Safety Zone on Playing Field

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

Can you show me the rule for this?

Rules <T06> and <T09> give referees the ability to award yellow or red cards at their discretion for "egregious" behavior.

<T06> The Head Referee may assign a YELLOW CARD as a warning of egregious ROBOT or TEAM member behavior at the ARENA. A YELLOW CARD will be indicated by the Head Referee standing in front of the TEAM’S PLAYER STATION and holding a yellow card in the air after the completion of the MATCH. In the first MATCH that a TEAM receives a YELLOW CARD, it acts as a warning.

<T09> If the behavior is particularly egregious, a RED CARD may be issued without being preceded by a YELLOW CARD, at the Head Referee’s discretion. The TEAM will still carry a YELLOW CARD into subsequent matches.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Rules <T06> and <T09> give referees the ability to award yellow or red cards at their discretion for "egregious" behavior.

Thanks Kevin.
I can't see FIRST endorsing behavior where teams are given an option to completely disregard a rule that was a major part of the game just brazenly ignored without consequences.
At the very least it would cause an updated rule change.

[45Auto]

I can't see FIRST endorsing behavior where teams are given an option to completely disregard a rule that was a major part of the game just brazenly ignored without consequences.
At the very least it would cause an updated rule change.

Nice theory. I used to be equally naive. It's the Ref's call and there's nothing you can do about it.

In 2007 Rule G35 specifically prohibited robots from climbing the opposing alliances ramps. The rule specifically stated that doing so would be interpreted as an attempt to damage the opposing robot, which was not in the spirit of FIRST.

We lost our Regional by 2 points (fifth game of the series - we each had one win and there had been two ties) when an opposing robot climbed up our ramp and knocked off and tipped over our alliance robot that had been lifted for the 30 point bonus. We protested but it was over ruled. Got a huge "BOO" out of the whole arena when they announced that the results would stand. Anyone could see that it should have been a minimum of a 10 point penalty.

There was a big thread about it here. The opposing Drive Coach stated that it was obvious that their only chance was to risk the penalty. If he didn't stop the lift they lost.

FIRST has nothing to do with it, it all comes down to what the Ref at the regional decides. Each team will make it's own decision on whether risking a 3 point penalty to win a game is worth it. I don't see this years "Safety Zone" rule being any different than Rack-n-Roll's "Can't Climb Opposing Ramps" rule.

2007 Rule G35:

[Tom Line]

"You haven't won the race, if in winning the race you have lost the respect of your competitors." -- Paul Elvstrom

[45Auto]

"If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score?"

Vince Lombardi

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Nice theory. I used to be equally naive. It's the Ref's call and there's nothing you can do about it.

In 2007 Rule G35 specifically prohibited robots from climbing the opposing alliances ramps. The rule specifically stated that doing so would be interpreted as an attempt to damage the opposing robot, which was not in the spirit of FIRST.

We lost our Regional by 2 points (fifth game of the series - we each had one win and there had been two ties) when an opposing robot climbed up our ramp and knocked off and tipped over our alliance robot that had been lifted for the 30 point bonus. We protested but it was over ruled. Got a huge "BOO" out of the whole arena when they announced that the results would stand. Anyone could see that it should have been a minimum of a 10 point penalty.

There was a big thread about it here. The opposing Drive Coach stated that it was obvious that their only chance was to risk the penalty. If he didn't stop the lift they lost.

FIRST has nothing to do with it, it all comes down to what the Ref at the regional decides. Each team will make it's own decision on whether risking a 3 point penalty to win a game is worth it. I don't see this years "Safety Zone" rule being any different than Rack-n-Roll's "Can't Climb Opposing Ramps" rule.

2007 Rule G35:

So because one referee made a mistake and did not enforce the rules you feel that the rules don't matter any longer?
I wish you luck with that. Because there are plenty of refs who will follow the rules to the letter and if you do something obvious to gain an advantage I think there will be a price to pay.
I don't think it's a risk worth taking.

[45Auto]

Because there are plenty of refs who will follow the rules to the letter and if you do something obvious to gain an advantage I think there will be a price to pay.
I don't think it's a risk worth taking.

Your decision. Plenty of people out there who will risk a 3 point penalty to stop a 36 point logo and the loss of a game. No big deal, just like getting sent to the penalty box in hockey, intentionally hitting the batter in baseball, causing pass interference to stop a touchdown in football, etc. If the potential gain out weighs the risk, it will get used in competition.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Your decision. Plenty of people out there who will risk a 3 point penalty to stop a 36 point logo and the loss of a game. No big deal, just like getting sent to the penalty box in hockey, intentionally hitting the batter in baseball, causing pass interference to stop a touchdown in football, etc. If the potential gain out weighs the risk, it will get used in competition.

The core value of FIRST robotics is Gracious Professionalism. If the people coming out of this program learn just one thing, FIRST wants it to be that.

The concept that teams should way risk and reward when deciding whether or not to break rules is in direct opposition to that core premise of FIRST robotics. Indeed, Dean regularly talks about NOT emulating commercialized sports where the focus is solely on winning. Your example is the perfect example of why FIRST doesn't want to be like them.

In the end it's as you said. It's a choice. People merely need to ask themselves which is more important: their integrity or winning at a game.

[GaryVoshol]

Thank you 45Auto, for alerting the referees to pay special attention to Team 2992.

[45Auto]

Thank you 45Auto, for alerting the referees to pay special attention to Team 2992.

All part of the game. Here's a hint. Figure out what year a team numbered 2992 would have made their first appearance, and the highest numbered team that played in Rack'n'Roll. Makes you wish that you knew my REAL team number now, doesn't it?

If this is true then you are violating forum rules and action will be taken.

[Chris is me]

So because he's proposing taking a 3 point penalty to stop a 36 point game we're going to single out his entire team now?

What's "un-GP" about a calculated risk that does not involve any of the rules he circled?

[Jeff Waegelin]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

So because he's proposing taking a 3 point penalty to stop a 36 point game we're going to single out his entire team now?

What's "un-GP" about a calculated risk that does not involve any of the rules he circled?

I won't get into whether it's GP or not, but whatever it is, I'd be very cautious about making that gamble. Given that a head referee can assign a Red Card for "particularly egregious" violations (which this might qualify as), is it really worth risking a DQ to make that defensive stop? A 3 point penalty is one thing, but an automatic loss and 0 RP's is something else entirely.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

I won't get into whether it's GP or not, but whatever it is, I'd be very cautious about making that gamble. Given that a head referee can assign a Red Card for "particularly egregious" violations (which this might qualify as), is it really worth risking a DQ to make that defensive stop? A 3 point penalty is one thing, but an automatic loss and 0 RP's is something else entirely.

Very true - I'm just objecting to the very mention of the strategy resulting in his team quite literally being singled out ("tell the refs to pay close attention to 2992").

[sircedric4]

As the other mentor on 2992, and fellow mentor on the team my colleague mentioned that played in Rack and Roll the year we had our ramps climbed, I remember the incredible disappointment after fighting a fairly big powerhouse team to an exciting 5 games and losing to a bad ref call.

As mentors we do continue to promote gracious professionalism to our students, and we usually go out of the way to play the game within the spirit of the rules. After our own experience that one year, we also introduce our students to the fact that sometimes, in the heat of battle, in the adrenaline fueled competition of the game that sometimes, bad luck happens. Sometimes, the opponents may sneak in a questionable choice and get away with it. We are discussing a hypothetical rule situation in the calm of a discussion forum, where in a fast paced competition, high spirits are something that are very real.

We were burned by that high spirit type of decision in the past, so we usually look for similar situations in new games to try and defend against them if they happen again. Bringing it up early now, highlights the issue, and gives us documentation to fight that battle if we're faced with the situation again.

FIRST also introduces many chances to teach your students to deal with disappointment in a professional manner. Teaching our students how to look for flaws in a system is one way to prepare them for disappointment if it happens. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worse is a very good approach to most things in life.

That's 2 cents from the other half of the 2992 mentorship.

[The Lucas]

In a related "Egregious breaking the rules to gain a strategic advantage" example:

In 2008 (Overdrive), did anyone actually possess an opponent's trackball for an extended period of time to keep them from hurdling at the cost of 1 penalty?

That strategy was discussed, but I dont think anyone actually tried it. There certainly was a risk of a Yellow or Red Card for this egregious behavior.

Hitting an opponent in their zone to break up a Logo is basically the same as intentionality possessing an opponent's trackball in '08. If you are going to intentionality take a penalty, why wait till they have almost completed a Logo? Why don't you just spend the entire match playing D in their zone? It is only 1 penalty in both cases, right?

Strategies like this is the reason the refs have/need the authority to issue cards to discourage any behavior they judge to be out of line (regardless of whether a card is specified in the rules). Break any rule and you can be carded.

I am not a ref but if I was this would be my policy on the matter (and I would make it clear at the driver's meeting):
If your robot is entirely outside of the zone and the opponent is entirely inside their zone there is clearly no legal defense you can play on them. If you then drive into their zone and contact the opposing robot, that is egregious and an automatic Yellow Card.
Too harsh? Remember, a Yellow Card is just a warning, so don't do it again. If it was a mistake, you should not have put yourself in a situation to make that mistake. Next time, stay behind the caution line (it is there to warn you "cross at your own risk").

Perhaps drivers need ask for a clarification of this possible situation at the driver's meeting. I expect all the competition teams in FIRST to read, understand and not intentionally break the rules of the game. I know this expectation will never be met by every competition team but I still expect it.