OCCRA
Go to Post po-nos, cancans, and totes ma goats - dubiousSwain [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 06:21 PM
Monochron's Avatar
Monochron Monochron is offline
Engineering Mentor
AKA: Brian O'Sullivan
FRC #4561 (TerrorBytes)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Research Triangle Park, NC
Posts: 1,237
Monochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond repute
Fouls requiring multiple robots

After seeing the interpretation at Chezy Champs, the obvious question comes to mind: Should a rule that expressly requires assigning fouls to individual robots be added together to create a red card for the whole alliance?

If two or more yellow cards are assigned to individual robots in playoffs T03 says that those cards are combined into a single red card for the entire alliance. However, blockading cannot be called on a single robot, it requires participation (and thus individual yellow cards) for all participating robots. As the rules are written . . . these should combine into a red card.

I would have expected to see a blue box clarifying this if the intention was to disallow yellow cards for fouls that require multiple robots.

Relevant rules:





__________________


2018 | Gracious Professionalism x3, Asheville Winners, NCCMP Finalists, NC District - 3rd Rank
2017 | Industrial Design, Gracious Professionalism, NCCMP Winners, NC District - 1st Rank
2016 | Innovation In Controls, Industrial Design, Quality Award, NC District - 4th Rank

Last edited by Monochron : 09-30-2018 at 09:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 06:24 PM
MrRoboman4321 MrRoboman4321 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Eli Benevedes
FRC #1983 (Skunk Works Robotics)
Team Role: Programmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Skunk Works
Posts: 4
MrRoboman4321 will become famous soon enough
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

To me, the interpretation was pretty obvious. The penalty that was called was on G12, which has to do with more than one robot blockading off a certain portion of the field. Right below, it states:

"VIOLATION: YELLOW CARD for the ALLIANCE"

Nowhere does it state that the card should be applied individually for each robot, in which case an escalation to a red card would be considered.
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 06:40 PM
Monochron's Avatar
Monochron Monochron is offline
Engineering Mentor
AKA: Brian O'Sullivan
FRC #4561 (TerrorBytes)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Research Triangle Park, NC
Posts: 1,237
Monochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboman4321 View Post
"VIOLATION: YELLOW CARD for the ALLIANCE"
That is actually the only game rule where a yellow card is given "for the ALLIANCE". There is a Human Action rule (H02) where someone tampering with a field sensors gets a red card "for the ALLIANCE". I assume that would be interpreted as a red for each individual robot so that none of them get credit for the match?

In a Qual match, how would the yellow be interpreted? I would think each robot gets a yellow card. I'm not sure anything requires Playoffs to be called any differently, though it certainly "feels" wrong.
__________________


2018 | Gracious Professionalism x3, Asheville Winners, NCCMP Finalists, NC District - 3rd Rank
2017 | Industrial Design, Gracious Professionalism, NCCMP Winners, NC District - 1st Rank
2016 | Innovation In Controls, Industrial Design, Quality Award, NC District - 4th Rank
Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 07:07 PM
quarky's Avatar
quarky quarky is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jessica Xiang
FRC #3128 (Aluminum Narwhals)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27
quarky is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

Like Eli mentioned, the G12 call is a yellow card to the alliance. Beyond that, the interpretation on the refs part was interesting and in the discussions, I've been involved in, C01 could've been cited alongside that, a rule that really is up to the discretion of both the referees and head referee to dole out the respective color of the card(s) itself.

In no shape or form represents that of my team + whether you like it or not, some rules are discretionary on how strict/ lax refs are about calling particular rules but anyways, back to answering OP's question...

Personal hot take and opinion: based on my interpretation the blockade in question, 649 and/or 1678 could be cited on C01 individually should the referee posted in the top and bottom left corners feel their actions to be egregious. In addition, 1678 coming in, whether purposeful or not, though it looks to me just like they just wanted to keep up their efficient cycle times, still in the second instance, with the end game beginning and really no reason to keep the scale going with a defining win already, could've been cited on the rule; I understand why 649 didn't let down their insane defense but ultimately some combination of those instances and rules caused the refs to unfortunately take away their win. 254, unfortunately, was a bit of collateral damage but as the clip shows, 3310 was stuck in their portal/ the red exchange zone for up to 20s

Final take is that the call shouldn't have had to be reversed in such a dramatic fashion, with more time on the referees parts that should've been spent on a final ruling vs. the reversal that broke 4 team's hearts. It doesn't seem to be fun to be either a winner/ finalist right now, however, this hopefully is a learning lesson for all future off-seasons but the head refs call is the head refs call.

Just for reference and so hopefully everyone below can create an informed opinion (and credits go to everyone who clipped the calls):
- The Blockade in question which can be interpreted how you will
- The Reversal
- The Explanation
- G12

- C01

- ...and the Game Rule portion of the manual as well as the Conduct Rule portion of the manual
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 07:13 PM
AriMB's Avatar
AriMB AriMB is offline
The Philadelphian emigrant
AKA: Ari Meles-Braverman
FRC #5987 (Galaxia)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Haifa, Israel
Posts: 1,717
AriMB has a reputation beyond reputeAriMB has a reputation beyond reputeAriMB has a reputation beyond reputeAriMB has a reputation beyond reputeAriMB has a reputation beyond reputeAriMB has a reputation beyond reputeAriMB has a reputation beyond reputeAriMB has a reputation beyond reputeAriMB has a reputation beyond reputeAriMB has a reputation beyond reputeAriMB has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

Perhaps this is a bit of lawyering, but the important phrase here is "for the ALLIANCE", which is different than "to each member of the alliance". IMO, that means that even according to the rules as written it should be applied differently during quals and elims.

In quals, for the penalty to apply "for the ALLIANCE", it must be given to each robot individually, otherwise it would not apply to the whole alliance. So when three yellow/red cards are given, the whole alliance "feels" exactly one.

According to §10.7,
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2018 Game Manual
During the Playoff MATCHES, if a Team receives a YELLOW or RED CARD, it results in the entire ALLIANCE receiving the YELLOW or RED CARD for that MATCH. If two different Teams on the same ALLIANCE are issued YELLOW CARDS, the entire ALLIANCE is issued a RED CARD.
Therefore, during elims the penalty needs only to be assigned once for it to apply to each team, and therefore "for the ALLIANCE", to meet the penalty prescribed. If it were assigned to each team individually, a violation that should result in a yellow card "for the ALLIANCE" would result in each team being given three yellow cards, which is effectively a red card "for the ALLIANCE": not the punishment set out by the rule.


This is what I get for watching 350+ hours of Law & Order
__________________
Studying MechE at the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
2017-present: FIRST Israel CSA/FTAA
2017-present: FRC 5987 Technical Mentor 18isr2 18isr4 18isrcmp 18carv
2012-2016: FRC 423 Member 15njtab 15padre 16paphi
Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 07:34 PM
jaunvie's Avatar
jaunvie jaunvie is offline
Registered User
FRC #5090 (Torque-Nados)
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Trenton MI
Posts: 75
jaunvie will become famous soon enough
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

As I understand it (and I probably don't but...)

During Quals, if two separate teams on an alliance receive a yellow card during the same match, that alliance does NOT receive a red card for that match.

But during playoffs, if the exact same incident occurs, they DO receive the red card for that match.

That would mean that G12 (or similar rule) would automatically be a red card in any playoff match.

Am I right?
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 07:41 PM
bkahl's Avatar
bkahl bkahl is online now
baykahl
AKA: Bailey Kahl
FRC #0195
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Southington, CT
Posts: 663
bkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

Quoting myself from another thread because it applies here as well:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkahl View Post
HOT TAKE INCOMING:

I think the interpretation of the rule at Chezy Champs may actually be (at least somewhat) correct?

The foul called was G12, here is the Definition from the Game Manual:

Quote:
Don’t collude with your partners to shut down major parts of game play. Two or more ROBOTS may not isolate or close off any major component of MATCH play, e.g. blocking the EXCHANGE, blocking both PORTALS simultaneously, shutting down all access to POWER CUBES, quarantining all opponents to a small area of the FIELD, etc.
Violation: YELLOW CARD for the ALLIANCE.
The keyword here is "ALLIANCE" in the violation line. As far as I can tell, this is the only instance where a Yellow Card is assigned to an 'ALLIANCE' in the definition of the rule.

By that definition of the rule, and because the word 'ALLIANCE' is capitalized in the definition, we refer to the glossary:

Quote:
cooperatives of up to four (4) FIRST® Robotics Competition Teams
Which means that it CAN be interpreted that up to 4 yellow cards can be assessed for this foul. For instance, if this foul were called in a qualification match, by definition, I believe all 3 'ALLIANCE' members would receive a card. Thus, an an 'ALLIANCE' in the elims match would be treated the same way? Right?

Then, by that line of logic, we turn to T03 of the Game Manual:

Quote:
Egregious or repeated violations of any rule or procedure is prohibited.
Violation: The Head REFEREE may assign a YELLOW CARD as a warning, or a RED CARD for
DISQUALIFICATION in MATCH.

.......

During the Playoff MATCHES, if a Team receives a YELLOW or RED CARD, it results in the entire ALLIANCE receiving the YELLOW or RED CARD for that MATCH. If two different Teams on the same ALLIANCE are issued YELLOW CARDS, the entire ALLIANCE is issued a RED CARD. A RED CARD results in zero (0) points for that MATCH, and the ALLIANCE loses the MATCH. If both ALLIANCES receive RED CARDS, the ALLIANCE which committed the action earning the RED CARD first chronologically loses the MATCH.
Thus, because multiple yellows (Maybe?) CAN be assigned by G12, we get to where Chezy refs did... multiple yellows = Red Card.
------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am not a ref, nor have I ever been one. I am, however, friends with Marshall, and he taught me how to lawyer the game manual pretty well. I think we found a very interesting grey area here today.
__________________
add me on snap: baykahl

Last edited by bkahl : 09-30-2018 at 07:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 08:00 PM
Shelby Lamp Shelby Lamp is offline
Registered User
FRC #0115
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 1
Shelby Lamp is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

Honestly the more I look at this the more I think that it's not even a violation of G12.

The rule states:
Don’t collude with your partners to shut down major parts of game play. Two or more ROBOTS may not isolate or close off any major component of MATCH play, e.g. blocking the EXCHANGE, blocking both PORTALS simultaneously, shutting down all access to POWER CUBES, quarantining all opponents to a small area of the FIELD, etc.

One important part of this rule is the word collude. It then goes on to specify that it must be 2 or more robots. This means that both robots on the alliance would have to purposefully block off an opponent robot from a major component of match play. When I watch the match back it looks like 1678 was trying to hold their ground originally. Then 649 decided to go to the other side so they could block them off. This looks like 649 made this decision on their own because 1678 goes back to placing cubes. It then looks like 1678 was going back to their power cube pile when they ran into 649. At this point 1678 has not tried to collude with 649 to shut down a major part of game play because it does not seem like 1678 was purposefully doing this. Then 1678 looks like they're going after 3310 to DEFEND them by going to the area in front of the switch. If they had been colluding with 649 to shut off the rest of the field they would have stayed where they were. They then go and climb. This does not look like 1678 colluded with 649 which is one of the requirements for G12 to be called.

On top of this with the chezy rule changes you could argue that 3310 was not shut off from a major part of game play. The chezy rule changes state that "Launching POWER CUBES is okay". There are a few restrictions on this but it was possible if 3310 had a cube shooter for them to score on the scale/ their switch. This means that it was not 1678 and 649 who were shutting them off from the scale and their switch but the overall design of their robot.
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 08:24 PM
Just An Frc Guy Just An Frc Guy is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: California
Posts: 2
Just An Frc Guy is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

In my view, there was no collusion, but I can see where it could have been called as blockading against 1678 and 649.

My main issue with the call was that if we take a yellow card assigned to an alliance as assigned to each team individually(as they did in the reversal), we could argue that all individual yellow card are red cards during playoffs since the manual say that "During the Playoff MATCHES, if a Team receives a YELLOW or RED CARD, it results in the entire ALLIANCE receiving the YELLOW or RED CARD for that MATCH." Therefore any individual yellow is now an alliance yellow which is 3 yellows. This is obviously not what FIRST intended when writing that an alliance receives a yellow card.
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 08:30 PM
bkahl's Avatar
bkahl bkahl is online now
baykahl
AKA: Bailey Kahl
FRC #0195
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Southington, CT
Posts: 663
bkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just An Frc Guy View Post
In my view, there was no collusion, but I can see where it could have been called as blockading against 1678 and 649.

My main issue with the call was that if we take a yellow card assigned to an alliance as assigned to each team individually(as they did in the reversal), we could argue that all individual yellow card are red cards during playoffs since the manual say that "During the Playoff MATCHES, if a Team receives a YELLOW or RED CARD, it results in the entire ALLIANCE receiving the YELLOW or RED CARD for that MATCH." Therefore any individual yellow is now an alliance yellow which is 3 yellows. This is obviously not what FIRST intended when writing that an alliance receives a yellow card.
No, we can only argue that all Blockading calls are Red Cards in eliminations because of the big difference between the Blockading rule, and every other GXX rule.

The Blockading Violation is:
Quote:
YELLOW CARD for the ALLIANCE
The rest of the rules that merit YELLOW CARDS are:
Quote:
YELLOW CARD
Because of the addition of 'for the ALLIANCE', and by the definition of 'ALLIANCE' in the glossary of the game manual, the literal interpretation of the G12 rule becomes:
Quote:
YELLOW CARD for up to four (4) FIRST® Robotics Competition Teams
__________________
add me on snap: baykahl

Last edited by bkahl : 09-30-2018 at 08:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 08:55 PM
Monochron's Avatar
Monochron Monochron is offline
Engineering Mentor
AKA: Brian O'Sullivan
FRC #4561 (TerrorBytes)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Research Triangle Park, NC
Posts: 1,237
Monochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkahl View Post
Because of the addition of 'for the ALLIANCE', and by the definition of 'ALLIANCE' in the glossary of the game manual, the literal interpretation of the G12 rule becomes:
Quote:
YELLOW CARD for up to four (4) FIRST® Robotics Competition Teams
If you are really reading that literally, it means that only one card is assigned for the act of blockading; it says card, not cards. The fact that multiple robots are participating (my original point) wouldn't matter. Further, we know that a single card can be given to an ALLIANCE for other fouls specifically in the Playoffs, and doing so does not assign a card to each member of the alliance.

What you posted is pretty nice lawyering, but I think that is all that it is. We have precedent for how cards assigned to ALLIANCEs are handled. In this case, if blockading assigns a yellow CARD to the ALLIANCE, it can only be one.

Frankly, even if two yellow cards are assigned to the ALLIANCE (not individual robots), there is nothing that says those two cards should combine into a red.

T03 (emphasis mine):
Quote:
If two different Teams on the same ALLIANCE are issued YELLOW CARDS, the entire ALLIANCE is issued a RED CARD.
__________________


2018 | Gracious Professionalism x3, Asheville Winners, NCCMP Finalists, NC District - 3rd Rank
2017 | Industrial Design, Gracious Professionalism, NCCMP Winners, NC District - 1st Rank
2016 | Innovation In Controls, Industrial Design, Quality Award, NC District - 4th Rank

Last edited by Monochron : 09-30-2018 at 09:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 09:06 PM
bkahl's Avatar
bkahl bkahl is online now
baykahl
AKA: Bailey Kahl
FRC #0195
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Southington, CT
Posts: 663
bkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monochron View Post
If you are really reading that literally, it means that only one card is assigned for the act of blockading; it says card, not cards. The fact that multiple robots are participating (my original point) wouldn't matter. Further, we know that a single card can be given to an ALLIANCE for other fouls specifically in the Playoffs, and doing so does not assign a card to each member of the alliance.
ALLIANCE is capitalized in the definition of the rule. That means the definition in the glossary for ALLIANCE can be directly applied to that rule. Thus, a literal definition means that the Violation is:

"YELLOW CARD for UP TO FOUR.....TEAMS"

Which means that there can be up to four YELLOW CARDS assigned when a G12 is called.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monochron View Post
What you posted is an impressive bit of lawyering, but I think that is all that it is. We have precedent for how cards assigned to ALLIANCEs are handled. In this case, if blockading assigns a yellow CARD to the ALLIANCE, it can only be one.
By your argument, if a robot passes inspection at a past event, it is in that PRECEDENT that they will pass inspection at the next event. We all know this is not true, and it is emphasized emphatically. Precedent means nothing in the FIRST world as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monochron View Post
Frankly, even if two yellow cards are assigned to the ALLIANCE (not individual robots), there is nothing that says those two cards should combine into a red.
The definition of T03 begs to differ:
Quote:
During the Playoff MATCHES, if a Team receives a YELLOW or RED CARD, it results in the entire ALLIANCE receiving the YELLOW or RED CARD for that MATCH. If two different Teams on the same ALLIANCE are issued YELLOW CARDS, the entire ALLIANCE is issued a RED CARD. A RED CARD results in zero (0) points for that MATCH, and the ALLIANCE loses the MATCH.
__________________
add me on snap: baykahl
Reply With Quote
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 09:07 PM
Csherm's Avatar
Csherm Csherm is offline
Registered User
AKA: Colin Sherman
FRC #1710 (The Ravonics Revolution)
Team Role: CAD
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Olathe KS
Posts: 45
Csherm is just really niceCsherm is just really niceCsherm is just really niceCsherm is just really nice
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

In Section 10.7 YELLOW and RED CARDS, it states:
Quote:
During the Playoff MATCHES, if a Team receives a YELLOW or RED CARD, it results in the entire
ALLIANCE receiving the YELLOW or RED CARD for that MATCH.
If two different Teams on the same
ALLIANCE are issued YELLOW CARDS, the entire ALLIANCE is issued a RED CARD. A RED CARD
results in zero (0) points for that MATCH, and the ALLIANCE loses the MATCH.
The penalty for violation of G12 is:
Quote:
YELLOW CARD for the ALLIANCE.
The interpretation that a yellow card for an alliance applies a yellow card to each individual robot fails when you consider its implication along with section 10.7. By that interpretation, any yellow card on a single robot is then applied to the alliance which is then applied to every individual robot which is then multiple yellow cards and thus a red card for the alliance and an automatic loss. However, that's simply not how it works because there are multiple examples to the contrary. By the interpretation that the G12 penalty only applies to the alliance as a whole there is no longer this logical loophole.

In addition to this, I think that the enforcement of G12 in this situation is inappropriate but that is probably a discussion for another thread.
Reply With Quote
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 09:10 PM
bkahl's Avatar
bkahl bkahl is online now
baykahl
AKA: Bailey Kahl
FRC #0195
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Southington, CT
Posts: 663
bkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond reputebkahl has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

Quote:
Originally Posted by Csherm View Post
The interpretation that a yellow card for an alliance applies a yellow card to each individual robot fails when you consider its implication along with section 10.7. By that interpretation, any yellow card on a single robot is then applied to the alliance which is then applied to every individual robot which is then multiple yellow cards and thus a red card for the alliance and an automatic loss. However, that's simply not how it works because there are multiple examples to the contrary. By the interpretation that the G12 penalty only applies to the alliance as a whole there is no longer this logical loophole.
How can you explain the difference in the language of the rules when it comes to G12.

Specifically the difference between:

Quote:
Violation: YELLOW CARD
and

Quote:
Violation: YELLOW CARD for the ALLIANCE
What is the purpose of this distinct change in language for G12? Why is it there if its going to be treated like every other YELLOW CARD in your interpretation? There has to be a reason it is there.
__________________
add me on snap: baykahl

Last edited by bkahl : 09-30-2018 at 09:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-30-2018, 09:17 PM
Monochron's Avatar
Monochron Monochron is offline
Engineering Mentor
AKA: Brian O'Sullivan
FRC #4561 (TerrorBytes)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Research Triangle Park, NC
Posts: 1,237
Monochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond reputeMonochron has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fouls requiring multiple robots

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkahl View Post
ALLIANCE is capitalized in the definition of the rule. That means the definition in the glossary for ALLIANCE can be directly applied to that rule. Thus, a literal definition means that the Violation is:

"YELLOW CARD for UP TO FOUR.....TEAMS"
You are leaving out a word in that definition. It reads "ALLIANCES (cooperatives of up to four (4) FIRST® Robotics Competition Teams)". Ie. an alliance is a cooperative of up to four teams.

"YELLOW CARD for A COOPERATIVE OF UP TO FOUR.....TEAMS". One card for one cooperative. I'm not sure how relevant grammar is to how rules should be called, though I agree it is important to nail down how exactly they are written.


Quote:
By your argument, if a robot passes inspection at a past event, it is in that PRECEDENT that they will pass inspection at the next event. . . Precedent means nothing in the FIRST world as far as I'm concerned.
I think anyone enforcing rules who doesn't look to precedent for guidance is making a big mistake. If they think the precedent is wrong, that is one thing. But we aren't talking about how individuals interpret the rules, we are talking about what is the "true" interpretation. If we know the "true" interpretations of other rules and they match with my interpretation of this rule, it is a good indication that my interpretation is correct. Yes, it is just a good indication, it is not absolute confirmation.

But on the whole I see your interpretation, this isn't something that is cut and dry. No reasonable participate should have to dig this far to find the real meaning of a rule. My honest opinion is that the rule says to give the card to the alliance because the wanted blockading to not result in a red card when called on multiple robots in playoffs. But I don't think the rules currently do a remotely good job of explaining that. I seriously hope a blue box clarifying this shows up for 2019.
__________________


2018 | Gracious Professionalism x3, Asheville Winners, NCCMP Finalists, NC District - 3rd Rank
2017 | Industrial Design, Gracious Professionalism, NCCMP Winners, NC District - 1st Rank
2016 | Innovation In Controls, Industrial Design, Quality Award, NC District - 4th Rank

Last edited by Monochron : 09-30-2018 at 09:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 AM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi