View Single Post
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-12-2010, 10:50
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is offline
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,655
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Chris is me
Re: [FTC]: Defense robots and competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
Unfortunately, our team also learned (from three seasons' experience) to do the same thing, did it twice in one match (with two pushes or "rams" in one set and three in another), and damaged another robot doing it. Result: the team was DQ'd for "excessive force", one hour after the match in question was over. There were no warnings or calls made during the match, nor immediately after when the damaged team complained.

I asked the head of all officials and judges, who gave us the DQ news, why the call was "excessive force" and not "intentional damage", since the second term was in the game manual, the first one not. (Presumably the "intent" of "intentional damage" must be judged by the referees on the field at the time, and not by a committee of all refs reviewing damage in the pits, as happened here.) At first he stood by his position that it was in the game manual, then shifted to say "excessive force" was in the referee manual. When I said "I don't think I've seen the referee manual" he said "you're not supposed to."
I don't have anything to say other than that's just ridiculous. A DQ an hour after a match, referencing a non-existent rule interpretation from a document teams can't read (and thus can't know whether or not they'll break said rule)?

Is this seriously the standard for FTC refereeing?
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
...2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
---
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
...2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design
...2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
...2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
...2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 Minnesota 10,000 Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
Reply With Quote