OCCRA
Go to Post I believe it is in the spirit of the game is to score more points than your opponent within the rules. That means offense AND defense. - Gary Dillard [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #181   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-13-2017, 08:26 AM
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is offline
\_(ツ)_/
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #3929 (Atomic Dragons); fmr. FRC #228 (GUS) & FRC #2791 (Shaker)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 8,306
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Re: How the rules can discourage dangerous behavior

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
Agree 100%. Once the rules are set, they should be enforced as-is. With that said, the head ref still needs to be given leeway for a good judgement call. This thread has said enough about that though.

Regardless, allowing opponents to do anything to try to sway the head ref's decision is probably a bad idea.
I think this is 100% okay if the opponents are attempting to say "no, don't give them that penalty, they didn't actually do what you said they did". The classic example is the 2013 Curie finals, when the opponents were arguing that the red card for the other alliance contacting them while climbing was incorrect as the contact did not occur. This kind of advocacy should be commended.

I think having opponents go "no, that's a silly rule, don't enforce that please" could be the slippery slope you're warning about, though.
__________________
Mentor: 3929 (2018-?)
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-2017) - 2016 RIDE Winner (with 1058, 6153)
Consultant Person: 2170 (2017)
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015) Build Photos - 2013 WPI Regional Finalists (with 20, 3182), 2012 BAE Finalists (with 1519, 885)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 MN 10K Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
Reply With Quote
  #182   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-13-2017, 12:30 PM
pfreivald's Avatar
pfreivald pfreivald is offline
Registered User
AKA: Patrick Freivald
FRC #1551 (The Grapes of Wrath)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Naples, NY
Posts: 2,357
pfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond repute
Re: How the rules can discourage dangerous behavior

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
I think this is 100% okay if the opponents are attempting to say "no, don't give them that penalty, they didn't actually do what you said they did". The classic example is the 2013 Curie finals, when the opponents were arguing that the red card for the other alliance contacting them while climbing was incorrect as the contact did not occur. This kind of advocacy should be commended.

I think having opponents go "no, that's a silly rule, don't enforce that please" could be the slippery slope you're warning about, though.
Agreed on both counts.
__________________
Patrick Freivald -- Mentor
Team 1551
"The Grapes of Wrath"
Bausch & Lomb, PTC Corporation, and Naples High School

I write books, too!
Reply With Quote
  #183   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-13-2017, 12:44 PM
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is online now
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 4,021
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: How the rules can discourage dangerous behavior

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
I think this is 100% okay if the opponents are attempting to say "no, don't give them that penalty, they didn't actually do what you said they did". The classic example is the 2013 Curie finals, when the opponents were arguing that the red card for the other alliance contacting them while climbing was incorrect as the contact did not occur. This kind of advocacy should be commended.

I think having opponents go "no, that's a silly rule, don't enforce that please" could be the slippery slope you're warning about, though.
Either case is a slippery slope. This effectively allows head refs to second-guess the information the 4 other refs have asserted is true. Sure, the information is sometimes imperfect*. Yet the only sources of information for an individual call should be the other event officials (referees primarily, but FTA/volunteers via solicited information as well). Video replays/etc are a totally different topic from rules about safety though.




*Initially, a red card was given to 1885. It was overturned since the ref who called the foul didn't know for sure who actually caused the gear to fall. The question we asked the head ref was "Because this will impact alliance captains, please verify which human player actually caused the gear to fall". We would have lived with the result regardless of video replay results because I understood that the source of information had to be the ref who called the foul. The video replay confirms what I had hoped was true given what both pilots told me, but video isn't something that's available to a head ref.

Regardless of which way the call went, this is a great example of a referee using judgement to confirm info with proper sources and then determining the best outcome based upon the evidence she had. Within the technicalities of the rules, she very well could have let the card stand, given it to the other pilot, or given it to both teams who had pilots.
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
Latest Project: Codex-based FRC Comms in Java

2017: Scoring Model | COPR Rank Simulator
1885: YouTube Channel | CAD Library | GitHub
Reply With Quote
  #184   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-13-2017, 09:40 PM
GeeTwo's Avatar
GeeTwo GeeTwo is offline
Technical Director
AKA: Gus Michel II
FRC #3946 (Tiger Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Slidell, LA
Posts: 4,744
GeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: How the rules can discourage dangerous behavior

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
Send the production fields to locations nominated by the Planning Committees that will be the first ones to set up the field. Give the first people to set up the fields a chance to do it early for a week-0 event so we can figure out everything that's missing and problematic, and have replacement parts and solutions figured out before we have to do it for week 1. I couldn't even begin to estimate how much money is spent at Home Depot week 1 just to get the fields up and running. It's a problem that's been solved by the time the fields get to their second event.
If I understand you correctly, I'd consider that a "friendly amendment", unless/until practice indicated that the planning committees avoided rather than sought "high stress" locations.

Also, definitely in favor of two yellow cards in a match (especially if for two occurrences of the same offense) becoming a one-RP-ding rather than a disqualification.
__________________

If you can't find time to do it right, how are you going to find time to do it over?
If you don't pass it on, it never happened.
Robots are great, but inspiration is the reason we're here.
Friends don't let friends use master links.

Last edited by GeeTwo : 11-13-2017 at 09:43 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 02:17 PM.

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


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi