Yes. We posted the QA, but it was too late to help us. The driver had asked at the previous event to double check when he could step forward, and we knew we were right ,but you can only push so far. We ended up losing that round by a couple of points. We would have ended up in the top 8, but the alliance with SWIFT and TIN MAN would still have won the event so it didn't affect the outcome that much. It was just frustrating. Next year I will make sure all the drive team has the complete set of rules on their I- phones so that they could flash the rule to the judge. Part of the problem was not having the documentation on hand as they were making the challenge. We had the info in the pit, but that was too late. The kids did specifically ask at the drive team meeting the next morning, because we watched at least half the teams still going forward at the buzzer and not being penalized for the rest of Friday afternoon.
What is the best way to handle a situation where you have challenged the call and been refused yet you find the documented rule shortly afterwards that shows you were correct? I know it opens a slippery slope on people starting to lawyer the rules, but standing up for yourself is also an important skill to learn. We ended up just asking specific questions in the meeting the next morning for clarification. Luckily for us, the penalty occurred at our last match on Friday so we didn't have to worry about it again, but I think Gracious Professionalism also means standing up for what is right. Should we have been more insistent? What if someone else had received a penalty for doing the same thing and we knew it was the wrong call? Was it our duty to stand up and support them? Are the winners now going to go to Atlanta and wait half a second for the bell because that's what they were told the rule was? We didn't raise too much of a fuss because we didn't want to NOT be seen as gracious professionals, but (and we are into philosophy here) was that the "right" decision? Does "gracious professionalism" mean never raising a fuss even when you know you are right? (Remember that question was not about this specific situation, but about life in general
) (Watch out ! I may start straying into questions about the meaning of life
)
And I will admit that this rule seemed to be written vaguely. It talked about where you can be in Autonomous and Teleoperated Modes and when they end. But the GDC also issued an update about the 6 different phases of the game in Update #9 and that there was a "negligible delay" between the two modes. To me, that means a delay you can ignore, but maybe to the ref it didn't. Maybe he was reading the "autonomous disabled" and "teleoperated disabled" in update 9 as a period of time between the 2 modes where you weren't allowed to do anything. We couldn't find explicit instructions about when or how you could transition between the two modes. And since he was going by the sounds and not the clock, we couldn't find any info about that in our hurried perusal after the fact. "Immediately following" and "negligible delay" are not as precise as saying there is a 0 delay between the two so it was subject to interpretation.
But this situation does give me ammunition for next year when I tell the kids to memorize the rules. Maybe I will get nods instead of groans
( I can always hope !!)
On the other hand, the regional committee did the best they could in Denver considering we were shut down on Thursday by a blizzard. It really showed how important that Thursday practice day is. We had a lot of competition rounds where the robots didn't work at all because they didn't have that day before to work on them. I remember in KC ,even on the first week of regionals, it was rare not to have a working robot on the field because we had that first day to repair.