Should referees signal disqualifications?

[David Brinza]

In Archimedes QF3-2 two disqualifications were called. About one minute into the match our alliance captain's robot (997) was pulled down just after capping a goal by 1071. A referee could be see making a notation of the violation, but no other indication was made. With seconds left in the match our robot (980) rushed toward the center goal to defend it from a cap by 1071 on the blue alliance. We struck team 435 with our arm causing it to tip and the used our arm to steal a tetra from Team 1071 just as they were about to cap the center goal. The result was a double disqualification in a match where our red alliance would have won by almost 50 points.

If some VISIBLE indication was made that blue was DQ'd, we would not have been tempted to be aggressive and would not attempted the last second heroics.

Should a pending DQ be indicated by the referees??

[Cory]

I've never been in a situation as a ref where we made a DQ call during the match, unless it was something like the coach touching the controls (automatic DQ).

Any decision to DQ a team is made in the huddle after the match ends, as it's a completely subjective matter.

The notation you saw was probably the ref marking down that something questionable happened so that when it was discussed he/she knew exactly who had done what.

[DarkJedi613]

No, no indication should be made during the match because it is not fully decided until afterwards.

[Steve W]

I believe that anything that would cause a disqualification would also warrant a shutdown. What were the DQ's for? Why were the robots not shut down? Even though a robot is DQ'ed all points that it scored are counted. So a robot that is DQ'ed can still win a game for their alliance even though they don't get points.

[DarkJedi613]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I believe that anything that would cause a disqualification would also warrant a shutdown. What were the DQ's for? Why were the robots not shut down? Even though a robot is DQ'ed all points that it scored are counted. So a robot that is DQ'ed can still win a game for their alliance even though they don't get points.

In the finals if a robot is DQ'ed that alliance receives 0 points for the match.

In the finals of Philly we were DQ'ed for flipping RoBBe XTreme (56) (not on purpose). There wasn't really any raeson for us to be disabled, however - after the match the refs decided to DW us.

[i_am_Doug]

no,no i shoould only be called by the head ref'.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Well i agree with that they should signal it....if they did in our match( like 980 had said) we wouldnt have had to go to a 3rd match and get our arm broken......DARN LUCK!!!!!!!!!! , oh well, what happened happened...i just wish we coulda played the chickens..

[Lil' Lavery]

No, it shouldnt. A robot is only disabled when it either a) poses a safety hazard, or b) the offense is so incredibly blatantly intentional and is intended to damage another robot
A DQ is for a more serious intentional violation of the rules, but not one that necissarily will damage another robot, or that is incredibly blatantly intentional. Thus, it is discussed at the end of a match. A DQ is an instant loss, while the alliance still has a chance to win if a robot is disabled.

[Goldeye]

It seems to me that the problem with this match was that one disqualification was given after another, the second of which potentially would not have happened if the first disqualification were effected immediately.
The fairest solution I can think of is that in the case of multiple DQ's for seperate incidents (in elims only), if they occur seperately (that is, at clearly different times and events), only the first one counts.
1. In the first 20 seconds, Redateam 1 tips Bluateam 1's bot in an aggressive move.
2. Ref makes a notation of the DQ-warranting offense, but doesn't signal it.
3. In the last 20 seconds, Bluateam 2 tips Redateam 2 in an aggressive move.
4. Ref makes a notation of the DQ offense.
5. Refs deliberate, and decide that the first offense was DQ-worthy, and the rest of the game is nullified.

It's not perfect, but it's better than giving a team the chance to rise from the grave after getting DQ'd without a disable. Of course, disabling them in the first place would also do the trick. If the offense is blatant enough to warrant a DQ later, it can probably handle a disable earlier.

[xzvrw2]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

No, it shouldnt. A robot is only disabled when it either a) poses a safety hazard, or b) the offense is so incredibly blatantly intentional and is intended to damage another robot
A DQ is for a more serious intentional violation of the rules, but not one that necissarily will damage another robot, or that is incredibly blatantly intentional. Thus, it is discussed at the end of a match. A DQ is an instant loss, while the alliance still has a chance to win if a robot is disabled.

So what you are saying is that if a robot is to be DQ'd then they should not be diabled? If that is the case then in our match with team 494 and team 20 against 245 and their alliance, our robot should not have been disabled (we accidentaly tiped over a robot while we were trying to get to the autoloader)? And if that is what you are saying, then a robot that has a habit of tipping other robots, wether on purpose or accident, should be allowed to keep doing that for the rest of the match?

In my opinion there should be a signal when they DQ a robot and should disable the robot for the rest of the match. Like David said:

Originally Posted by David Brinza

In Archimedes QF3-2 two disqualifications were called. About one minute into the match our alliance captain's robot (997) was pulled down just after capping a goal by 1071. A referee could be see making a notation of the violation, but no other indication was made. With seconds left in the match our robot (980) rushed toward the center goal to defend it from a cap by 1071 on the blue alliance. We struck team 435 with our arm causing it to tip and the used our arm to steal a tetra from Team 1071 just as they were about to cap the center goal. The result was a double disqualification in a match where our red alliance would have won by almost 50 points.

If 1071 was disabled and/or there have been a sign to signal a DQ then 980 would not have tried to stop them and tip 435. Like Matt said what happened in the past is in the past, but for future games i think that it will defiantly help out the teams and their robots.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by xzvrw2

So what you are saying is that if a robot is to be DQ'd then they should not be diabled? If that is the case then in our match with team 494 and team 20 against 245 and their alliance, our robot should not have been disabled (we accidentaly tiped over a robot while we were trying to get to the autoloader)? And if that is what you are saying, then a robot that has a habit of tipping other robots, wether on purpose or accident, should be allowed to keep doing that for the rest of the match?

If they tip another bot, it is clear that the tip was intentional, and a tip is definately a hazard to damaging the other robot. Disabiling and DQing can both occur simultaneously, but not always. Some offenses warrant disabiling for safety reasons (tetras over player stations) but would not warrant a DQ. And vice versa. But in some situations, if the offense was both obviously intentional, and dangerous, it would warrant both a disabiling(for the safety of the people and robots) and a DQ (for a grevious, intentional rules violation).

[Stu Bloom]

Sorry guys ... but please re-read the rules. There are certain circumstances that warrant a disable, and some that call for a DQ, AND some that require both. In most cases they are not "tied together", and the DQ is normally decided upon by the head ref during a referee conference after the match. You don't want to cause teams to change their strategies if you are not sure whether the DQ will be assessed or not.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Sorry guys ... but please re-read the rules. There are certain circumstances that warrant a disable, and some that call for a DQ, AND some that require both. In most cases they are not "tied together", and the DQ is normally decided upon by the head ref during a referee conference after the match. You don't want to cause teams to change their strategies if you are not sure whether the DQ will be assessed or not.

OK, I re-read the rules. According to <G25>, in the case of tipping a robot, not only is the offending robot/alliance subject to disqualification, but a 10-point penalty is also assessed. The referee should have raised the penalty flag over his head and dropped it after the infraction occurred. I did not see a penalty flag thrown...

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

OK, I re-read the rules. According to <G25>, in the case of tipping a robot, not only is the offending robot/alliance subject to disqualification, but a 10-point penalty is also assessed. The referee should have raised the penalty flag over his head and dropped it after the infraction occurred. I did not see a penalty flag thrown...

In this case, we discussed it in the huddle and decided there. Before then it wasn't a penatly, just possibly a penalty.

If some VISIBLE indication was made that blue was DQ'd, we would not have been tempted to be aggressive and would not attempted the last second heroics.

At any rate, this is an empty argument. It doesn't matter what others do, you are still responsible for your actions. You were overaggressive and caused 435 to tip, regardless of if they were were DQ'ed or not.


Wetzel

[nobrakes8]

I dont think they knew we (1071) were going to be DQed at the time. We tipped the other team trying to steal a tetra off their robot arm (not doing anything vicious).. If I rember correctly the tetra bobbled and a little miss allignment by our drive team's arm is what tipped the alliance over. I don't think at that time they were going to DQ 1071.

I think it was circumstancial, when 435 was tipped, they had some phnumatics to prevent being tipped, and the way they fell they had say they needed some good amount of force to be pushed over. I don't think that was intentional either but something probably had to be called if 435 wasn't over exagerating how great their anti-tipping is. Plus I think the refs wanted to send both alliances a message that we can't go out the next round and be aggresive as we all were.

I also think in that round the refs decided to just DQ both teams so nobody could say they favored 1 team over the other... Although the next round team 980 tipped 435 again, but again we know they didn't get tipped on purpose, just good defense, but at that point I think the refs were just trying to be consistent with their calls...

Unfortunatly we didn't know they did damage to 435's arm, or we would have probably called for team 228 ( I believe they were next on the reserve list) and everything could have been different.

DQ is a judgment call that , after that round when both teams got DQed all the drive teams said if one of us got tipped they'd stop all defense and just stack on the center and our home row.