Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes

[Madison]

Originally Posted by 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.

How do you know that is the intent?

The most you can infer the intent to be, above all else, is to score more points than your opponents using the methods described in the rule book. That's it.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'll go on the record with the "If it's not in the rule book, it's not a rule" crowd. The rule book is there to inform teams of the rules during the design and strategizing phase. Enforcing a rule not in the rulebook and backing it with the intent of the game is simply blindsiding teams that are pursuing a strategy you've suddenly made illegal. Unfortunately, the head GLR ref is not a ref I would feel at all comfortable bringing this up with, so our team simply worked around it. I suspect I know from where this misinterpretation stems.

<G36> Goal defense - ROBOTS may defend SPIDER LEGS by pushing and/or blocking other ROBOTS as they attempt to HANG GAME PIECES. If a ROBOT is in POSSESSION a GAME PIECE, a ROBOT on the opposing ALLIANCE may not grasp/attach to the GAME PIECE in order to remove it from their POSSESSION or prevent them from HANGING. A violation will result in a 10-point penalty being assessed to the offending ROBOT.

I imagine someone read the first sentence and extrapolated that this was the only time you could defend another robot, thus no defending robots without tubes. I think the section on robot-robot interactions contradicts this interpretation, however.

[Don Wright]

Here is my concern... I am not complaining... But...

We all have been living and dying the past first 6 weeks with the rule book and the Q&A forum. We all designed robots to play the game within these rules. There has been tons of "Lawyering" which has been frowned upon, but is necessary.

So, now we start to play and a "rule" is made by a local ref to enforce what he thinks is the intention of the game "To hang and score ringers" which could totally either help or hurt certain teams based on their design.

For example, I stated in my post earlier that it helps the teams that are "scorers" by ringing.

But, after thinking about it, it really helps non ring scorers. If you have a ramp bot with no arm, you can't ever have a ring. Which means, nobody can defend you. Ever. Even if you are playing defense against a robot that does have a ring, nobody can hit/push you...because you have no ring...

Anyway... "As the FIRST World Turns"...

[dlavery]

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.

Correct. The referees have the authority and responsibility to enforce the rules that have been provided. Rule <G53> provides them with the final authority on all decisions regarding how a particular rule will be enforced and the applicability of a particular rule to a given situation (i.e. "rulings"). It does NOT give them the authority to change the existing rules or make up new ones.

There is a difference between obsessively "lawyering" the existing rules that have been provided to all FIRST teams, and having someone create a new rule on the spot and expecting everyone at an event to respond. Neither should take place, but for entirely different reasons.

-dave

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Correct. The referees have the authority and responsibility to enforce the rules that have been provided. Rule <G53> provides them with the final authority on all decisions regarding how a particular rule will be enforced and the applicability of a particular rule to a given situation (i.e. "rulings"). ...

<G52>, but who's counting?

Thanks for speaking up here, Dave. Most of us understand that the GDC makes the rules, while key volunteers like Head Referees and Lead Robot Inspectors are responsible for applying them. Sometimes we need to be reminded of that.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

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

No - I am rather confident that the head refs are not gods or even demigods. They are humans to whom a certain amount of authority has been delegated. Nothing more, nothing less.

Rule <G52> and the rule <T04> that it refers to appear to be designed to avoid looking in a rear-view mirror.

Given an advance detection of a conspicuously obvious misinterpretation of rules that I presume the referees are duty-bound to enforce (and I further assume that they are allowed to "interpret" them only when ambiguity exists), I again would recommend to my team or to any other, that we/they should politely and respectfully insist the referee consult with other experts, and/or that we should play within the published rules (not the interpreted ones) and let the chips fall where they may, and/or that we should not play until the matter is corrected.

Whether this would make me a patriot or a traitor would depend on whether the observer is a rebellious colonist or a Tory loyalist...

Blake
PS: A little rebellion every now and then is a good thing.... :-)

[jarowe]

Our team was a definite benefactor of this rule "change." We can handle defense when placing tubes, but our method of picking up ringers didn't allow for much defense (at least at the beginning of GLR). When the head ref made this announcement Saturday morning, our driver and I were elated-- we knew we'd be able to score more. However, I have to fault myself for not recognizing that this wasn't an actual rule. As a driver, it was my responsibility to have known that this was a mistake. To my knowledge, no one questioned this at GLR. As drivers and coaches, we should accept a little bit of the responsibility here, too.

I understand the frustrations that this discrepancy created, but it's also a perfect illustration of the lessons FIRST teaches us. Everyone makes mistakes and a thorough understanding of the rules can solve a lot of a problems.

[savage301]

That’s very odd, at St. Louis, we were never told that, and it happened a lot. According to Rule G35 you can contact within the bumper zone, anytime. That is as long as your not breaking any of the other instances talked about in G35. Do you know what their explanation was?

[Travis Hoffman]

That referee interpretation of a nonexistent rule was definitely NOT in effect in Pittsburgh. If I ever hear of this at future competitions.......

PLEASE DO NOT REWRITE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SEASON TO FAVOR ONE STYLE OF PLAY OVER THE OTHER!!!

[David Brinza]

At the LA regional, there was a lot of contact when a scoring robot was being protected by an alliance partner - pushing and hitting an opponent's robot to keep them away from the rack.
Team 4 demonstrated that tactic most successfully all the way to the championship.
I think this strategy (running interference for your partner) is as appropriate to the game as is playing defense to prevent the opposition from scoring.

[Taylor]

So you couldn't defend the opposing home zone? If a robot was going to ramp, you couldn't get in its way because it didn't have a tube? That's ridiculous.
I remember playing elementary-school basketball and getting free inbounds passes; now we're beyond that. Happy birthday, here's 60 free points.

[Mullen]

the GLR ref said it was to allow the intent of the game to be played out. that intent being to score ringers. you could get in front of the bots to block them, and you could unintentionally hit them. but if you made a significant attempt to push them or hit them while they did not have a tube, you would be penalized. I was a little shocked at this rule as well, but i did think it made for a more exciting game with higher scores all around.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Originally Posted by Mini-Mullet

the GLR ref said it was to allow the intent of the game to be played out. that intent being to score ringers. you could get in front of the bots to block them, and you could unintentionally hit them. but if you made a significant attempt to push them or hit them while they did not have a tube, you would be penalized. I was a little shocked at this rule as well, but i did think it made for a more exciting game with higher scores all around.

Well, i would have to agree and disagree with this. While the teams who could score would get hounded by all the defense teams, the defense teams cannot set picks for their alliance nor could they cancel out a defender with their defense. So basically it had to be defenders on scorers. and if it was 3 defenders vs a scorer and 2 defenders, then there would be 3 on 1 and the other 2 would be sitting there

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Originally Posted by 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.

yes, when this rule was said on saturday morning i was completely shocked. they shouldnt change the rules halfway through the regional.

[Rich Ross]

A couple things.

Ricksta- Ron Webb is not a "new ref". He has been head reffing for a long long time.
Blake- This thread was created with the intent to confirm that this was, in fact, not a rule.

I am very dissatisfied with the "rule extension". I understand the reasoning, but that DOES NOT make it ok.

As a solution, i'd say that in addition to whatever already happens, there should either be a challenge system or there should be a representativce of the GDC at each regional. That way, when (not if) a ref at a regional skews the rules, that can be resolved.

Lets not let the refs re-write the rulebook