Unfortunate Red Card Ruling on Newton

[maxnz]

I guess they probably could have made the definition of incapacitated clearer. Is it making a robot unable to move for 5ish seconds? or the rest of the match?

Possibly something to add to the glossary next year?

They do have the rule about not touching a tipped robot for 10 seconds, but I have no idea if that was ever enforced this year.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by maxnz

I guess they probably could have made the definition of incapacitated clearer. Is it making a robot unable to move for 5ish seconds? or the rest of the match?

Possibly something to add to the glossary next year?

They do have the rule about not touching a tipped robot for 10 seconds, but I have no idea if that was ever enforced this year.

The problem isn't the definition of incapacitate, it's the definition of intentional. This year it seems like any sort of defense that resulted in a tipped robot was cause for a red card, even when it seemed like that defensive bot was playing normally and the offensive bot was not very stable.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Pault

The problem isn't the definition of incapacitate, it's the definition of intentional. This year it seems like any sort of defense that resulted in a tipper robot was cause for a red card, even when it seemed like that defensive bot was playing normally and the offensive bot was not very stable.

Except on Einstein.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by EricH

Except on Einstein.

Very true. I am curious why that was. Is it just a result of the best refs being on the field? Is it a coincidence that this one instance was considered to not be the defender's fault? Is it actually because 330 got back up? Is it because the referees wanted to let the win happen naturally because it was more exciting that way?

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by Pault

The problem isn't the definition of incapacitate, it's the definition of intentional. This year it seems like any sort of defense that resulted in a tipper robot was cause for a red card, even when it seemed like that defensive bot was playing normally and the offensive bot was not very stable.

Exactly, it seems like many refs read the "tipping" part of the rule, but ignored the "Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS" part.

Also, going back to what the OP claims the ref said, the statement that "a foul+yellow card is automatically a red card" is still false.

[maxnz]

Originally Posted by maxnz

I guess they probably could have made the definition of incapacitated clearer. Is it making a robot unable to move for 5ish seconds? or the rest of the match?

Possibly something to add to the glossary next year?

They do have the rule about not touching a tipped robot for 10 seconds, but I have no idea if that was ever enforced this year.

Originally Posted by Pault

The problem isn't the definition of incapacitate, it's the definition of intentional. This year it seems like any sort of defense that resulted in a tipped robot was cause for a red card, even when it seemed like that defensive bot was playing normally and the offensive bot was not very stable.

Originally Posted by EricH

Except on Einstein.

Originally Posted by Pault

Very true. I am curious why that was. Is it just a result of the best refs being on the field? Is it a coincidence that this one instance was considered to not be the defender's fault? Is it actually because 330 got back up? Is it because the referees wanted to let the win happen naturally because it was more exciting that way?

I was getting at the disparity between the Newton match ruling and the Einstein semifinal match ruling. The rule says that the strategy of tipping gets only a yellow card and a foul, harm or incapacitation has to occur to warrant a red card. Thus bringing up the point, when is a robot considered incapacitated?

[seg9585]

I just want to say that FIRST needs a better method for allowing teams to communicate with refs when it comes to these types of rulings. A red card has very strong implications for a team, particularly when it comes to alliance selection, overall rank, and future reputation.

I understand why FIRST implemented their policy about the question box and have student-only representation communicating with the ref. If I were in the ref's position I would hate to spend half my time explaining every small foul to a belligerent adult mentor.

But when it comes to red cards and the severe implications of it, I don't think we were being fairly treated here. The head ref fully ignored us for well over another match (did not acknowledge our presence in the question box until the match after us was played). When she finally did stop by, she refused to speak to the (tipped-over) alliance team's coach who was simply waiting around in the hopes to defend us. The field did not give either team an opportunity to better understand why we were being red carded (because the initial description of the ruling -- combo of yellow card and foul = red card was an incorrect interpretation of a rule) or allow us to explain ourselves.

I'm not asking for a "new" question box for mentors to argue and complain about unfair fouls. I'm asking for a resource where teams can discuss, or possibly seek appeal, for very strong field decisions such as red cards and disqualifications, possibly from a lead ref who's not as busy watching matches.

[maxnz]

Originally Posted by seg9585

...because the initial description of the ruling -- combo of yellow card and foul = red card was an incorrect interpretation of a rule...

I'm just hypothesizing, but maybe there was some misunderstanding somewhere along the way. You are correct in your assessment that a yellow card and a foul does not warrant a red card automatically.

Here's my description of the penalties associated with tipping a robot:
The strategy aimed at tipping a robot earns a yellow card and a foul. If it incapacitates the robot, then a red card is issued.
So

Yellow Card + Foul !== Red Card.

But

(Yellow Card + Foul) + Incapacitation of Opponent Robot == Red Card.

[Whatever]

After watching the replay, I find it very unlikely that 4276 would have gotten a yellow card if 1296 had not fallen over. As the rule is written, that seems like a necessary criteria before issuing a red card.

[JeffB]

Originally Posted by seg9585

I'm not asking for a "new" question box for mentors to argue and complain about unfair fouls. I'm asking for a resource where teams can discuss, or possibly seek appeal, for very strong field decisions such as red cards and disqualifications, possibly from a lead ref who's not as busy watching matches.

At champs, this might be feasible. There were some strong volunteers floating between fields that easily could take a look at some of these situations.

I think the problem here is the events try to keep the same staffing at each event. There's a LRI at each regional and the same at each division for champs, etc. If we have this extra ref at champs, we'd expect to have the same role at regionals.

At that point, we run into a new issue. Some events are flowing with volunteers. Others struggle to find enough volunteers to staff an event. I helped with an event this year that didn't have enough refs to handle the event until a few days prior to it kicking off. These events would struggle to add the extra individual. I'd stress patience in this respect. There's going to be some downtime for the ref. Sooner or later, a team will struggle to connect to the field. While the FTA is running around trying to resolve that, the ref has some time. Let them know you're willing to stick around to have the conversation and understand they're wearing several hats. I doubt many will blow you off if you try to work around their other duties.