[FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do

[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.