First of all, did I miss the "breaking the plane" rule? I read the updates and rules again, and I haven't seen it. Or maybe it was just something implemented and announced at driver's meetings at events. Maybe I missed it.
From Chicago, here were few cases of inconsistencies I saw:
In one match I watched, a robot blatantly dangled a tetra high over the wall and did not get disabled, but later on, "pure breaking the plane" was a disablement. As Ricky stated, one match our entire alliance was disabled for this. I was about 15ft away from our robot doing it - I'm not even sure if the 1/2" of the endcap passed the thickness of the player station wall for that split second, but we were disabled. The tetra itself was 99% below the wall, as it was tilted downward in the field.. I thought this was a safety issue rule? I just don't agree with that case as being a safety issue. 269 was called for it in the corner area, where there is no wall, or people in the way. That's could be a pretty subjective call to tell if the tetra broke the plane. I feel like the "over the wall" should have been forseen with such a knowingly vertical game, and if it was considered, to create a rule against it at the beginning. But I guess, you just be careful near the wall and don't let anyone push you over the wall.
The aggressive play penalties seemed to get out of hand nearing the end. The calls on 79 have been discussed here, and I too couldn't figure out where the overly aggressive play was. Some were called for running into a robot from 2ft away or less - I hardly consider that ramming at high speed. I suppose if they did it for 2min non-stop, that could be considered overly aggressive, but not in this case. The only defense that appeared legal was pure blocking - forget about trying to bump a robot out of position.
There were some disables for accidental tipping, even though the rules clearly state that that could be part of normal game play. One robot had their arm extended, turned around to go to their auto loadzone, while another robot was sitting behind them and fell over when the other arm whacked into them. The first guy was disabled....
But yet others were tipped with clear intentional interaction, and nothing was called. (not saying the tipping was intentional, but the robot interaction was intentional).
The rules also state that it's legal to block or push on a tetra in possession of another robot.. Seems like there could be a lot of different interpretations of that one in combination of the intentional pushing high and tipping rule. It also says that attaching to a tetra and using it to tip over a robot is illegal. Seems like a robot could be pushing on a tetra, or preventing them from scoring with their arm legally, and get caught up in the tetra and accidentally tip the robot. Who knows how that would be called. One robot was pushed on high and fell over, but the initiator was not penalized because the partner of the tippee was in between. I don't recall that rule either. They were pushed on high, and tipped over. Period. The rules state that you can use and arm or gripper to prevent another from scoring. I'm legally allowed to push on a robot that has a tetra high in the air or to prevent them from scoring, but if it tips, am I penalized? Or is it only called if I push on the robot itself and it tips? I can totally understand why the refs would make inconsistent calls.
Yes, they are volunteers, they do their best, and we appreciate their efforts. But I agree with others that the inconsistency problem should be addressed in some manner, whether it's with the rule writing, ref training of some sort, or game design, or some other manner. I watched one robot get contacted in the HP load zone, and the ref was staring right at it - no penalty, but he also had a look of unsure-ness, as he kinda looked around to see if he was right or wrong. We were also disappointed in the re-play match where "a robot should have been disabled, but was not, therefore we're going to replay it". I guess I'm not sure how that happens.. if someone knew it, then why weren't they disabled at the time? When did they decide that someone should have been disabled, during or after the match? It just seemed that by now, inconsistencies should be minimal.
Overall Midwest was really exciting - right up there with Boilermaker competitiveness.
I don't harbor any negative feelings regarding these issues, but it's tough for everyone involved to see these things happen and we'll all move on.