Poofs Red Card Question?

[PatrickSJ]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Yes it does and the hit definitely was worse looking in person. Nothing fell off the console but it was definitely rattled. Looks to me like they are just checking if everything is OK which is perfectly valid.

Regardless it's pretty stupid to card someone for 2 actions that provide no competitive advantage. Especially after all of the fouls the other alliance committed during that match.

Do you know what all those fouls were for? I don't really remember that match very well, but when I looked at the score those foul points were crazy.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by PatrickSJ

Do you know what all those fouls were for? I don't really remember that match very well, but when I looked at the score those foul points were crazy.

If you watch the Match video you can spot most of the Match based fouls (extending past 15", hitting a robot while crossing a defense, ect)

The cards however are for touching the driver station during auto and tethering to a robot pre match without refs approval.

[apache8080]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sheridan

Better view from 1676's full field footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=671pGv2wlmU

The explanation our alliance was given before match 3 was that a referee saw one of the drivers untangling the cords of a controller. While I dont agree with the call that was made, I can see why the ref thought there was a G14 violation.

After watching the video, the call for touching the controllers before auton should not have been called since they were just fixing it after things fell. Michael Corsetto is absolutely right that refs should not penalize teams for an inconsequential action like fixing a fallen controller.

As far as the tethering yellow card, does anybody know what actually happened?

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Originally Posted by PatrickSJ

Do you know what all those fouls were for? I don't really remember that match very well, but when I looked at the score those foul points were crazy.

Our robot's scaling mechanism broke at the end of autonomous, making our scissor lift extend. We played the whole match with it, so we were extended past the legal height all game, and once past the 15". We deserved those fouls

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by apache8080

After watching the video, the call for touching the controllers before auton should not have been called since they were just fixing it after things fell. Michael Corsetto is absolutely right that refs should not penalize teams for an inconsequential action like fixing a fallen controller

The touching the operating station exception in G14 is for console safety. Picking up a fallen controller really doesn't fit into this. I agree that there was no competitive advantage, The question is how much leeway do you give the referees in interpreting the rules. My experience with First upper management IE the GDC is they prefer the rules to be enforced literally. My experience with individuals faced with the immediate situational reality varies. We are all human.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

The touching the operating station exception in G14 is for console safety. Picking up a fallen controller really doesn't fit into this. I agree that there was no competitive advantage, The question is how much leeway do you give the referees in interpreting the rules. My experience with First upper management IE the GDC is they prefer the rules to be enforced literally. My experience with individuals faced with the immediate situational reality varies. We are all human.

The rules are never enforced literally. The refs always do as they see fit. MaGiC_PiKaChU just stated they played the entire match with a mechanism outside the 15" limit, by G18 they should have been disabled. I watched many matches where bumpers fell off during the match. This should be a foul and a disable by G19-1 (structurally non-compliant). In at least one match, the robot that lost the bumper continued to play, and was scored as being on the batter at the end, even though their bumper was halfway across the field. They won that match by 5 points. It appears to me that the refs give a break to newer or "non powerhouse" teams, and enforce the rules harshly on more established, better built, or "powerhouse" teams.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by martin417

The rules are never enforced literally. ... It appears to me that the refs give a break to newer or "non powerhouse" teams, and enforce the rules harshly on more established, better built, or "powerhouse" teams.

I don't disagree with that. I would use a term more tactful than harshly though. I do think that if you were to ask the GDC, they would tell you that they should be literally & uniformly enforced. Your bumper example is a great point. Which would you prefer? Strictly enforcing the rule so the robot is disabled, and not allowed back on the field until it is reinspected or a looser interpretation? Both ways have their merit. Easier to be uniform with the first way though.

While this is getting a bit off topic, I think that the conflict comes from trying to be an elite robot competition and a stem outreach program that is not about the robot at the same time.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

.... Which would you prefer? Strictly enforcing the rule so the robot is disabled, and not allowed back on the field until it is reinspected or a looser interpretation? Both ways have their merit. Easier to be uniform with the first way though.

I am all about the rules. People accuse me of "lawyering" the rules, but my position is always consistent and clear: do whatever you can within the rules to achieve the best outcome. If you are non-compliant with any rule in any way, no matter who you are, whether or not it affects the outcome of the match, the remedy specified in the rules should be applied. That is the only way to be fair and consistent, and if a rookie team gets disabled because their bumper fell off, they will learn to fix the issue and improve.

I do not believe in "participation trophy" thinking. If you earn a win, that win means something. If you are given a win , then the win becomes meaningless, and you learn the wrong lesson. That is the type of thinking that has created the self entitlement philosophy that is so prevalent among our youth today.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

Our robot's scaling mechanism broke at the end of autonomous, making our scissor lift extend. We played the whole match with it, so we were extended past the legal height all game, and once past the 15". We deserved those fouls

Originally Posted by martin417

The rules are never enforced literally. The refs always do as they see fit. MaGiC_PiKaChU just stated they played the entire match with a mechanism outside the 15" limit, by G18 they should have been disabled. ...

What Magic said (and video substantiates) is that 3360's scissor lift was extended past legal height (G17) for the entire match, and that on one occasion it extended more than 15" beyond their frame perimeter (G18). The disablement criteria are "strategic" for G17, and "repeated" for G18, respectively. I think the referees made the right call.

Similar fouls were called on 179 in that match, also because of early deployment of a scaling mechanism.

[Arevan]

Originally Posted by martin417

In at least one match, the robot that lost the bumper continued to play, and was scored as being on the batter at the end, even though their bumper was halfway across the field. They won that match by 5 points. It appears to me that the refs give a break to newer or "non powerhouse" teams, and enforce the rules harshly on more established, better built, or "powerhouse" teams.

I haven't seen the video but having volunteered at the scoring table before at different regionals, I can say that it takes awhile to disable a robot. First the refs have to see it, then communicate the call to the head ref, the head ref will want to confirm that the bumper is off, then they will communicate to the scoring table to disable a specific robot, the scoring table has to find that robot in the computer, and finally that robot will be disabled. All of this can take sometime. If bumpers fell off of my robot and I knew it would be disabled, I would definitely try to get on the batter before I was disabled. I couldn't find anything in the rule book that allows the refs to retroactively take back points in a case where you weren't disabled fast enough.

If that is what happened, I would consider that very smart gameplay by that team.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Arevan

...If bumpers fell off of my robot and I knew it would be disabled, I would definitely try to get on the batter before I was disabled. I couldn't find anything in the rule book that allows the refs to retroactively take back points in a case where you weren't disabled fast enough.

If that is what happened, I would consider that very smart gameplay by that team.

For the example I gave, the robot did not meet the criteria for a challenge. to challenge, the robot must be fully supported by the batter. If the bumper is on the carpet, halfway across the field,then the robot is not fully supported by the batter.

I know that somebody will say "what if a zip tie falls off a robot, then the robot is not fully supported by the batter" That opens up the whole issue of refs trying to figure out what constitutes the robot. I argue that the bumper is a required component, without which the robot would not be allowed to compete, and as such, is part of the robot regardless of whether it is still attached.

[rich2202]

I think the general rule is that anything that falls off the robot is Field Debris, including bumpers. The robot is non-compliant with the bumper rules because of the missing piece, not because the piece is on the floor.

So, a robot could make it to the batter and score.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by rich2202

I think the general rule is that anything that falls off the robot is Field Debris, including bumpers. The robot is non-compliant with the bumper rules because of the missing piece, not because the piece is on the floor.

So, a robot could make it to the batter and score.

I disagree. the manual defines a challenge as:

an act performed by a ROBOT, such that at the conclusion of the MATCH, the ROBOT is fully supported by the TOWER, but hasn’t met the criteria for SCALING the TOWER

(emphasis mine)

The manual further defines a ROBOT as:

an electromechanical assembly built by an FIRST Robotics Competition Team to perform specific tasks when competing in FIRST STRONGHOLD. It includes all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game: power, communications, control, BUMPERS and movement. The implementation must
obviously follow a design approach intended to play FIRST STRONGHOLD (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD or a ROBOT designed to play a different game would not satisfy this definition)

(emphasis mine)

If any part of the ROBOT is not supported by the tower, it is not a successful challenge.

[mAYple]

Originally Posted by samthesnake

I'm curious about this as well. Maybe because it was after their last match in addition to being before the match they got carded, but I just don't understand the ruling

There were rumblings that the FTA in question didn't know what was going on?
At least that is what I remember hearing

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by martin417

If any part of the ROBOT is not supported by the tower, it is not a successful challenge.

I see your point. Another way to look at it is the detached bumper is no longer part of the robot. Otherwise you could also argue for a foul because robots are further away than 15" from your frame perimeter. (Ok that one is a stretch. ) So the robot gets disabled for not having legal bumpers on it. If it is on the batter, then it gets points. If it is pushed over defenses it gets points for that too. Who is right? Only your head referee knows for sure. The best one can hope it they are consistent and transparent in their interpretations.

While a bit of a corner case, I did see a robot driving onto the batter while being disabled for bumpers. They just beat the referee to the button.