Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes

[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.