Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes

[Don Wright]

The GLR refs were enforcing a rule that said, "You are not allowed to hit or push a robot that does not have a tube in their possession. You can block their way to a tube, but can't purposely hit or push them".

Just wondering where in the rules this is stated.

[gblake]

Did you search the rules yet and not find it??? The rules are available on line you know....

[Don Wright]

Yes, I know they are online...and no it's not in there...

As a scoring robot, I love the rule...although I think it's kinda unfair to make up or modify rules in the middle of the season, let alone in the middle of a regional...

But hey...what do I know?

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

Yes, I know they are online...and no it's not in there...

Then it's not a rule. End of discussion.

The title of this thread says you are looking for a rule. If it doesn't exist, there is no sense looking for it.

Without a published rule or a late-breaking revision published (to/at all current regionals and enforced at all current regionals) by the proper authority; I don't know what the ref was enforcing; but based on what you have told us, they don't appear to have been enforcing a Rack-N-Roll rule.

If this ever happens again, once you become aware of it, I would recommend that you respectfully insist on altering the situation before any more matches are played.

Blake

[zkaratekid]

yeah i agree that this does not exist and you could kindly ask the head ref. to state the rule and where he saw it

[Rick]

I feel lucky to have Benji head reffing Boston. All these new regionals mean new refs making interpretations that are wrong. You can interact at any time in the bumper zone.

[Madison]

The best we can hope to achieve is to make everyone aware of this potential interpretation so they might prepare to argue its impropriety.

Who was the head referee at the event? It's not within their purview to determine the intent of the game and unprofessional to interpret or ignore rules in such a way as to favor their preferred style of play.

Our robot cannot hold ringers at all and it makes absolutely no sense at all that we could not be pushed or defended. A majority of the time, we're the machine that wins the match, not any of the tube scoring designs.

I've already complained a lot that the 15 and 30 points awarded for lifting robots was labeled "bonus points," because it led to a lot of questions by scouts like, "Your robot can't score points?" I don't particularly appreciate the implication that our team and our robot fall outside the "intent" of the game.

[cziggy343]

lets not complain. read the thread on complaining. it's near the top now that im writing this post.

[Bharat Nain]

He original poster has a valid point. It is not whining or complaining but rather just making us aware of what could happen at future regionals.

[cziggy343]

the original poster no. it sounded as if a couple other people were. but it's hard to tell people's expression on the internet isn't it? =]

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by 1885.Blake

Then it's not a rule. End of discussion.

The title of this thread says you are looking for a rule. If it doesn't exist, there is no sense looking for it.

Without a published rule or a late-breaking revision published (to/at all current regionals and enforced at all current regionals) by the proper authority; I don't know what the ref was enforcing; but based on what you have told us, they don't appear to have been enforcing a Rack-N-Roll rule.

If this ever happens again, once you become aware of it, I would recommend that you respectfully insist on altering the situation before any more matches are played.

Blake

You are missing the point. To ask where to find a nonexistant rule is a GP way of complaining.

"respectfully insist"? If the head ref says it's the rule, then it's the rule. End of discussion.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

If the head ref says it's the rule, then it's the rule. End of discussion.

On the contrary, if it's not in the rules, it's not a rule. Discussion on this point seems quite necessary. The head referee should have been informed that he was "enforcing" a nonexistent rule.

[Brad Voracek]

I disagree with the "If the head ref says it's a rule, it's a rule." At the beginning of the LA regional the safety guys said -no- shaded or even -tinted- glasses at any time. We kindly went and talked to them, showed them the rule, and the update that said tinted were allowed, and then they made an announcement stating that tinted glasses were allowed. You just need someone to go and talk to the ref for a while. I know the outcome of LA would have been soooo different if this rule was enforced. And I don't think it would have been fair.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

On the contrary, if it's not in the rules, it's not a rule. Discussion on this point seems quite necessary. The head referee should have been informed that he was "enforcing" a nonexistent rule.

Please don't quote out of context. I was alluding to the futility of trying to "respectfully insist" on a ruling to head referee. <G35> makes it perfectly clear.

<G52>When making a ruling, the head referee may receive input from other sources, particularly Game Design Committee members, FIRST personnel, and technical staff that may be present at an event. However, the head referee's decision is final.

[KTorak]

Although it isn't explicitly stated as a rule, I agree with it. It allows the intent of the game to occur, which in this game, is to score ringers on the rack and to strategically place spoilers over the opposing alliances ringers.