Changes to rules mid-event? Rochester Regional

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by purduephotog

1) If a human player illegally retrieves an empty cell from the playing field by breaking the plane (-10 points) why is the cell not confiscated? Said player can still exchange the cell for a super cell- and thus is rewarded by +5 points should the cell be scored.

Because that's not how the game was designed. There's a lot of ways to violate the rules at some point in the empty cell collection process (throwing over the outpost wall, possessing multiple cells, breaking the plane of the airlock) and still come out ahead point-wise. The GDC are a bunch of smart folks, so I can only assume that they decided this strategy was acceptable, rather than that they're bad at math. (I'd speculate that they assumed the risk of not scoring the super cell would be enough of a deterrent.)

Originally Posted by purduephotog

2) If a robot is DQ'd from a match at the conclusion for an illegal starting position or starting outside of the bounds, why are the points that the team scored not subtracted? (I understand the logistics of this one).

If a robot is in an illegal starting position, the match shouldn't start until the robot is correctly positioned. Are you sure that's why the team was DQed? In any case, it seems that you've answered your own question from a practicality standpoint. Another good reason is because the GDC made no provisions in the rules for removing points from DQed teams.

Originally Posted by purduephotog

3) We watched a field reset because all 6 teams started throwing balls into the court at '3-2-1- GO' instead of the tone. No penalties were assessed (should have been -20 or -30 per side). Earlier in the day we watched 3 teams pick up 10 point penalties for getting a ball into the court at '3-2-1-GO'. Perhaps, in the future, this should be set up similar to a drag race- No announcer, just a tone.

Yes, that should have been a penalty in both cases. Yes, the current system is a little confusing to players and referees alike, and mistakes will be made. Contacting FIRST directly to make a suggestion for improvement can't hurt.

Originally Posted by purduephotog

4) Teams (forgive here) 145/1450/1405 (pick two) were playing on the same alliance. Team A was told they were being bypassed and could not touch their control station for some reason. Team B, having similar numbers, was the intended target of this statement by the field personnel and blithely tried to get their robot to go- while it just sat there. Thus two robots on the same alliance sat through the whole match. Instead of terminating the match immediately an offer of 10 points for the 'error' to the score of the next match was made... which was negotiated into a complete rematch. The other alliance still won... but this sort of case is not covered *anywhere* in the rules when a field communication error results in a non-play event.

Nobody should be offering anybody any points. That's a field fault, and the match should be terminated immediately and replayed. This has been standard operating procedure since forever, and is the only fair and reasonable approach. It's probably not in the rule book because it's not something teams should have to worry about... it's at the discretion of the head ref, based on input from the FTA and others.

Originally Posted by purduephotog

5) Ahh- Battery Voltage. Our team was told that Control could not read our battery voltage and we would be 'bypassed' if it happened again- and we would not be allowed back on the floor to power cycle the robot nor would any of the refs undertake said action. After strong urging of the students to immediately open up a negotiation with the referees (we did not have a spare module) they offered to allow us to pass if the voltage was displayed on our DS. In all cases the voltage was displayed to the user- and in all cases the robot functioned correctly in all modes of the competition. There was never a repeat issue with the voltage. I re-read the cRio notes (lost the link just now) but 3.1.8? in the manual stated that there is a known issue with the communication just dropping out. Now, call me old fashioned, but when there is a known bug in this manner... shouldn't there be a bit more flexibility here?

I'm with you on this, maybe. If something field-side is malfunctioning, the match shouldn't be started until it's corrected. That being said, if your analog breakout is broken, then your robot no longer conforms to the rules, it needs to be corrected on your own time, and nobody has to wait for you.

In any case, I agree with John that this thread is more about rules you disagree with and bad experiences you had, rather than anything changing mid-event.