Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sporticus99
After the match, we scored the tetras and had a lengthy discussion in the middle of the field. 3 of my refs gave me the same consistent story. In summary, 358 and 56 had a collision and bounced off each other. Right after the collision, 56 made a turn and 358 drove forward again. 358 had a very low front and got underneath 56. 358 continued to push forward and flipped 56.
Several factors went into the decision.
1) The collision happened early on in the match. 56 was effectively disabled for more than half the match. This ruled out the minor 10-point penalty.
2) After the first impact, 56 actually made a turn and this led me to believe that 56 wanted to get away. This was really a very minor factor.
3) After the first impact, 358 drove forward immediately. This led me to believe that the drivers of 358 had the intention of hitting 56. The intention of hitting 56 by itself is entirely OK. I honestly believe that the drivers of 358 wanted to hit 56 low and push.
4) 358 got underneath 56 and continued forward to flip 56. From the 358 drivers' perspective, they could not have seen that their robot had gotten underneath 56. They very likely thought they were just pushing low. My refs along the sideline had the perfect side view. This is a key difference in perspective that I hope you could all appreciate.
In summary, 358 had the intention to hit 56, (albeit accidentally) got underneath the side of 56 with a low front, and continued forward to flip 56 during the early part of a match. It was a tough call to DQ 358.
One of my refs kept a list of trouble-making robots and 358 was not on the list. 358 played clean the whole weekend and it was really unfortunate that an accident had to happen in the final.
|
I appreciate this explanation and I rescind my earlier comment criticizing you for insufficiently explaining the call. I hope you don't hold it against me for requesting an explanation for and presenting my objections to the call during the finals at the regional. Now for my rebuttal.
The intent of 358 was to push 56 low. The drivers of 358 could not have seen that they were underneath 56, so the fact that they continued driving forward should not be held against them. They believed they were still pushing legally. The tipping was entirely "incidental" (I remember you using that word earlier to justify a no call) and "accidental" (your word again, see above). If it was an accident which occured during normal game play then there is no grounds for disqualification!
When I first approached you regarding this call, you told me it was for
intetional tipping. Then I brought to your attention the fact that there was no way 358 could have seen that they were getting under 56. Did you consider this possibility in your deliberations before disqualifying our alliance? Probably not, because if you did, then you would not have referred to the tipping as intentional. But even if I could give a good argument as to why you shouldn't make the call, your call was final, as it should be. I had no recourse of appeal, and I shouldn't.
That leads me to my key point, that referees should practice restraint in making these calls that reverse the result of matches. Referees should not decide who wins matches by their discretion, the matches should be decided on the playing field. By imposing yourself in such a manner, you can do a lot more harm than good. That is why referees must always start with the assumption that a play is clean (Hence you cannot make a call on a play you didn't see). Referees are human, they make mistakes, and I accept that. But I'd like to conclude by offering you a nugget of wisdom courtesy of my AP US History teacher: "Errors of commission are greater than errors of omission."