[FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do

[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]

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.