[YMTC]: Safety mistake costs team the match?

[Tristan Lall]

Late in the qualifying round of the 2007 Magnolia Regional, match 71 is played between two alliances. The gameplay itself is unimportant, but sufficent to say, Red routs Blue.

But after the match takes place, an announcement is made. "A member of Blue 3 was observed by the referees to be wearing their safety glasses on their forehead during the match. Accordingly, they were disqualified by the referees for a safety violation."

Was this justifiable by the 2007 rules? Imagine that you're the head referee, and you make the call!

[Travis Hoffman]

<S01> only gives referees omnipotent jurisdiction (that should be a legal term) over ROBOT-related safety violations.....

 
<S01>
If at any time a ROBOT'S operation or design is deemed unsafe by the head referee, it will
 
receive a 10-point penalty and be disabled for the remainder of the match. If the safety violation is due to the ROBOT design, the head referee has the option to not allow the ROBOT back onto the field until the design has been corrected. Examples of unsafe operation include uncontrolled motion that cannot be stopped by the drivers, throwing GAME PIECES into the audience etc.

I fear this is a case of a rule (<T01>) without consequence. FIRST says don't do it but doesn't spell out any punishment for stated infractions......

 
 
<T01> 
 
 
 

Teams are responsible for providing their own safety glasses at each event. All team
 
members, including coaches, must wear safety glasses while in the pit or on the play field 
during matches.
 
 
 
 

Until the rules are further amended to explicitly indicate a penalty for the infraction (or put it under the S01 umbrella), no disablement, penalty, or DQ should be levied against alliances whose drive team members forget to wear their safety glasses. That is something the esteemed referees should ALWAYS check before the match begins anyway. Shame on them, in this case.

By the way, cutting and pasting from the game manual into CD is a pain in the posterior. If anyone knows of a straightforward, clean method of doing this, please enlighten me.

[dlavery]

See - Travis and I can agree on something! (shoot, here I was hoping for "Clash Of The Bull-Headed Titans - The Reprise" but it looks like it isn't going to happen this time)

Travis got it right - Rule <S01> covers robot operation, not player actions. Rule <T01> does not provide for a penalty. If the referee were to assign a penalty as a "<T01> violation" they would be creating an extension of the rule that does not exist. And since we already know that the referees are not allowed to create additional rules, this would not work. So it appears that the only way the referee could assess a valid penalty for the action by Blueateam would be if the safety glasses slipped off the head of the team member, fell on the floor, the Blueateam member tripped over them while trying to retrieve the safety glasses, and as a result fell outside of the Alliance Zone thus collecting a 10-point penalty for a <G44> violation...

-dave

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by dlavery

See - Travis and I can agree on something! (shoot, here I was hoping for "Clash Of The Bull-Headed Titans - The Reprise" but it looks like it isn't going to happen this time)

This time.....ehehehehe.

Now I believe Tristan may have posted this YMTC in response to this exact thing happening at UTC today. At least that's what one of my friends watching that particular webcast told me. Tristan or anyone else in the know, please verify. We may have another ref crew to re-edumacate.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by T. Hoffman

This time.....ehehehehe.

Now I believe Tristan may have posted this YMTC in response to this exact thing happening at UTC today. At least that's what one of my friends watching that particular webcast told me. Tristan or anyone else in the know, please verify. We may have another ref crew to re-edumacate.

Can you believe it? All three of us agree. And yes, this was posted in response to a similar situation that occured at UTC (paraphrased from the announcer's description).

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Can you believe it? All three of us agree. And yes, this was posted in response to a similar situation that occured at UTC (paraphrased from the announcer's description).

You have to be kidding me? A ref DQed a team for not wearing safety glasses?

[Jay Trzaskos]

More than one team actually, I saw this happen two, possibly three times over the past couple of days.

[Joel J]

Yup.. happened twice today at UTC. It was weird.

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by Joel J.

Yup.. happened twice today at UTC. It was weird.

what was the call made, penalty?

[Joel J]

Originally Posted by Alex Cormier

what was the call made, penalty?

DQ.

[BoyWithCape195]

The bots were also disabled the instant a referee noticed it. I am just curious as to how they didnt notice it before the match started.

[mtaman02]

Since I'm a bit more lenient person if this is their 1st offense I will issue a warning, If it is repeated then they will be disabled for the match until they can learn that safety glasses / goggles were made to protect the eyes and not the forehead nor the brain - thats what helmets and hard hats are for.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Can you believe it? All three of us agree. And yes, this was posted in response to a similar situation that occured at UTC (paraphrased from the announcer's description).

Wait a minute. Travis, Tristan and I all agree on something? At the same time?

I am going to be sure to go to church in the morning, because I am sure that the world is coming to an end.

-dave