Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne Doenges
Something funny happened at the NJ regional. During autonomous, a robot went out towards the rack and was just getting ready to place the keeper when time ran out. When the teleoperated mode started he dropped the keeper and it fell onto the spider and scored. The refs left it there and continued play but the match was stopped. I don't know if it was because of the illegal keeper or another problem. When they replayed the match the same robot went out and still didn't drop before time ran out. Before the teleoperated mode started a ref came out and had to forcibly remove the keeper frome the robots grasp.
|
When I watched that event happen my first thoughts was that the rules as stated meant the NJ ref should have DQ'ed the team instead restarting the match. Each new match the ref continued to prevent the DQ offense from happening by walking onto the field and wrestling the tube off the robot after autonomous. My thoughts were that this is not what the rules says. But wait am I going defend a rule which I believe is too harsh? What I believe now is, we were seeing the ref was trying not to DQ a team due to a rule which carries an undue and too harsh Penalty and needs updating.
Why should this carry a DQ penalty? This is the goal of the autonomous and if you just missed but accidentally put the keeper on after, why a DQ? Usually a DQ is due safety or equipment damage or unfair advantage; I do not see that here.
I think FIRST should rethink this harsh penalty. From the actions of the NJ refs, I believe, that they DID NOT wanted to make that DQ call either.
GOOD CALL NJ REFS!!!
