Yes. Though (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1785271)
Aside from the controversy over F1M3, what was the song they were playing during it? I canāt help but groove instead of be mad at any call made by the refs.
Shout out to 2557. This isnāt the first time theyāve had a win overruled after being announced, but Iām sure that they handled the situation with the contagious gracious professionalism they have exhibited since their inception.
I think there should be a rule that once the refs make a call its final and no going back.
For next year, please find more mods for Twitch chat. Many rule violations were made, but miklast was the only person banned, for a relatively minor issue.
To be clear, my mute was totally justified. Its just that there were multiple others also doing wrong and there was nobody there to deal with it for an extended period of time (and never was actually dealt with, they just left.)
If you missed the 3rd finals match and dont want to try and use Twitch VODs, shudders the full match, along with postmatch, is uploaded here.
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:
Donāt 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 āALLIANCEā in the violation line. As far as I can tell, this is the only instance where a Yellow Card is assigned to an āALLIANCEā in the definition of the rule.
By that definition of the rule, and because the word āALLIANCEā is capitalized in the definition, we refer to the glossary:
cooperatives of up to four (4) FIRSTĀ® 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 āALLIANCEā members would receive a card. Thus, an an āALLIANCEā 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:
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.
ā¦
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 didā¦ 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.
It was Catch Me by Vicetone 
2 Likes
This is not a qualification match. In elimination if 1 robot gets a yellow card the card is assigned to the entire alliance. I believe this was a tough call because the rules are vague, however If Iām understanding correctly then my opinion is it should have been 1 yellow card.
My takes, if anyone cares. I think itās important to break this thing down since there are so many dimensions:
- With the benefit of after-match video review, I personally think blockading should not have been called. The actions I saw did not meet any of the enumerated examples of blockading in the manual, although that is not an exhaustive list.
- Without the benefit of video review, I think a blockade could have been reasonably called by the refs.
- There is no reasonable way that 3310 being blockaded or not would have changed the winner of the match, the blockading started at the earliest with 40 seconds left in the match, and blue was down by well over a hundred points. Thereās no āmatch impactā factor for this call, but itās unfortunate that we got so much drama for something that had negligible match impact.
- It looks pretty clear to me (again with hindsight) that 1678 did not intend to blockade 3310.
- From 3310ās perspective, I can see how they would consider themselves to have been blockaded, and it is reasonable for them to bring this to the attention of the refs, so 3310 has no fault in this to me.
- G12 alone is clearly intended to provide only one yellow card to the entire alliance, not two or three.
- Itās unfortunate that a single yellow card is meaningless in the last match of the event, as this incentivizes teams toward risking yellow-cards with strategies that they would otherwise avoid.
- Itās not clear to me that C01 is meant to be a counter to (7), although it could be interpreted otherwise.
- If C01 was actually invoked for the red card, it really should have been stated, as the explanation for the red card we got on stream was in opposition to (6).
- The match outcome absolutely should not have been declared until the refs were firmly set in their decision. Even if they decided on something that we would call āwrongā with hindsight, at some point they need to decide that their decision is final, and only then should they input the scores.
Rough situation all around, glad I wasnāt the head ref. Points 9 and 10 are my biggest issues.
Youāre correct in that it is not a qualification match, but we need to look specifically at the āViolation Lineā, where it is different than any other rule.
By definition, no matter what āstyleā of match it is, a āYELLOW CARD for the ALLIANCEā, can very easily be interpreted as a āYELLOW CARD for āā¦up to 4ā¦ teamsāā by the definition of āALLIANCEā, which is quoted in my above post as: ācooperatives of up to four (4) FIRSTĀ® Robotics Competition Teamsā
Iām not saying I agree with the call, or whether it was right, rather I am saying I understand how it can be interpreted to get the outcome we saw this afternoon.
The refs didnt assign a yellow card per team on the alliance. They announced that it was 2 yellow card because 2 robots participated in it and 2 teams got a yellow card. Donāt the rules state that itās a yellow card if 2 or more robots blockade the fieldā¦ not a yellow card per robot that participates? I donāt blame any of the mentors in the question box as I think it was a yellow cardā¦ but should it have been a yellow card for 2 teams?
by definition, it states that āup to 4ā¦teamsā can be assessed a yellow card for blockading. So yes, it CAN be interpreted to state that it is a per robot penalty, not a single penalty.
Blockading is the only rule that includes this Violation.
This is a really weird grey area and Iām still not 100% sure what is actually correct. I am just simply looking at it as unbiased as I can, and I can see where the interpretation may lead to the Red Card. The precedent is what you are describing, but I am also reading the rules as literally as I can, and the definitions of the rules and the terms in the rules are potentially contradicting the precedent.
I agree with every one of the points that you made, but I do think the intention (to be clarified in future manuals I would assume) of this rule would be that in Quals every team would get a yellow card because otherwise it would be difficult to carry over to future matches and wouldnāt mean anything.
It says a yellow card for the allianceā¦ so wouldnāt that be 4 yellow cards if they went the route of assigning one to every member of the alliance? So it should have been either 1 or 4 yellow cards issued right? 4 if they took they looked at it and decided that a yellow card to the alliance means 1 per team, and 1 yellow card if they thought that the yellow card for the alliance means 1 card?
Yeah, I should have been more clear that I was talking about playoff matches only for that point.
Correct.
The intrinsic difference in the way G12 is written as opposed to the other rules is what makes this situation hard. By the literal definition in the rules, there would be āup to 4ā YELLOW CARDs assigned to the ALLIANCE, which by T03, merits a RED CARD.
It took me a little bit to get my mind twisted around this too, but if you try and remove any precedent from your head and read this as literally as you can, it makes sense.
I just think that if it takes at least 2 robots to get this penalty and the intention of the rule was multiple yellow cards depending on how many teams participated then why didnt the violation just be a red card in the rulesā¦
I donāt think this was EVER the intent of HQ, rather it is just an unfortunate result of how literal the rules are written.