<G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC

[XXShadowXX]

After speaking to our head referee in Traverse City, he said that it was most likely a miss rule, but he would rule it as one foul per empty cell.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by XXShadowXX

After speaking to our head referee in Traverse City, he said that it was most likely a miss rule, but he would rule it as one foul per empty cell.

I was watching a regional with a flaky connection (hospital) and I remember the commentator said something about a "double penalty" regarding scoring a super cell without swapping it for an empty. If that can be a double, i'm guessing knowingly breaking the rules would be penalized the same way.


Without thinking about "the rules," I wouldn't allow my team to continue to do this based on what is "fair" and not a good example of GP.

[Rick Wagner]

Let's suppose for a minute that the ruling stands, one penalty for four empty cells, and that's the approach for future Regionals. Further suppose that it's the consensus of the FIRST community that "taking advantage" of this ruling is not a violation of gracious professionalism.

The question then boils down to, given that 10 points will be lost, "is it good strategy to load four ECs in one robot in autonomous?" That's a tough question that needs to be answered by the alliance together. I am inclined to say it may be worth the risk.

[ChuckDickerson]

I bet this lasts about as long as stacking robots at the beginning of the match did in 2007.

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by DeepWater

I bet this lasts about as long as stacking robots at the beginning of the match did in 2007.

<offtopic>I loved that strategy, one of my favorites of all time</offtopic>

[engunneer]

<OT>Pictures or it didn't happen</OT>

[EricH]

Originally Posted by engunneer

<OT>Pictures or it didn't happen</OT>

[also OT] There are. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27756 [/also OT]

[BrendanB]

If this is the ruling for the head referee at your regional, I do not believe that that calling will be the same at others.

Also, intentionally breaking rules can cause more penalties if the refs. catch on not to mention that there is NO GP in that strategy and the example you are setting for other teams would not be good.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

If this is the ruling for the head referee at your regional, I do not believe that that calling will be the same at others.

Also, intentionally breaking rules can cause more penalties if the refs. catch on not to mention that there is NO GP in that strategy and the example you are setting for other teams would not be good.

We were discussing this on Gameday. 9.5.3 is the ONLY manual section that would cover this that we found. And then, it depends on what your ref finds to be "egregious". There is no rule that says you can't take a penalty for a competitive advantage.

As for the "No GP" comment, maybe you should think about this spotlight: "Only think of Gracious Professionalism as a standard to work toward personally. Never use it as a gauge to point out someone else’s shortcomings."--Rich Kressly

Whether or not it is GP is kind of up to your team to decide. If you decide that you won't use this, fine. If you decide to take advantage of a ref's interpretation, fine. Your choice.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by EricH

We were discussing this on Gameday. 9.5.3 is the ONLY manual section that would cover this that we found. And then, it depends on what your ref finds to be "egregious". There is no rule that says you can't take a penalty for a competitive advantage.

As for the "No GP" comment, maybe you should think about this spotlight: "Only think of Gracious Professionalism as a standard to work toward personally. Never use it as a gauge to point out someone else’s shortcomings."--Rich Kressly

Whether or not it is GP is kind of up to your team to decide. If you decide that you won't use this, fine. If you decide to take advantage of a ref's interpretation, fine. Your choice.

So, are you equating GP to personal integrity or morality?
I think it's much easier to peg down. Act as if you out of school and at your first real job. Before you do anything, ask yourself this: Would my boss/colleague/grandmother look at me and say that was professional behavior? Would those same folks define that as 'gracious'? Knowingly breaking the rules to get an advantage in a silly game is neither. This is my personal opinion and I am not making a call on the rules of the game.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

So, are you equating GP to personal integrity or morality?

Am I? Sort of. It sort of is, sort of isn't. But what one person thinks is not GP, another person thinks is GP, and both can be right. It depends how you look at it.

It's more like ethics.

[The Lucas]

I wouldnt expect this to continue being interpreted this way so not worth arguing about.

[Don Wright]

I'm sorry...GP or not, this is the kind of thing I love about FIRST. Like stacking "dead" robots two years ago... It's the simple ingenious things that are so completely out of the box that really make me say to myself "wow...why didn't I think of that".

Unfortunately, all the the rules in the last few years really seem to limit the amount of crazy out of the box winning strategies that escape 99% of the FIRST participants so when moments like this come up (granted, this was by accident...but Raul's move in 2007 wasn't), it really inspires me to try and take a different look at the game to try and find a different way to play. It's almost to me like there is a secret puzzle in there somewhere and if you solve it, you can use it to your advantage...

It's going to be updated to be a penalty for each empty cell carried over one... But if not...it will be just another trick in the bag for autonomous...

[XD_bring_it]

You are only considering to take advantage of that loophole because you aren't on the receiving end of that decision. Consider if your opponents found another loophole and by exploiting that knocked you down in the rankings. In other words don't do something if you don't want other to do the same. However, lets say that you don't care. "So what if they use loopholes?" Are you then saying that "fairness" has no meaning; that rule have no purpose?

Is winning really that important to you? Do you crave that trophy/medal so much that you are willing to use whatever small methods you can find? Are you that afraid of losing?

"Find me a person who is afraid of losing, and I will so you a person who is easy to beat" - (I'll come back with the author)

Its understandable that nobody likes to lose, but does that mean that being the winner justifies any action taken?

[Wetzel]

Many contracts require certain things, and many have penalties built in if you don't meet them. Sometimes, it is cheaper to pay the penalty than to pay to rush to get the requirement. Do this, or this negative action occurs. I don't think that it is necessarily wrong to do something like this.

That said, <G12> makes this an illegal starting position for the empty cells.

Originally Posted by <G12>

EMPTY CELL Starting Positions – Prior to the MATCH, four (4) EMPTY CELLS (as modified, if necessary, by Rule <G14>) will be located on the CELL RACK in each OUTPOST.

Wetzel