay. Just some things that might affect the way you play for the rest of the season so to make you aware...

First...since I've received several PM's concerning our "illegal" mini-bot deployment mechanism and what we "tried to get away with this year"... Here's a quick video of it deploying at the end of one of our matches. The item in question was since that the 4-bar is slightly traveling in an upward motion when the mini-bot hits the pole, it is contributing to the upward motion of the mini-bot which is illegal... You be the judge, but we promptly removed it after it was brought to our attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5hmtndWAs8

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

The final one is one I really still have a question about. In this match, excellent defense was being played on us and when we tried to go for the tower, they got between us and the tower and we pushed them into the base of the tower. We then backed off slightly, they didn't move, and then pushed them again... You can see the video (although there are some refs in the way, you still can get the point)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP5sGFJJv-M

My question is this...is this pinning (you can see we are getting a countdown for pinning)? Should this be a red card for the red team for contact with the tower in the end game (regardless of pinning)? If not, is it a viable defense now to just "get pinned" between a team wanting to deploy and their tower?

Again, no fault on the refs as I feel this is a slightly gray area that needs clarification...

Thoughts?

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

The slight upward motion of the 4bar does make it seem illegal, unless you could show them that your 4bar swings out, stops, then the minibot climbs under its own power.

The tube hitting the base during endgame is technically a red card, unfortunately.

The last one should have been a red card for the team in contact with your tower, during endgame, absolutely no contact is allowed with the opposing towers/robots at the towers.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

My two cents, for what they are worth...

Deploy is illegal - minibot is being released with vertical momentum.

Third video is not pinning at all. You are not inhibiting their motion. Don't they get a red card for touching your tower?

I don't believe 469 was trying to game the rules in any way - I just think the minibot rules are kinda messy.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

As part of the 3rd video, I actually thought our alliance was going to get a red card for contacting your tower. I was surprised when we didn't (side note: it didn't affect the outcome of this match as the blue alliance won.) I would also like to see this clarification.

During the strategy adjustment discussion after this match, we made sure to state that we want to avoid this situation in the following matches so we wouldn't get red carded.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

There was a double disqualification in one of the semi-final matches at Chesapeake. The red alliance received their red card after an apparently disabled robot was pushed against the blue tower base with about 40-50 seconds left where it remained until the endgame. So it does appear that the red card is automatic even for non-intentional touching.

This means that a non-moving robot is at severe risk of causing disqualification of it's own alliance, since it will typically start very close to the opposition's tower.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

According to that I would say that you were pinning in the 3rd video.

And according to that, since you pushed them into the tower they did not get penalized.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I agree with the refs/inspectors calls on all of these. For the last one the robot that gets pinned against your tower gets G61 protection from the red card while you are still pinning them. If you were to back away from them at least 6ft for at least 3 sec (to cancel pinning), then after that they are still touching your tower, I interpret that as being a red card and a penalty on them since you are no longer pinning them (causing them to touch your tower).

Lesson learned from Chesapeake, if your partner's robot dies and gets pushed into an opponent's tower, your alliance needs to push them away from it before the endgame to avoid the red card & penalty. This happened twice in Elims.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

<G32> and <G33> include a <G61> exception. There is no exception to <G61> in <G23>. So I think the referee in Detroit was right to begin a pin count when your robot pushed an opponent into your tower -- <G61> prevents you from causing an opponent to violate <G23>, so their resulting contact with your tower satisfies the definition of PINNING in <G50>: "An ALLIANCE may not pin an opponent ROBOT that is in contact with a field border or TOWER ..."

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Thanks for posting these up. I had heard about the deployment system, but it is good to actually see it. After watching, you can find a Q&A that warns about this type of system.

The tube touching the tower thing is rough, but by rules the right call. I don't think it is in the "spirit" of what the rule was intending, but this is consistent with what I have seen on other fields.

I have been curious how the last one would get called since they starteddoing the revisions. What 3096 was initially doing was completely legal. Pushing them into the base is completely legal up to the "pinning" time limit thus the count. Because 469 did not back up more than 6 feet for 3seconds, then they were essentially still implementing the pin.
<G50> An ALLIANCE may not pin an opponent ROBOT that is in contact with a field border or TOWER for more than 5 seconds. A ROBOT will be considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least 6 feet. The pinning ROBOT(S) must then wait for at least 3 seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again. Violation: 10 PENALTIES
BLUE BOX: If the pinned ROBOT chases the pinning ROBOT upon retreat, the pinning ROBOT will not be penalized per Rule <G61>, and the pin will be considered complete.
<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.

What is interesting is that had 3096 come back after 469, the pin would have ended and they may have gotten a tower violation.

These are 3 rough calls that definitely head to the grayer areas of the rules, but likely the right calls.

P.S. Amazing robot/team. I can't wait to play with/against you guys at Troy. Hoping for more with than against...

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Can't see the video at work, so no comments on the minibot beyond there should be no need for complaint against your team after the removal.

Agreeing on both accounts.



Again, I cannot see the video, but based on my reading, I think these are the applicable rules:

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

<G25> During the END GAME, ROBOTS/HOSTBOTS in contact with their ALLIANCE‟S TOWER are protected and may not be contacted by an opponent. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; PENALTY plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

<G50> An ALLIANCE may not pin an opponent ROBOT that is in contact with a field border or TOWER for more than 5 seconds. A ROBOT will be considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least 6 feet. The pinning ROBOT(S) must then wait for at least 3 seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again. Violation: 10 PENALTIES

Note: this is not <G32> or <G33> so <G61> applies:
<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.

I think that in this case, the refs got it right assuming the other team makes no movements other than trying to back away from the tower (without hitting your robot while in contact with the tower).
Reasoning:
You have pushed them into the tower, so by <G61>, <G23> is not applicable. They are against the tower, so <G50> has the potential to be in effect (since I cannot see video, it is impossible to know).

I quoted <G25> for the potential solution (again, no video so I do not know your drive train and how difficult/easy this may be)): push the other team close to the tower (but not touching), disengage, then move toward the tower. The key here is to leave little room so the other team cannot get between you and the tower or push you before getting to the tower. Alternatively, keep pushing them down the center past the tower and then turn to the tower.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

All,

Let me set the record straight about the 469 minibot. First of all, it was awesome to see it work, but I immediately saw that it was a violation within the rules. Other "friends of 469" saw it too. We brought it to their attention.

The ghostly white look on their faces told the story ... they didn't even think about that they were causing upward momentum.

They didn't argue. they simply removed the device and never used it again. How many of you would have done the same thing? I know this team. 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.

In any case, the students and mentors should be proud of their actions on and off the field this weekend.

Paul

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Third video: it shouldn't be a red card on red since blue pushed them into the tower. Can't cause you're opponent to get a penalty (except for lane/zone incursion).

As far as pinning, I would have started the count just in case but doesn't really look like pinning in the end to me.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

This is a separate issue, but I think it is worth discussing as it is on topic.

This is a hard one to judge. First, I don't know enough to disagree or agree with the ruling as there are two possibilities.

1) Other alliance ends up pushing dead robot into tower <G61> causes no problems.
<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.

2) Dead robot dies against the tower or is pushed by alliance into tower: <G23>
<G23> Contact (via ROBOT or GAME PIECE) with the opposing ALLIANCE‟S TOWERS is prohibited. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD

The issue for the refs is who "pushed last" as chances are multiple teams would have bumped dead robot in passing. In addition, chances are the ref will not see all of the contact as their eyes will be elsewhere. Unless I know for sure that dead team's alliance pushed them into the tower or they died against it, I would be not give the red card.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I want that deployment to be legal, but it does violate the rules, however slightly. I can see where you would have overlooked it, too. The upward force is insignificant, and combined with the impact on the pole, negligible.
Best of luck on a new system.

HOWEVER, after watching the video about 10 times to look at the upward force, I noticed you broke a much more obvious and important rule. Your alignment device, two pieces of metal, broke the plane of the tower base perimeter. I don't really feel like tearing through the rules right now, but to the best of my knowledge, no part of your robot can enter the base perimeter until the finale starts. This might be worth investigating before you head over to Troy.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I would be interested to know what rule it is you are referring to as none I know exist. The two closest are <G05> which is prematch and <G17> which only applies to the minibot crossing the tower cylinder, not the hostbost/robot.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

For # 3, 469 should have tried to go around the 'pinned' robot. The instant the robot chased 469 to continue blocking, it would (should) have received a red card for tower contact. They were smart for just sitting there.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I'll keep this short since I have already had this discussion for an hour on the car ride home and I always agreed with the call (I expected it before the endgame even started) even though it went against my alliance. I also don't want to completely hijack this thread (although it is related), I just wanted to warn people about a rule they might not think about.

G61 does not apply here for an opponent pushing this dead robot into the tower once the pinning period (back away > 6ft for more than 3 sec) has ended (they are no longer causing it, and there is no rule violation yet). As a veteran of FIRST it is easy to get used to the old rules where you could hit the E-Stop and be immune from further penalties. Those days are gone and you now get a Red Card for hitting your E-Stop unless it is a safety emergency. There is no protection for dead robots or even mention of dead robots in the rules (so there is no way for a ref to declare them dead and exempt from penalties), they are the alliance's responsibility to clear those dead robots or they will get penalties if they sit there until the End Game.

However, the real grey area is if an opponent tips a robot onto the tower, since there are rules about tipping. I say no penalty/red card in this case, but it is open to interpretation.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

WOW. Two events and 80 robots later i have yet to see someone take advantage of that...
I'd been running under the assumption that the hostbot cannot enter the vertically projected border, but it clearly only talks about the minibot. That makes 469's alignment perfectly legal, then.
I'm really surprised more people haven't done this, then.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I had the same mistaken thought as Collin until I re-read the rules recently. The confusion stems from the multiple revisions of the definition of DEPLOY. One of the earlier definitions was something along the lines of any part of your robot crossing the tower perimeter = deploying. Thus some of us have internalized a non-existent rule that no part of your robot may cross the tower perimeter until endgame.

Rereading the rules as they currently stand makes it clear that this is no longer the case and all the pre-alignment mechanisms are perfectly legal, provided the minibot doesn't cross the boundary before the endgame.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I guess with the key of "there is no rule violation yet" it is ultimately the correct way to call this, which is not a ruling a like. It seems too easy too take advantage of. I guess it falls under the category of "Team "X" did <G##> unintentionally. Sorry, design better."

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Unfortunately, yes this is illegal :(.
They are being very strict that no upwards motion can be imparted on the minibot by the hostbot.
The letter of the rule is you cannot touch the tower, even with a tube with no opponent near.

As far as pinning goes, yes thats pinning. You did not back away far enough or long enough.

As far as your opponent getting a red card ... that depends.<G61> protects them from you causing a penalty against them, but If the referee believed that your opponent did not attempt to get away from the tower then yes they could get a red card.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

From looking at the videos, it appears to me that the refs made the correct calls in all three cases...

Thanks for posting these up -- it's a good heads-up for teams that have not yet competed!

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

So after watching the third video and going strictly by the rules the blue alliance should have received 10 penalties for pinning, or am I missing something?

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I can't tell when the pin countdown started from the video...

...but maybe, yeah.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Don,

You bring up a great point, and I wanted to post something similar that happened at the Chesapeake Regional this past weekend that had opposite outcomes (Two Red Cards Given). Check out what I posted over the weekend:

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Let me warn of an 'interesting' call at West Michigan.

In the qualifications matches, if a human player throws a tube and it accidentally brushes a hanging tube and descores it, it isn't a DSQ.

In the eliminations - it's an instant loss for that human player's team, AND their alliance.

We had a fairly precariously seated uber-tube that we had hung. It (evidently) was brushed by a tube thrown by the other alliance's human player. It fell, and they were DSQ'ed from the 2nd quarterfinals match, ending their day.

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

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Thanks for all the comments and discussion...

For our deployment...the last thing I'll say is that it's a little more complicated that it initially looks in the video that could be a basis for it being legal. However, the fact that some friends that we trust brought it to question made us immediately decide it was too close to call (argue) and in order to not risk anything, we decided to change. Our deployment will be better than ever at Troy...

The second video was mostly just a warning that even something as innocent as this can get your team DQ'd in quals (or your alliance DQ'd in elims)...

As for the third video...I know how the rules read. However, I still have questions because the conclusions that have come to here give way to some very powerful defense techniques. We all are realizing that the mini-bot (whether we like it or not) is the key to winning this year.

In this video, you can also see that our alliance is playing hard defense on 51 who had an outstanding mini-bot. However, as soon as it got close to the tower, 2832 got out of there to avoid the red card. However, should they have "gone limp" and let themselves get pushed into the tower? If this is allowed, then to stop teams with great mini-bots is to just get in the way and get pushed into the tower and get pinned... At the minimum, they have to back away 6ft for 3 seconds...and then the mini-bot race is lost...

I see this just like the robots getting pushed into the opponent scoring zone. Even though they get pushed into the scoring zone, it's still a penalty (yes...provided the pushing team is trying to score...etc...).

Maybe I'll ask Q&A...

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I completely agree with you, Don. I think this needs to be addressed somehow. As the rules are now it makes it too easy to defend the towers.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

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

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

If you want to avoid a robot "going limp" start your return to the tower earlier and change your approach angle. By approaching the tower from the angle in the video (basically a line from the center of the field to the tower), the defending robot is pushed no where near the lane. If the defending robot is pushed into the lane they get a penalty regardless of G61 (and you are highly unlikely to get a yellow card). If you approach on any side where the lane is exposed the defending robot is less likely to go limp and get push into a lane violation. Also, once you push the robot near the tower (before it is touching the tower), you can use the tower as a screen as you drive around to the other side of the tower. Just my $0.02 for how to drive around this defense.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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:

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
 

<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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

...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
 

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
 

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.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

You must not have been looking hard enough!

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/36706

Team 148 is another that uses this similar deployment method as well. There are a few others doing this too.

-Brando

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Thanks for clearing this up for me!

When I asked the head ref, he said that a member of team 51 came to him, and that the clock malfunctioned with 4-8 seconds left, so the information I had was incorrect.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

In the first video, the upward momentum of the deployment mechanism was minimal, non intentional, and inconsequential compared to the momentum the minibot provided itself. Yes, a referee could disable your tower on that (if his reaction time was quick enough) but only if he was really a hardnose.

The second video is definitely a violation of <G23> which specifically mentions game pieces touching the tower.

As for the third video, since the pinning robot never backed up 6 feet for at least 3 seconds, it is pinning. As for the contact between the pinned robot and the tower, <G61> prevents him from receiving a penalty for touching an opponents tower during the endgame.

Of course, it is easy to judge from the comfort of my chair with the ability to replay the video over and over and not having to be concerned about the actual outcome of the match and the competition. The referees do not have these luxuries.

- Marc

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I remember the clock malfunction very vividly in that first match. We finished two logos with close to 30 seconds left in the match and the only way we could lose the match was to not get our minibot deployed, so the drivers stopped scoring with a lot of time left and raced to the pole so no one would try to block us. Our drivers were sitting at the pole with a lot of time left so I was watching the clock waiting for deploy time. Then all of the sudden the clock started displaying: "UUUU", "7777", "LLLL", "8888", and various other 4 digit nonsensical patterns. It looked like a power-up test sequence or something.

I'm not 100% sure what happened with 903, but I was told that they finally launched their minibot when the field announcer started counting the time down, which I think was at 5 seconds or something. So 903 was sitting there not knowing what to do, then they hear "Five! Four! Three! ..." and thought, "I guess we can deploy now" and let it go.

For replay matches, I'm not really sure what happened. I was too busy watching our robot to see make sure it was functioning properly.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Yeah... in the other matches, the clock kept malfunctioning, until they unplugged it and either replaced or repaired it for the last match...

Seems to me like the refs made the right call, and when I asked about it, the head ref just didn't relay the information accurately.