Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes

[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.

[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"...