<G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC

[AlexD744]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

The correct ruling is one penalty for every ball over 1, so 4 empty cells at once was supposed to be 3 penalties. This was clarified at DC today.

Wetzel

Thank you for clarifying. However, I think this whole arguement shouldn't be about what we think because we're not the game designers. If the game designers say we want to leave the rule, then it would quiet everyone that says it's unprofessional. It would be completely professional if they wanted to leave that as the interpretation because that would open up an entirely new area of strategy, and that could be an aspect that the designers want. If they deem it three penalties then it would be unprofessional and stupid for your team to attempt that, because it is against the intent of the game and a big disadvantage. It is all up to the game designers.

[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

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Natchez

Here's the situation:
Thinking this didn't sound like a correct interpretation of the rule, we clarified with the head ref who said this case is, in fact, only 10pts. We then told her if that's the rule, we may choose to do this all the time.

Maybe it's not worth the gamble, but if it is, we want to know what people think.

Thanks,
The Robonauts

What part of this statement did I "misinterpret?" I'm in no way trying to slight a team's rep here. I would just like to state, for the last time, that my team would not do this, not would we accept an invite from a team that did this as a strategy. Just remember, your team asked for CD's opinion. Don't be surprised if you don't get a bunch of "warm fuzzies" and folks don't agree with you.

[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...

[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.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Molten

Short answers: Yes, Yes, and Yes.

There's always one. See, this is the part I don't get. If the Committee of People Who Decide How Basketball Ought to be Played thought intentional fouls in the waning seconds of a game were a violation of the intent, it wouldn't be that hard to change. Instead of two shots, the fouled team would get one shot and the ball back. Now there is no reason whatsoever to foul away from the hoop on purpose, and the behavior stops immediately. Again, this is all hypothetical, but if the people who write the rules decide to let it stand, how can you get upset? Is it difficult to watch sports when you're getting mad all the time?

[XD_bring_it]

Originally Posted by jgannon

There's always one. See, this is the part I don't get. If the Committee of People Who Decide How Basketball Ought to be Played thought intentional fouls in the waning seconds of a game were a violation of the intent, it wouldn't be that hard to change. Instead of two shots, the fouled team would get one shot and the ball back. Now there is no reason whatsoever to foul away from the hoop on purpose, and the behavior stops immediately. Again, this is all hypothetical, but if the people who write the rules decide to let it stand, how can you get upset? Is it difficult to watch sports when you're getting mad all the time?

So lets say your favorite team was playing against their arch rivals. Your team is losing and the opponents know this. They stall and take some penalties but are still ahead. When this happens are you sit on your couch say, "Good strategy." Or are you at the edge of your seat yelling?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by XD_bring_it

So lets say your favorite team was playing against their arch rivals. Your team is losing and the opponents know this. They stall and take some penalties but are still ahead. When this happens are you sit on your couch say, "Good strategy." Or are you at the edge of your seat yelling?

I'm not talking about the "dang, we're losing" kind of upset; that's entirely expected. I'm more concerned about the...

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

my team would never give an alliance slot to that team

...kind of upset. That's roughly equivalent to "I'd never want Lebron on my team because he made some fouls to stop the clock", and I'm really struggling to understand that position.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I
...kind of upset. That's roughly equivalent to "I'd never want Lebron on my team because he made some fouls to stop the clock", and I'm really struggling to understand that position.

I would rather have a team (alliance) who feels the same way about the rules, the intent of the rules, and a certain way of playing the game rather than the "best" robot who's team will use what I consider to be questionable tactics in a match. Does that mean we might not win? Yeah, it might. Does that mean I can sleep well at night? yep. It also means at the end of the day I can look my students in the eye and be proud of how they played the game.

Do we have to agree on this? Nope, that's what makes the world, and FIRST, so cool. There are many different folks out there doing very different things. Are they all wrong? Lord, I hope not. I'm I right? Who knows.

[hipsterjr]

I personally dont like the rule, but anyone on the other side of the field from 1114 will quickly appreciate it. If they can win a 1 vs 3 match, I think they can due without a supercell....ah man, now I'm starting to sound like one of those socialist I'm always debating .

[Chris Fultz]

Every year there is a rule (or two) that could be "worth" intentionally breaking to gain an advantage in scoring.

Despite being legal from a rules perspective, intentionally breaking a rule to gain an advantage goes against the spirit of the game and the whole concept of what FIRST is about.

PS - the reference to the strategy Raul used last year is not the same. There was no rule or penalty for starting with robots stacked - he employed a great strategy for the situation they were in.