Rules that I think should be changed.

[2641Captain]

I want everyone's opinion on two rules that I think are too harsh. The two rules I am referring to are:

<G34> FINALE PERIOD ROBOT Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in contact with their TOWER or in contact with an ELEVATED ALLIANCE partner may not be contacted by an opponent. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

<G35> FINALE PERIOD TOWER Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in may not contact the OPPONENT’S TOWER. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

There are two real problems with these rules that I can think of. First, as a part of playing good defense it is a good idea to block the tower without touching it, but it is very hard from my experience to see when you are close to the tower and if you are actually touching it. Second, the second half of the rules talks about obvious intentional contact. This is up to interpretation and I believe that it is a lot of pressure to put on an official, and it is difficult to really tell what someone's intentions are.

I would like to recommend that the rule is kept, but changed slightly with a less severe penalty such as a loss of points or a yellow card. I think a RED CARD should only be used for something that really has changed the game in a way that mischievous.

Let me know what you think.

[Cory]

The GDC clearly wanted the finale period for robots to attempt to hang unobstructed, once in contact with their tower. These rules make sure that occurs.

I wouldn't change either.

[Lil' Lavery]

Maybe these rules are to be taken as a sign that defending the tower is supposed to be a difficult task and has definite risks? Perhaps you should consider the GDC wanted teams to hang and allowing tower defense to be that much easier would make it next to impossible to accomplish (along with the obvious safety concerns).


.02

[Chris is me]

Games where it is significantly easier to prevent scoring than it is to score yourself are some of the most boring in FRC. Most notably 2003, but 2009 and 2007 had elements that sometimes approached this level.

[EricH]

If you go to a go-kart track, and they have a "no bumping" policy, you can bet that the employees can tell an intentional bump versus a non-intentional bump. Ditto with FRC refs.

I'm almost wondering if your head ref was on Curie in 2007; that might explain a few things.

My advice is, let it go and focus on your next competition.

[Rizner]

If you saw the Florida Regional in 2004 when hanging was a bonus and defense was permitted you would see why this isn't allowed any more. Robots would be driven onto and swung around when it came time -- add in a ramp (bump) and things could really get out of hand.

[Bob Steele]

I have to agree with your assessment ...Captain...
In the finals matches in Oregon... a defensive robot hit the tower (no one was even trying to hang or anything at this point..) and this, of course, red-carded the team and they lost the match...The referees were asked about it and they indicated it was intentional... so they had no choice...

The 2nd match was played and there was no contact so that team won...
In the 3rd and final match... this same team was lured towards the tower by a robot that could go underneath... it came within 2 inches of touching it again...which would have cost them the championship.

I really feel that this rule is there to protect the tower from being interfered with during the Finale... when a robot simply touches it... it seems an extreme penalty to disqualify that entire team during the finals.

The rule should indicate that the tower is not to be interfered with ...so that robots can hang... a simple touch of the tower is not interference ...especially when no robot is even trying to hang...

I believe that some of these yellow/red card rules are WAY out of proportion to the severity of the penalties....

2010 the year of the YELLOW/RED card... more than ever....

It certainly does not enhance play or even correct some "advantage" given to the team that gets one for the most part.

In real soccer... yellow and red cards are used only in situations of egregious violations of the rules...especially where those violations could or DID result in injury to another player... or for repeated and egregious violations of other rules....

In FIRST the use of these cards (without sufficient discretion given to the referee for their use...) is counterproductive to the game...

By the way... my team was not even IN the Finals in Oregon...

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by 2641Captain

I want everyone's opinion on two rules that I think are too harsh. The two rules I am referring to are:

<G34> FINALE PERIOD ROBOT Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in contact with their TOWER or in contact with an ELEVATED ALLIANCE partner may not be contacted by an opponent. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

<G35> FINALE PERIOD TOWER Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in may not contact the OPPONENT’S TOWER. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

There are two real problems with these rules that I can think of. First, as a part of playing good defense it is a good idea to block the tower without touching it, but it is very hard from my experience to see when you are close to the tower and if you are actually touching it. Second, the second half of the rules talks about obvious intentional contact. This is up to interpretation and I believe that it is a lot of pressure to put on an official, and it is difficult to really tell what someone's intentions are.

I would like to recommend that the rule is kept, but changed slightly with a less severe penalty such as a loss of points or a yellow card. I think a RED CARD should only be used for something that really has changed the game in a way that mischievous.

Let me know what you think.

As you found out in Philly, blocking the tower is a very high risk/high reward tactic.

These rules were put in place to encourage teams to try to achieve difficult tasks and allow them the rewards of completing those tasks. They are there, and have always been there, for everyone. Choosing the risky tactic of blocking access to the tower has it's merits, as well as it's pitfalls. Being held accountable to the rules is no reason to have the rules changed.

Yes, determining the intent of a person is a difficult thing to do, but it is not uncommon in sports. Just watch one NFL game and tell me if you don't see a few judgment calls being made. Those calls can be challenged, but that has not always been the case. The RED flag being thrown in by a team is a fairly new development. Once the challenge is addressed the game continues. That being said, not once has a rule been changed during a season. Once the game is over, it's over. And remember, FIRST does not have a challenge provision. The decisions of the Referees are final.

I commend you for your honest attempt to gain opinions without pointing fingers. But I must also say the rules need to stand as they are. It's time to move on.

[Manoel]

As others have pointed out, the GDC made it very clear that you're not supposed to be interfering with robots trying to hang, just as you are not supposed to interfere with opposing robots during autonomous, or going back in time, how you were not allowed to interfere with robots trying to climb on top of another robot in 2007.

The difference between the first (hanging) and the other two (autonomous and robot climbing in '07) is that, in the first case, you're taking a gamble, as you can try to block and maybe get penalized (and even then, there are two levels of risk), whereas in the two other cases the penalty assessment is a lot more black-and-white; cross the line and you're done.

[DarkFlame145]

Originally Posted by 2641Captain

<G35> FINALE PERIOD TOWER Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in may not contact the OPPONENT’S TOWER. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

I see this as a safety rule, it would be very bad if a robot that is hanging gets knocked off and damaged.

[Duncan Macdonald]

Hanging is dangerous for robots. If knocked there's the risk of a sizable drop damaging robots, possibly irreparably. I am all for these rules staying.

During qualification matches our driver in an attempt to get out of the way drove through the opposition's tunnel. We weren't penalized but while shaking the driver and coach I told them not to give the referees the chance to give us a red card. They got the message.

These are the rules and I would suggest developing game strategy to play by them.

[jtechau]

I don't see any need to change the rules. Notice that these rules specify that they're "Protection" rules. That strongly implies that the intent of the rule is to protect robots attempting to elevate or suspend. While <G35> doesn't specify an exception for an unattended opponent's tower, a reasonable referee should not red-card a robot for such an infraction.

Further, referees can make reasonable judgements as to what's considered "obviously intentional" contact. The rules in FLL clearly state (or used to) that robots will be given the benefit of the doubt. To me, that's well with the FIRST spirit. (For what it's worth, for example, I saw many cases which could be interpreted (at least loosely) to violate <G36> - especially tipping over other robots - and yet I'm not aware of any penalties being handed out for that rule, at our regional.)

Of course, it's well within referees' rights to call the rules by the book. (And it's NOT within teams' rights to question those calls.) But the intent of the rules also needs to be considered. Any referee who red-cards a robot for something minor will have some 'splainin' to do. Referees don't live in a vacuum. They spend a lot of time interacting and discussing such situations, in an attempt to present a less subjective refereeing experience. But they're still human.

Finally, whatever the rules are, goes. Nobody said life is fair. FRC is about giving kids a taste of what the "real world" is like. Sometimes it seems harsh - depending on your perspective.

[Molten]

If I am pushing you away from the tower and your pushing me towards it. My backside touches the tower. Was it intentional? I'd say not. My intentions were clearly to keep both of us away from the tower. Besides, wouldn't this fall into the whole "can't cause a penalty for your opponent" situation? I guess I just don't see how the rules are in any way condemning this strategy. I think this would be a definite GDC scenario to look into though I think I know their answer.

Note that I'm only referring to rules I know off the top of my head. There's a decent chance I'm missing something. If so, please go easy on my ignorance.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Molten

If I am pushing you away from the tower and your pushing me towards it. My backside touches the tower. Was it intentional? I'd say not. My intentions were clearly to keep both of us away from the tower. Besides, wouldn't this fall into the whole "can't cause a penalty for your opponent" situation? I guess I just don't see how the rules are in any way condemning this strategy. I think this would be a definite GDC scenario to look into though I think I know their answer.

Note that I'm only referring to rules I know off the top of my head. There's a decent chance I'm missing something. If so, please go easy on my ignorance.

If you push an opponent into your own tower (or prevent them from getting away from your own tower), I hope that would be a penalty for you, even a red card. But these things can often be very hard to determine...

[Chris Hibner]

If my memory serves me right, rules like this stem from the 2003 game. In that game you could build stacks of boxes for big scores. The problem was that it was really difficult to build the stacks, but really easy to knock them down. The result was that only a couple teams even bothered to build a robot that could make stacks.

A lot of feedback came in to say that the game would have been played more like the GDC intended if the game had a rule that limited defense by making it a penalty to knock down already built stacks. Since that year, the GDC has almost always put in some rules limiting where or when defense could be played.

With all of that in mind, the rule should stay as is. Many teams designed their robots with the rules in mind. In 2003 a lot more teams probably would have designed stack-building robots but with the rules at hand they decided not to. I'm sure a lot of teams this year decided to build hanging mechanisms in part due to the protection afforded by the rules. It would be wrong to change the rules now as a lot of teams would of made different decisions.