Is Q&A official?

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

I believe the general order of things in the case of a disagreement:

FIRST HQ>Head Ref>Q&A>Team Update>The Manual

Of course, the head ref is supposed to follow all Q&A, updates, and manual entries but for interpretation he or she is the ultimate authority at an event.

Actually it is more like this:
FIRST HQ>Head Ref>Team Update>The Manual>Q&A


The Q&A's primarily purpose is to provide official insight and interpretation about the rules in the manual (it also is good feedback among other things). It does not make new rules or overrule existing rules, only a team update can do that. The Q&A occasionally has contradictions and does get updated without a team update (sometimes after a good follow up question). The most notable update this year was the early 54" cylinder questions where the answers completely reversed and Team UPDATE - 2013-01-15 was released. The Q&A should provide good guidelines for Refs, RI and teams to interpret the rules involved any decision, but it still is a judgement call by the parties involved.

The Q&A is not specific enough to judge an actual match or robot. Consider it a small (in comparison) set of official rule interpretations that does not overlap with the much larger set of official rule interpretations at competition. The goal is for these two interpretations to be as similar as possible through communication & training, but the only thing they truly have in common is the same set of rules. As Peter pointed out, it is inherently difficult to write these rules, and we will always need judgement to enforce them.

Originally Posted by pntbll1313

One of the things I dislike about this particular rule (if it was called the way the game makers had wanted it to be) is that if we were to have smashed right into their robot mid climb, it would have been a technical foul per G30 and we would have won the match. Since we grazed the back of the pyramid it is a red card, and we lose the match.

A G27 violation does not require a Red Card, only a Technical Foul. A Red Card is only required if an opponent's Climb is affected, in which case that opponent should also be credited for a Level 3 climb (moot in an elim match where a Red Card is already issued). Also, if an opponents Climb is affected, then the cited Q&A probably isn't very useful. The better initial question to ask in the ? box is if the opponent's Climb was affected and proceed from there.

[Tristan Lall]

There's a distinction between "official" (it is issued on FIRST's authority, usually by the GDC) and "enforceable" (it is binding upon FRC participants, because a rule mandates it). The Q&As are official, but not directly enforceable. Instead, they reference official rules (from the book) that are enforceable.

Originally Posted by The Lucas

Actually it is more like this:
FIRST HQ>Head Ref>Team Update>The Manual>Q&A

My interpretation (particularly in cases of inspection) has been that the rules must be enforced. Where an update changes a rule, that new rule is what's enforceable. I view that as the dominant principle because teams are clearly and uniformly advised of the rules and of the expectation that they be followed. Until FIRST specifically designates an authority other than the latest rules, this is the most equitable way to proceed. (I don't view the lead officials as being authorities in their own right: their rulings stand, but their rulings aren't intrinsically correct, just because they made them. I address headquarters below: unless they change the rules, what they say is official but unenforceable.)

As I see it, Q&A responses (and non-rule portions of updates) stand out among official, unenforceable communications because of their visibility to teams. Since teams are specifically instructed where to find this information, they are a signal to the teams and the officials that FIRST believes the rules should be interpreted in a particular way. If that addresses a plausible ambiguity in the rule, then the matter is resolved—the Q&A has clarified the existing meaning without introducing any new constraints. If unresolved interpretations remain, or if the Q&A cannot be logically applied to the rule, then it's up to the officials to fall back on the rules themselves.¹ In these cases, teams should be given the benefit of conforming to any reasonable interpretation of the rule.

In terms of other official, but unenforceable actions, I draw a parallel between a GDC interpretation for the convenience of the on-site officials (often requested by phone) and the Q&As. These are timely and important suggestions that the rule is correctly interpreted in a particular way—but the competition officials must make the final calls themselves, based on the observed facts and the rules, of their own accord, pursuant to the authority vested in them by FIRST. The officials must pay particular attention to equity, especially because these communications are not broadcast to the FRC community through the usual channels. If these things can all be reconciled, then so much the better.

Similarly, an e-mail from frcteams, while official, cannot be held to be binding upon non-parties to the conversation—and because it's not binding on non-parties, it's hard to rule it's binding on the parties themselves, because that would constitute special treatment (which is only justifiable in special cases, such as when the rules provide for it, or when there are extenuating circumstances and a consensus to set aside the rules²).

¹ For example, if a rule said "black" in the context of a computer, and a Q&A later clarified black to mean #000000 in 24-bit RGB colour space, then that would be enforceable, because this is a valid definition of "black" that provides a logically valid resolution to the ambiguity. If the Q&A instead ruled that "black" meant #FF0000 (red), the Q&A should be ignored, because it cannot be logically applied to the rules.
² In case of a major contingency—e.g. robot impaled by forklift, dropped from loading dock, shipped to Timbuktu, etc.—the rules should provide an explicit procedure to authorize the suspension of whatever rules are necessary to provide the desired outcome. Failing that (as the current rules do), precedent indicates that FIRST is comfortable with officials taking the initiative to set aside some rules in an effort to achieve equity. (Sometimes in consultation with FIRST headquarters.)

[Grim Tuesday]

A couple Q&A's I asked on this subject have finally been answered:

Q593 Q. In the rare case that a Q&A answer contradicts the FRC Manual and/or Team Update, which takes precedence?
A. Should this occur, the FRC Manual and/or Team Update take precedence.



Q594 Q. 1.)What is the order of precedence for the following rule authorities in the case of contradiction: Head Ref, Manual, Team Update, Q&A, FIRST HQ? 2.) If the head ref has higher precedence than Q&A, is Q&A to be interpreted as rule or as guideline?
A. 1) The Game Manual is the authority. Referees are empowered to make judgments about game play per the Manual and any clarification via the Q&A and other input from event staff and FRC. 2) The Q&A is a tool for clarification about rules and/or the intent behind the rules. Any ambiguity or disconnect between the Manual and the Q&A is unintended and the Manual takes precedence.

[JesseK]

594 questions and counting... a tough task for any set of refs to memorize.

So long as the 'bump' didn't slow the climbing robot down, cause it to fall, or otherwise cause grief to its team I'm not sure there's a reason to call the bump consequential for this case. However, it would set a very dangerous precedent for referee calls if some teams realize that they can intentionally 'bump' the pyramid on the way by while a climb is happening. In retrospect, the ref probably made the best long-term decision without realizing it even though the interpretation of 'consequential' is in question.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by JesseK

594 questions and counting... a tough task for any set of refs to memorize.

So long as the 'bump' didn't slow the climbing robot down, cause it to fall, or otherwise cause grief to its team I'm not sure there's a reason to call the bump consequential for this case. However, it would set a very dangerous precedent for referee calls if some teams realize that they can intentionally 'bump' the pyramid on the way by while a climb is happening. In retrospect, the ref probably made the best long-term decision without realizing it even though the interpretation of 'consequential' is in question.

Maybe I'll (or a certain community) should create a digest of the important ones for 'essential reading' both for teams and refs.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Maybe I'll (or a certain community) should create a digest of the important ones for 'essential reading' both for teams and refs.

I've got one. A lot of refs I know do this for themselves; I'll post mine when I can get to it.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Siri

I've got one. A lot of refs I know do this for themselves; I'll post mine when I can get to it.

That would be wonderful. It's really annoying to sift through all the questions that make little sense (ie can we use a 12 v DC vacuum cleaner on our robot) and/or are already answered.

[Tem1514 Mentor]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Maybe I'll (or a certain community) should create a digest of the important ones for 'essential reading' both for teams and refs.

I am sorry, but with 594 questions did they, the GDC even proof read the rules?

After the problems of First Choice you would have hoped the GDC would have double checked the rules.

Maybe it's time for the GDC to start allowing BETA mentors to help with the proof reading. Of course keeping the contents secret until kickoff.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tem1514 Mentor

I am sorry, but with 594 questions did they, the GDC even proof read the rules?

You're not asking the right question.

You SHOULD be asking "How many teams did NOT read the rules?" Of those nearly 600 questions, I would hazard that at least 300 are questions that were clearly answered in the Manual, at the time they were asked. Stuff like "Can we use *motor that isn't on the list in the rules*?" and that sort of thing crops up every year.

Of the remaining 300, I would guess that half of those are "situationally dependent"; that is, it depends on the specific design or match happenings. Some may be requests for a design review, which Q&A does not do.

That leaves 150 that actually address issues with the rules. Either something isn't quite clear enough, or there is actually a conflict, or there is a real question about enforcement. For close to 2500 teams active, with close to 50,000 members and mentors at a reasonable estimate, 150 issues with the rules isn't bad.

[pfreivald]

I agree. For a proscriptive rules set, they've done a great job the past couple of years making it very tight...

The problems have by and large come in when people try to game the system--in exactly the way the rules tell you not to.

[MisterG]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I'm no expert, but I've dabbled, and have some limited professional game-writing experience...

Pretty much every game in existence (save Calvinball) is permissive: you can do exactly what you are given permission to do, and you may not do anything in-game that you are not explicitly allowed to do.

Don't forget about Brockian Ultra Cricket.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by MisterG

Don't forget about Brockian Ultra Cricket.

Or Fizzbin.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by EricH

You're not asking the right question.

You SHOULD be asking "How many teams did NOT read the rules?" Of those nearly 600 questions, I would hazard that at least 300 are questions that were clearly answered in the Manual, at the time they were asked. Stuff like "Can we use *motor that isn't on the list in the rules*?" and that sort of thing crops up every year.

Of the remaining 300, I would guess that half of those are "situationally dependent"; that is, it depends on the specific design or match happenings. Some may be requests for a design review, which Q&A does not do.

That leaves 150 that actually address issues with the rules. Either something isn't quite clear enough, or there is actually a conflict, or there is a real question about enforcement. For close to 2500 teams active, with close to 50,000 members and mentors at a reasonable estimate, 150 issues with the rules isn't bad.

I think your 'RTFM' versus "situationally dependent" split is off, but you landed in about the right place. I have like 100 questions on my reader's digest. Some of them probably don't have to be there and vice versa, but overall 5 out of every 6 Q&As are pretty low-value to most teams. This is not meant as a slight against any Q&As I omitted--some are low-value because they've be so well advertised (e.g. inspired a Team Update), others are because the GDC avoided a direct answer, some are important but only to a very limited set of teams, some I probably just missed, etc.

I've attached the current digest and set up a Google Doc for anyone who wants to go collaborative. I'll try to have it up-to-date and uploaded every Wednesday of a competition week. Note that this is currently organized in an attempt to maximize usefulness to me, rather than in any sort of logical or official order. (For instance, the section headings do not correspond to the Q&A's manual section, just to where it fits in my head.) I've corrected spelling a few places to facilitate easier searching.

[GoSparx]

The Q&A refers to the "rules book" but the game manual is the final verdict.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys,
First off this thread does not and cannot reference what the ref saw during the match. Regardless of the rules or the Q&A cited, the ref may have seen something that has not been mentioned. I would consider that a bump to the pyramid that caused any movement in the climbing robot, should have been interpreted as a violation.
Please read through the Q&A, I do (just the robot part of the list). While many like to point at what appears to be .......(fill in your favorite modifier) question, I prefer to look at them as teams genuinely looking for answers that are not apparent to them. While the answer may seem obvious to you, the team is struggling to understand the concept. Lead volunteers keep a copy of the latest Q&A to determine if there is any change in interpretations they need to be aware of for that week's events.