Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes

[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"...

[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.