IRI Rule Changes for 2011

[P.J.]

I can't remember exactly, but I thought at one of the competitions I reffed at we decided that it would be a red card because it was against the spirit of the game, which is one of the blanket rules they give head refs that aren't exactly in the manual.

I might be crazy though. Thats a strong possibility.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by P.J.

I can't remember exactly, but I thought at one of the competitions I reffed at we decided that it would be a red card because it was against the spirit of the game, which is one of the blanket rules they give head refs that aren't exactly in the manual.

I might be crazy though. Thats a strong possibility.

Someone please tell me that refs can't just "decide" things should be red cards... I would like to think that when I design my robot/strategy I know all the ways I can get DQ'd/Penalized and that some group of "spirit of the game" people can't just decide my strategy is wrong and DQ me.

[sgreco]

Though the 1st and 2nd minibot point values are the same, does the 1st place minibot still break a tie in eliminations?

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Someone please tell me that refs can't just "decide" things should be red cards... I would like to think that when I design my robot/strategy I know all the ways I can get DQ'd/Penalized and that some group of "spirit of the game" people can't just decide my strategy is wrong and DQ me.

Technically, T06 and T09 could be applied here:

<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

Guess it depends on if you interpret crossing the line in Autonomous to intentionally contact another robot or to steal one of their ubertubes to be Egregious?

[P.J.]

I feel like most people would interpret crossing the line with the only purpose being to screw up the other teams auton as egregious behavior, its along the same lines as not being able to shove an opponent into your lane without being penalized. You are intentionally sabotaging another teams ability to perform.

Thats just how I would call it if I was head ref, it makes people mad but when it comes down to judgments like this the head ref's decision is final.

[Mike Soukup]

Originally Posted by P.J.

I feel like most people would interpret crossing the line with the only purpose being to screw up the other teams auton as egregious behavior, its along the same lines as not being able to shove an opponent into your lane without being penalized. You are intentionally sabotaging another teams ability to perform.

Thats just how I would call it if I was head ref, it makes people mad but when it comes down to judgments like this the head ref's decision is final.

Well I hope you aren't head ref at any event we're at. If the GDC wanted to penalize crossing the line and contacting an opponent with a red card, they would have put it in the rules. It's not the referee's place to make up rules, they're supposed to apply the ones that are written. In my mind, egregious behavior is bashing a robot until it's damaged or a drive team member swearing at a referee or opponent.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by P.J.

You are intentionally sabotaging another teams ability to perform.

I looked up the word sabotage and found "Deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something)". I generally think of it as destroying or damaging but the dictionary says obstruction counts so I'll go with it. Obstructing another teams ability to perform is kind of the point of defense. I'd hope that nobody would find defense egregarious unless it was intentially trying to damage other robots. This should be an easy call. Definite penalty for breaking the rules. Definitely not cause for a red card unless it is specifically wrote in the manual. T06 and T09 just don't fit this situation. I'm sure alot of offensive teams would love to call T06 every time somebody blocks the goal and sabotages their ability to score. Thankfully they can't. It would definitely depend on what they did when they crossed the plane as to whether or not a card should be given. If it is well programmed to steal a tube it is strategy. If it is ram full speed ahead, that is generally covered in the manual elsewhere.

Jason

[GaryVoshol]

PJ, perhaps you're remembering a situation where the robot not only went backward over the center line, but also went all the way to the other team's zone. That's a second penalty. Should the robot touch another robot that is in the zone, that's a red card under <G32>.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by P.J.

I feel like most people would interpret crossing the line with the only purpose being to screw up the other teams auton as egregious behavior, its along the same lines as not being able to shove an opponent into your lane without being penalized. You are intentionally sabotaging another teams ability to perform.

Thats just how I would call it if I was head ref, it makes people mad but when it comes down to judgments like this the head ref's decision is final.

Then you and I have vastly different opinions of egregious.

Any ref who would red card a team for playing SMART (take a penalty to prevent 1 or 2 uber tubes from being scored is a smart move since you are trading 3 points for a significant amount of points) has no right being a ref. They are there to enforce the rules as written not to editorialize on how we should play the game. If the GDC wanted teams to be left alone they would either not make it worth our time to play defensively or make it a red card. (I would prefer the former.)

[thefro526]

Perhaps discussion of the definition of 'egregious behavior' deserves it's own thread? It seems that many people disagree on what it means.

[Chris is me]

How can "egregious behavior" be redefined as "breaking any rule"? If an autonomous disruption is "egregious", so is any and all defense. That interpretation is ridiculous.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

How can "egregious behavior" be redefined as "breaking any rule"? If an autonomous disruption is "egregious", so is any and all defense. That interpretation is ridiculous.

Ok, that makes 5 posts that basically say "I disagree" in various ways. Now, lets give him a chance to respond with more of his thoughts.

Jason

[P.J.]

Thanks Gary, thats what it was.

Now I feel stupid. My argument was based off of a flawed memory I had, so I was making points on what I thought was correct based on that memory. So I retract my statement about the red card, which I never said I agreed with, I was just trying to justify it.

Obviously I need to look over the rules before MARC...

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Molten

I'd hope that nobody would find defense egregarious unless it was intentially trying to damage other robots.

Well, we got a red card on our last match on Newton for "egregarious behavior" when playing defense on 1503. We were driving between the towers blocking 1503 from entering and exiting the scoring zone. A couple of times we would push 1503 square on the side as they were getting by us. I thought we did a good job playing defense until we got a red card for 'egregarious behavior." The head ref said that we can screen them from entering and leaving the zone, but once they start to get past us, we need to let them go; basically, we got the red card when we were pushing them from the side. Right at 60 seconds, the ref waves their blue flag for a penalty; I believe that was the red card, but I could be wrong.

I spotted Aidan Browne a little bit after the match and explained him the situation and later saw him talking to the refs on Newton. After we got picked, and saw we were going against 1503 in the first round, we talked to the refs again to determine exactly what we could or couldn't do and they said essentally said what we did in the qualification match was fine.

At the time we were no where near the top 8 and really had no chance to win that match, so we weren't upset about the red card, but more confused. I think it just shows how confusing and how many judgement calls were in logomotion. I'm just glad that match didn't matter to us...

[Refresh]

I don't think that hitting a robot during auton doesn't get a red card because at niles finals, 2771's robot somehow went backwards during the last match and bumped into a robot but I think only a penalty was given out...I'm not 100% sure on that though...