signal from stands?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by johnr

Erich, i have to disagree with your interpretation of rules. Those all seem to talk about the members on playing field. There was a q&a response to a not as specific question as mine. We wouldn't do it but there doesn't seem to be a rule against it.

The communication outside of the arena is quite specific--any communication goes only one way (inbound) and can't have a reciever. It also provides a competitive advantage.

If I was reffing, and a team was obviously communicating outside of the arena (i.e., to the stands or the team cheering area), I would talk to the head ref. The audience CAN affect the game.

Twice in 2008 that I know of, the audience affected gameplay/match ending. At a regional, someone was generating IR interference, intentionally or not, until an announcement came that they were interfering and would be tracked down if they didn't stop. And then there was the one red card at Championships, which was at least partially due to audience reaction.

If the audience is affecting gameplay, then you effectively have a) more people than allowed in the alliance station and b) they are in the wrong area. Both are penalties.

I think this is like the bumper rules--separately, they have one effect, but taken together, they have a very pronounced effect that is also very limiting.

I looked at the Q&A you referenced, and that refers you to <T22> and <T23>. Again, taken as a whole, you can't. Taken individually, you can. I'd go with the "taken as a whole" approach. (This is like some cases last year where "That would be a violation of the spirit, but not necessarily the letter, of the rules.")

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by EricH

If I was reffing, and a team was obviously communicating outside of the arena (i.e., to the stands or the team cheering area), I would talk to the head ref. The audience CAN affect the game.

Twice in 2008 that I know of, the audience affected gameplay/match ending. At a regional, someone was generating IR interference, intentionally or not, until an announcement came that they were interfering and would be tracked down if they didn't stop. And then there was the one red card at Championships, which was at least partially due to audience reaction.

If the audience is affecting gameplay, then you effectively have a) more people than allowed in the alliance station and b) they are in the wrong area. Both are penalties.

Sorry, but this logic is going to miss the mark. If, as you state, someone were reffing and tried to pull this, I am pretty sure there would be a rather large crowd asking that that person be prevented from further officiating.

The definition of TEAM in Chapter 7 is clear - it is four people representing the larger FRC "team" (lower case). The rules in Chapter 7 affect the actions of the TEAM. They do not restrict the actions of the "team." The area of the ARENA is explicitly bounded and defined in Chapter 6 and the official drawings. Rule <G37> limits the number of TEAM members and additional personnel in the ARENA. Trying to make the argument that there are more than four TEAM members inside that bounded area when they are communicating from the stands is specious upon inspection.

If you want to make an argument against communicating with the TEAM from the audience, then do it based on the Tournament Rules (specifically, Rule <T23> and Rule <T23>). There at least, there is some basis for forming a logic that can hold water.

-dave

(And as always, here is the reminder that official answers are obtained solely from the FIRST Q&A system. No other source will be acknowledged by the referees. They won't even look at discussions or answers from unofficial sources such as this forum.)

.

[Danny McC]

Wasn't there a team during the Stack Attack year that got DQed at the Pitt regional because their team was in the stands using some sort of signaling system since it was hard to see over the middle of the field? I don't know if it will be the same this year but I would assume it is the same.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Danny McC

Wasn't there a team during the Stack Attack year that got DQed at the Pitt regional because their team was in the stands using some sort of signaling system since it was hard to see over the middle of the field? I don't know if it will be the same this year but I would assume it is the same.

Several years ago there were specific rules that explicitly prohibited signaling to/from the audience via "semaphore, flags, etc." Those rules are no longer included in the game rules because, quite simply, they were silly and unenforceable. It was impossible to tell the difference between "signaling" and legitimate cheering for your team (although some over-zealous "audience police" certainly tried - somewhat unsuccessfully). So I would not assume that the rules will be enforced that way any longer, because - as has been said many times before - rules from prior years do not apply to this year's game.

-dave


.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Sorry, but this logic is going to miss the mark. If, as you state, someone were reffing and tried to pull this, I am pretty sure there would be a rather large crowd asking that that person be prevented from further officiating.

The definition of TEAM in Chapter 7 is clear - it is four people representing the larger FRC "team" (lower case). The rules in Chapter 7 affect the actions of the TEAM. They do not restrict the actions of the "team." The area of the ARENA is explicitly bounded and defined in Chapter 6 and the official drawings. Rule <G37> limits the number of TEAM members and additional personnel in the ARENA. Trying to make the argument that there are more than four TEAM members inside that bounded area when they are communicating from the stands is specious upon inspection.

If you want to make an argument against communicating with the TEAM from the audience, then do it based on the Tournament Rules (specifically, Rule <T23> and Rule <T23>). There at least, there is some basis for forming a logic that can hold water.

-dave

(And as always, here is the reminder that official answers are obtained solely from the FIRST Q&A system. No other source will be acknowledged by the referees. They won't even look at discussions or answers from unofficial sources such as this forum.)

.

I didn't hear (literally or figuratively) any large crowd during or after the 2008 Championships when team XXXX was DQ'd at least partially due to audience cheering. Nonetheless, point taken. And I have done so--just like the bumper rules, there is a number of individual requirements that add up to a pretty substantial boundary on what you can and can't do. And this has been asked in Q&A. The only response was to refer to the above-referenced rules (<T22> and <T23>). I'm not quite sure that that totally works, though. Sure, it takes care of virtually any outbound traffic, and any electronic communication either way. The question is simply, is inbound communication that isn't both electronic and wireless legal? As written, it is. (Please note: "As written" is just that, under my interpretation. This is in no way official.)

I might have asked about communicating with the OUTPOST, but that's in the ARENA. You just have to do it without physical contact or electronic wireless communication.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by EricH

And then there was the one red card at Championships, which was at least partially due to audience reaction.

Are you sure about this? Perhaps we're thinking of different incidents. If you're thinking of SF2.2 on Galileo, Team 40 was given a red card for an intentional tip, they were not given a red card for their team's reaction to the tip. This explanation came straight from the head ref on Galileo to the student representatives from Team 1114, 217 and 148. The rumour that the DQ was for crowd involvement somehow has spread so far that it has been commonly accepted as fact. Unless there's more information that I'm missing, this is just not the case.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Are you sure about this? Perhaps we're thinking of different incidents. If you're thinking of SF2.2 on Galileo, Team 40 was given a red card for an intentional tip, they were not given a red card for their team's reaction to the tip. This explanation came straight from the head ref on Galileo to the student representatives from Team 1114, 217 and 148. The rumour that the DQ was for crowd involvement somehow has spread so far that it has been commonly accepted as fact. Unless there's more information that I'm missing, this is just not the case.

Oh, OK. That was the one I was thinking of. I'm not arguing the intentional tip part, just that the reaction didn't help their chances of a lower-than-red card.