[FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do

[Jon Jack]

Here's video of both finals matches so everyone can follow along at home:

Finals 1
Finals 2

As George said during both finals matches there was a tug of war between 4486 and 399. During Finals 1 they got locked up in a tug of war. This was strategic on our part, with the hope that even if 4486 didn't get possession of 1-2 of the cans, they would at least tie up 399 for a period of time, with 399's alliance losing one of their key robots while we lose our lowest scoring robot. During Finals 1 there was a can resting with the top half fully contained inside our landfill and the bottom half still over the step. After a battle for the can, 399 reached over the step and grabbed the can, through the hole at the top, and pulled it off the step. This can was later scored.

After Finals 1, there was no red card issued to the red alliance. We sent our driver to the question box to ask why there was no red card called. The head referee said "the can wasn't fully on our side of the step and it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the match". At this point one of our mentors, Rene Haro began going through the rule book while myself and Kiet Chau worked with our pit crew to get our second can grabber back on the robot (it broke in SF6, so in F1 we only had 1 can grabber). The rule as written in the manual was very ambiguous for this type of a situation. For example, prior to yesterday the diagram used to describe G18 did not have situation F and G. By some, this could certainly be interpreted as the object had to be completely on one side of the step for G18 to apply.

Between matches Rene Haro, a former mentor for and alumnus of 399 went to speak to 399's drive coach Dave Vorceck. Rene explained that he thought what they were doing was illegal and that he should go ask the head ref for clarification. Dave went and spoke to the head ref, who gave the same explanation as he gave to our driver.

During Finals 2 the same situation happened. 4486 and 399 got locked up in a tug of war, a can came to rest with the top half on our side of the step and the bottom half on the step itself. 399, now playing off the head ref's interpretation of the rule, grabbed the can from the top and pulled it over to their side and proceeded to score it. Again, no red card was called. Our driver again, went to the question box and asked for clarification and was given the same response he was after Finals 2.

At this point Rene began pulling up the Q&A and found the Q&A ruling posted by FRC364 back on January 21st which covered the situation we were seeing. However, by this point the step had already been pulled up and the totes cleared from the field. Rene took the Q&A ruling to the Regional Director who in turn showed it to the head ref. It was at this point that the head ref admitted he was wrong and that in both situations 399 should have received a red card.

This was obviously very disappointing to hear. As Frank mentioned in his post, the head ref apologized immediately after closing ceremonies. In fact, he was waiting for us in our pit right after closing ceremonies. Admitting your wrong in any situation is tough and something that most people struggle with, so I give him credit for this.

Does it hurt? Yes. Does it feel good? No. However, there is no one to blame in this situation. The head ref was making an interpretation off of a rule that was vague and not maintained over the last couple months. We've played with and against 399 many times over the years and I firmly believe that they were just playing inside the head ref's interpretation of the rule. Something most of us would have probably done.

When I wrote Frank about the situation a couple of days ago, I made it clear that we weren't trying to change the results of the event (not that that would ever happen), but rather trying to prevent this from deciding a district championship, a division or the world championship. It's unfortunately that we were on the wrong end of this, but at least it did lead to yesterday's update and hopefully this doesn't happen later on.

[BethMo]

It looked to me like 4486 should have gotten a red card in the autonomous period of that first match -- and yes, 971 in F1 at SVR the same thing. Both based on Q&A #29 and #226:

Q. If the actions of one alliance cause the other to violate G18, which alliance will be penalized? For example, if one robot from each alliance has a grasp on a container on the step and the blue alliance robot is pulled over the step by the red alliance robot while pulling on the container.
A. We can't answer your question as there are many different scenarios that could be in play. If the violation is momentary (i.e. the ROBOT is only momentarily in contact with that RECYCLING CONTAINER that is now on the opposite side of the STEP, but lets go quickly and retreats), then there's no violation and neither ALLIANCE is penalized. If, however, the contact is extended, the ALLIANCE with the ROBOT violating G18 will be penalized.

Q.In reference to Q29 and Q221 for two robots grabbing the recycling bin from the STEP: What happens if neither robot can be controlled by their drivers, in a situation like the Autonomous period? Would it be the same scenario as Q29, where the robot that is violating G18 would be
assigned a foul?
A.Yes, unless explicitly stated (e.g. a Rule is posted in Section 3.2.4 AUTO Rules), violations apply whether the MATCH is in AUTO or TELEOP.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by BethMo

It looked to me like 4486 should have gotten a red card in the autonomous period of that first match -- and yes, 971 in F1 at SVR the same thing. Both based on Q&A #29 and #226:

Q. If the actions of one alliance cause the other to violate G18, which alliance will be penalized? For example, if one robot from each alliance has a grasp on a container on the step and the blue alliance robot is pulled over the step by the red alliance robot while pulling on the container.
A. We can't answer your question as there are many different scenarios that could be in play. If the violation is momentary (i.e. the ROBOT is only momentarily in contact with that RECYCLING CONTAINER that is now on the opposite side of the STEP, but lets go quickly and retreats), then there's no violation and neither ALLIANCE is penalized. If, however, the contact is extended, the ALLIANCE with the ROBOT violating G18 will be penalized.

Q.In reference to Q29 and Q221 for two robots grabbing the recycling bin from the STEP: What happens if neither robot can be controlled by their drivers, in a situation like the Autonomous period? Would it be the same scenario as Q29, where the robot that is violating G18 would be
assigned a foul?
A.Yes, unless explicitly stated (e.g. a Rule is posted in Section 3.2.4 AUTO Rules), violations apply whether the MATCH is in AUTO or TELEOP.

This is going to pose a serious issue if there are can wars in auto, which have a strong possibility. At what point can a team design a breakaway mechanism that separates just as the can reaches a certain point on the field, while still having a strong enough mechanism to pull the can off the step in some type of tug of war?

And even in teleop, a grabber can easily become entangled when another team pulls a can. It's a bit late to require teams to redesign to fit this added requirement. (Remember these are HS students...)

[waialua359]

Oh no here we go again.
The rules need to be clarified further and clear.
Although this situation is different from the Hawaii Finals matches, the same rules were being read by both alliances as far as what was considered legal/not-legal.
As exciting as it was for both 359-610 in the finals, I can see it potentially getting ugly at Championships, if the rule(s) arent black and white. They are subjective at best, IMO on how a red card is issued.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

What if we just made the 4 middle cans free game no matter where they are and just add a penalty for every incident a team tries to grab a can that's tipped onto the other side. The penalty would discourage trying to steal a can that's fallen over to the other side but also wouldn't auto red card the team for trying. Idk I feel like a red card attached to any can war scenario is an overreaction considering how critical they are to success. It's minibots all over again.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

What if we just made the 4 middle cans free game no matter where they are and just add a penalty for every incident a team tries to grab a can that's tipped onto the other side. The penalty would discourage trying to steal a can that's fallen over to the other side but also wouldn't auto red card the team for trying. Idk I feel like a red card attached to any can war scenario is an overreaction considering how critical they are to success. It's minibots all over again.

I believe that is already the case in the rules.
In the Hawaii Finals, the head ref issued a penalty for each game piece and/or robot 610 touched, and for each instance, if they occurred. During semifinals match #6, they were issued 24 points in penalties as a result.
The issue here is how a team gets a red card.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by waialua359

The issue here is how a team gets a red card.

Egregious or Strategic violation of certain rules is a red card/other enhanced penalty. G18 is one of those rules. (Others replace "strategic" with "repeated". The other "strategic" enhancements are G24, which adds a disable for the offending robot on top of the red card, and G30, which applies the card to the entire alliance.)

Given that 399 reached over the step, made contact with the can beyond the step, and pulled the can back to their side, on more than one occasion, I would definitely call that Strategic. Then the question becomes, was it a violation? As written (but not as clarified), it's an open question, hence the Q&A. The container was over the step (partially), but contact was initiated beyond the step. YMTC.

[waialua359]

How does a head ref determine a move that is "strategic?"

I had argued that if its done in autonomous, then its strategic because it was programmed to purposely do something.

Our head ref determined that no matter how it was done either in auton or teleop period, the 1st time was incidental. The next time it happened, it was "strategic."

Two weeks prior in Australia, the head ref (who does SC events) said he would disable the robot should it reach over and touch our robot. This made me even more confused. A red card in eliminations means the entire alliance gets a zero, and not disabling that offending robot.

Whatever the head refs told us at various events, we showed the rules, listened to their own interpretations, and followed for the sake of getting on with the matches.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by waialua359

How does a head ref determine a move that is "strategic?"

Not sure. I would go with "I'll know it when I see it", and note that at the events I was at, I only saw a half-dozen cards or so: G6-1 x 3 (I think), G2 x 1, and G19 x 1 or 2. Nothing strategic.

Whatever the head refs told us at various events, we showed the rules, listened to their own interpretations, and followed for the sake of getting on with the matches.

Don't get me started on the "varying interpretations". I really don't like that. I like consistency--and clarity.