Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes

i'm sorry for complaining, but the refs made this rule, and said that would be strictly enforcing all the rules of the game, but then it seemed like they didn't. In our final seeding match, we were hit, causing us to drop our tube. The opposing robot then backed off, and rammed us again, before we sould even lower our arm to the ground. We tried talking to the refs about it, but they said they didn't see it happen. If they saw it, we would have won because we lost by only a few points, and the opposing alliance would have received some kind of penalty.

About it being a rule, it doesn't matter if its in the book, cause the refs are going to penalize you if you don't follow it, so we followed it regardless.

Edit:This was just the most striking example. I'm pretty sure that they hit us one or two other times when we had no tube, and i beleive that they hit one of our allies, but i'm not as sure about that, because i was more worried about our robot at the time.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by trilogism

i'm sorry for complaining, but the refs made this rule, and said that would be strictly enforcing all the rules of the game, but then it seemed like they didn't. In our final seeding match, we were hit, causing us to drop our tube. The opposing robot then backed off, and rammed us again, before we sould even lower our arm to the ground. We tried talking to the refs about it, but they said they didn't see it happen. If they saw it, we would have won because we lost by only a few points, and the opposing alliance would have received some kind of penalty.

Even if it was a rule, sometimes the refs miss a call. Having reffed at an off-season event, I can tell you (even with each ref assigned to small portions of the field), you can't always see everything, particularly when there are 3 or 4 robots in that area. I can only imagined how much worse it is with a giant rack on the field as opposed to the open 2006 field I reffed on. Refs are not omniscient, and shouldn't be expected to see everything. They can make mistakes too, just like refs in any other "sport".

[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

[Kevin Sevcik]

Since it seems pretty unanimous that this was a misinterpretation of the rules, perhaps a GLR team could bring this up at a team forum in MI. Preferably in a positive way, such as suggesting a GDC or other official be available to clarify the basis of rulings, etc. If there was a good non-confrontational way to address issues like this, at any regional, I think it would be a very positive thing.

[Rich Ross]

Again, it seems like the best thing to do is to have a person at each regional whose job is to be judicial and make sure that all the right rules are being enforced, and that no "imaginary" rules are.

If I can't play real defense, then it can't be a real Midwest regional

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Rich Ross

Again, it seems like the best thing to do is to have a person at each regional whose job is to be judicial and make sure that all the right rules are being enforced, and that no "imaginary" rules are.

Isn't that what the head ref is supposed to be??

Heck, even Woodie himself changed the rules a few years ago at competition. In 2002 there was a very clear rule disallowing tape measures, and many teams had gone out of their way to find alternate ways of solving a problem where tape measures would have been perfect. Some teams ignored the rule, and Woodie liked their solution so he changed the rules at the event to allow them!

[Rich Ross]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Isn't that what the head ref is supposed to be??

Heck, even Woodie himself changed the rules a few years ago at competition. In 2002 there was a very clear rule disallowing tape measures, and many teams had gone out of their way to find alternate ways of solving a problem where tape measures would have been perfect. Some teams ignored the rule, and Woodie liked their solution so he changed the rules at the event to allow them!

No, the head ref doesnt have that job. The head ref is executive. The GDC (or representative) is judicial. The ref SHOULD NOT make the rules, they should understand them and enforce. No more, no less.

[kireitenshi00]

I'm definitely agreeing with most of this thread right now. The head ref should be enforcing the rules within the rule book, not making up his own. We had some trouble at the Pittsburgh regional, where the head ref suddenly changed his mind on a ruling between Friday and Saturday. As a result, our team had to change its entire strategy, and we ended up placing 15th rather than in the top 8 like we were supposed to.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Rich Ross

No, the head ref doesnt have that job. The head ref is executive. The GDC (or representative) is judicial. The ref SHOULD NOT make the rules, they should understand them and enforce. No more, no less.

I understand that's what they're supposed to do, but invariably there is an amount of interpretation and no matter "who" you put in this position they can still make the same mistakes. Why would having another layer in between the head ref and the GDC make things any better? This new person could just as easily make the same mistake. Most of the time something that you think is "the head ref making a new rule" is them thinking they are simply applying an existing rule. This problem of interpretation can occur no matter what title the person holds.

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

I understand that's what they're supposed to do, but invariably there is an amount of interpretation and no matter "who" you put in this position they can still make the same mistakes. Why would having another layer in between the head ref and the GDC make things any better? This new person could just as easily make the same mistake. Most of the time something that you think is "the head ref making a new rule" is them thinking they are simply applying an existing rule. This problem of interpretation can occur no matter what title the person holds.

There already is another appeal layer between the refs and the GDC. That is the event FTA (I am one). The FTA should have an up to date rule book and a copy of the Q&A (all 150+ pages of it). If the FTA can't find a rule, they shouldn't be enforcing it. FTAs also have means to contact the highest levels of FIRST should the situation warrant it.

But believe me, I'd have to be pretty deep into something before I actually used that avenue. More likely I'd ask the Volunteer Coordinator for a new head ref...

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Rich Ross

If I can't play real defense, then it can't be a real Midwest regional

You're lucky this didn't happen at a New England competition, else you might have a second Boston Tea Party to deal with...

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

You're lucky this didn't happen at a New England competition, else you might have a second Boston Tea Party to deal with...

What would you toss into the harbor? The head ref?

Seriously, Chris is correct above: your event's FIRST Technical Advisor (FTA) is the on-site reference for all matters related to actions by key volunteers. These include the Head Referee, the Lead Robot Inspector, the Field Supervisor, the MC, the Game Announcer, the Lead Scorekeeper, the Lead Queuer, the Pit Administration Supervisor, and the Lead Safety Advisor.

Originally Posted by 2007 FTA Manual

Staffing of the Competitions is a joint effort between the Regional Planning Committees and FIRST headquarters. The Regional Planning Committees essentially plan, organize, and host the Competitions. A key member of the Committee Staff at each competition is
the Volunteer Coordinator, who recruits all of the Key volunteers for the Event.

So a problem with a key volunteer's actions should be dealt with by the Volunteer Coordinator (acting for the regional planning committee) with the advice of the FTA. And as Chris points out, in extreme cases FIRST headquarters staff or a GDC member can step in to provide resolution.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Originally Posted by Richard

Seriously, Chris is correct above: your event's FIRST Technical Advisor (FTA) is the on-site reference for all matters related to actions by key volunteers. These include the Head Referee, the Lead Robot Inspector, the Field Supervisor, the MC, the Game Announcer, the Lead Scorekeeper, the Lead Queuer, the Pit Administration Supervisor, and the Lead Safety Advisor.So a problem with a key volunteer's actions should be dealt with by the Volunteer Coordinator (acting for the regional planning committee) with the advice of the FTA. And as Chris points out, in extreme cases FIRST headquarters staff or a GDC member can step in to provide resolution.

The Head ref said at the drivers meeting on saturday morning that this change was to reduce the amount of heavy defense that was being played on friday. I see this as a problem because instead of giving out yellow flags they decided to change the rule. I did not see any yellow flags for the so called "heavy defense". Im still confused.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by dlavery

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.

Originally Posted by 65_Xero_Huskie

The Head ref said at the drivers meeting on saturday morning that this change was to reduce the amount of heavy defense that was being played on friday. I see this as a problem because instead of giving out yellow flags they decided to change the rule. I did not see any yellow flags for the so called "heavy defense". Im still confused.

Dave has already pointed out that this action was outside of the Head Referee's authority. Subsequent posts by Chris and by me were aimed at clarifying how this situation could have been dealt with.

Everyone: please keep in mind that this is ChiefDelphi, not the FIRST Forum. What we post here in all just personal commentary -- and that includes even GDC members such as Dave.

Please watch the FIRST Forum Q&A Responses, and the Team Updates, for official resolution of this or any other FRC issue.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Originally Posted by Richard

Dave has already pointed out that this action was outside of the Head Referee's authority. Subsequent posts by Chris and by me were aimed at clarifying how this situation could have been dealt with.

Everyone: please keep in mind that this is ChiefDelphi, not the FIRST Forum. What we post here in all just personal commentary -- and that includes even GDC members such as Dave.

Please watch the FIRST Forum Q&A Responses, and the Team Updates, for official resolution of this or any other FRC issue.

I totally agree with you, but i think the major issue that everyone at GLR had was that this was not enforced anywhere else (to my knowledge) and we were wondering why this was. Off to the FIRST Q&A for me