[DougHogg]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

I'm hoping someone can comment on the Update 4 issue and this call. This can be all rolled into the inconsistent call controversies in other threads. It's in the past, and nothing can be done for this case, but it can be cleared up for future cases. In earlier posts in this thread, it was mentioned that everything possible was done to figure out if it was the right call, including getting all the rules reviewed before making the call.
So, I am wondering how the big long Update 4, with all the clear cut examples of the biggest controversial rule G15, was overlooked. That update was made because of all the "what if" Q/A's that were out there regarding G15, including the case that actually happened here.

Bottom line, I am wondering if Update 4 is still good, and that in the future the correct calls will be made. If anyone out there (like a head ref or FIRSTer) has the answer, please let us know so we will know what to expect later.
Thanks,

I am not a referee or a FIRSTer, but I sincerely doubt that any of the rules were overlooked.

These other rules also apply:

<S01> If at any time the ROBOT operation is deemed unsafe, by the determination of the referees, the ROBOT will be disabled for the remainder of the match.

S05> A ROBOT may not impede the placement of TETRAS on the loading structures or the hand-off of a TETRA by a HUMAN PLAYER to a ROBOT. No HUMAN PLAYER or field attendant may be accosted by a ROBOT while placing TETRAS. Violations will result immediate disabling of the offending ROBOT, and disqualification of the alliance.

Although there seems to be a conflict in the rules, whenever safety is an issue, I am totally certain that any apparent conflict will be resolved in favor of safety, as it should be. I know of no other competition in the world where people interact with machines. In my opinion, it is only through maintaining the highest level of safety that this interaction can continue. I applaud the referees for keeping this priority firmly in mind.