<G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC

[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.

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

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.

My interpretation is that my Grandmother would approve if my team took the 10 point penalty like adults and didn't complain. If I take spare points by little work (like prestacking bots in 2007) than it would be unfair.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

My interpretation is that my Grandmother would approve if my team took the 10 point penalty like adults and didn't complain. If I take spare points by little work (like prestacking bots in 2007) than it would be unfair.

What would your Grandmother think about it if you continued to take those 10 points for the hopes of getting 40? 30 free points that takes a major portion of the game away. That seems to me like "little work" and "unfair."
If you do it once, I can see that as an accident. If you do it twice, it's a strategy.

Now to what Eric said. If a team were to do this little scheme more than once, I would guarantee that my team would never give an alliance slot to that team or accept a selection from that team for eliminations.
I can hear the question now: what if that means you don't play in the eliminations? Easy answer: Oh well. There is always next year.

[ATannahill]

Than we would have, for the most part, played within the rules, and for the rules we broke we took the punishment. What you are saying is the same as Eric's view. The rule is not clear enough and needs clarification.

I am not saying my team would do it, but I think my grandmother would approve.

[BPetry234]

The fact that anyone would want to break the rules just to get an edge is a little upsetting. What message does that send to rookie teams, new members, the community... The list goes on and on. Play the game fair and to the best of your ability and even if you do lose, you can walk off the field knowing that you and your partners gave it your all but lost to a better alliance. Don't take advantage of a poorly written rule. Put yourselves in the other teams shoes and what it would be like to lose that way.

[jgannon]

(I know this particular issue has already been laid to rest, but I'm perpetually intrigued by this line of thinking...)

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

What would your Grandmother think about it if you continued to take those 10 points for the hopes of getting 40? 30 free points that takes a major portion of the game away. That seems to me like "little work" and "unfair."

Originally Posted by BPetry234

The fact that anyone would want to break the rules just to get an edge is a little upsetting.

Do you guys get upset when basketball teams make intentional fouls to stop the clock? How about when a baseball pitcher issues an intentional walk to avoid giving up a home run? Or when a football team takes a delay-of-game penalty to get some extra space in front of their punter? Every sport I can think of has some notion of purposefully accepting a punishment for the sake of attempting to gain an advantage. Can anyone who felt that the strategy Lucien described was somehow unethical explain why this scenario is different?

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by jgannon

(I know this particular issue has already been laid to rest, but I'm perpetually intrigued by this line of thinking...)


Do you guys get upset when basketball teams make intentional fouls to stop the clock? How about when a baseball pitcher issues an intentional walk to avoid giving up a home run? Or when a football team takes a delay-of-game penalty to get some extra space in front of their punter? Every sport I can think of has some notion of purposefully accepting a punishment for the sake of attempting to gain an advantage. Can anyone who felt that the strategy Lucien described was somehow unethical explain why this scenario is different?

All these examples are from well established games with a history behind them. What gets me is the team knew the rule wasn't enforced quite right and was going to use this gray ruling to help them out. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between using a rule (that has been subjected to scrutiny and evaluated) for a strategic advantage and using the rule to circumvent the intent of the game. The intent of the game is for one robot to take one empty cell and take it to the fueling station.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

All these examples are from well established games with a history behind them. What gets me is the team knew the rule wasn't enforced quite right and was going to use this gray ruling to help them out.

That's misrepresenting what he said. The scenarios described (intentional walk, fouling to stop the clock, spiking a football) are all analogous to what Mr. Natchez was saying. IF this rule was going to be enforced this way, a smart way to play is to load up all the balls in autonomous, take the 10 point hit, and beat the pants off everyone.

What really happened was this: he knew that the rule wasn't being enforced quite right, posted it to the message board here, and ensured that the head ref in DC (and everywhere else) got it cleared up by the start of the next day.

Kris

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

All these examples are from well established games with a history behind them. What gets me is the team knew the rule wasn't enforced quite right and was going to use this gray ruling to help them out. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between using a rule (that has been subjected to scrutiny and evaluated) for a strategic advantage and using the rule to circumvent the intent of the game. The intent of the game is for one robot to take one empty cell and take it to the fueling station.

And the intent of baseball is for one guy to throw a ball at another guy who tries to hit it with a stick. Intentional walks is against this intent.
As for knowing a rule wasn't enforced right, the head ref at a regional is the final recourse for a team. They may consult with others, but their decisions are final. If the head ref tells a team, this is what the rule means, then they would be foolish to ignore that.

Wetzel

[AlexD744]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

All these examples are from well established games with a history behind them. What gets me is the team knew the rule wasn't enforced quite right and was going to use this gray ruling to help them out. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between using a rule (that has been subjected to scrutiny and evaluated) for a strategic advantage and using the rule to circumvent the intent of the game. The intent of the game is for one robot to take one empty cell and take it to the fueling station.

I don't beleive they were using a grey rule to their advantage. It was initially an accident that they cleared up. They immediately informed the head ref of the misunderstanding. If it turns out that this rule stays as is, it is not grey and if it changes it is not grey. By going to the head ref they made it either black or white. His interpretation is what is what changes the rule from grey to either black or white. What this team did was perfect and if he had kept a 10 point penalty instead of a 40 they are allowed to use that for strategic purposes and remains completely professional by staying within the rules.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by jgannon

(I know this particular issue has already been laid to rest, but I'm perpetually intrigued by this line of thinking...)


Do you guys get upset when basketball teams make intentional fouls to stop the clock? How about when a baseball pitcher issues an intentional walk to avoid giving up a home run? Or when a football team takes a delay-of-game penalty to get some extra space in front of their punter?

Short answers: Yes, Yes, and Yes.

[David Brinza]

I see other possible rules violations here:

<G12> Prior to the start of the match, EMPTY CELLS are on the cell racks in the outpost. After the start of the match, they are available to the payload specialist. Whether this is a 10 point or 40 point penalty is ambiguous.

<G21> only allows EMPTY CELLS to be introduced into the crater via the porthole in the outpost when loading the robot. No other means are allowed. Did the payload specialist pass each ball through the porthole? If not, there are up to 40 points of penalties incurred.

Compounded with the 10 to 40 penalty points from <G24>, this "clever move" could have occurred between 60 to 120 points in penalties. A team could score 60 points if they make good on all four SUPER CELLS, but the odds are most definitely against this. I just don't see this as a viable strategy if the rules are correctly applied...