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:

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.

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.

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 ::rtm::

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):

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,

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 :smiley:

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? ::ouch::

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

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FalseEthicalBasenji-size_restricted.gif

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.

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:

YELLOW CARD for the ALLIANCE

The rest of the rules that merit YELLOW CARDS are:

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:

YELLOW CARD for up to four (4) FIRST® Robotics Competition Teams

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):

If two different ***Teams ***on the same ALLIANCE are issued YELLOW CARDS, the entire ALLIANCE is issued a RED CARD.

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.

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.

The definition of T03 begs to differ:

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.

In Section 10.7 YELLOW and RED CARDS, it states:

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:

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.

How can you explain the difference in the language of the rules when it comes to G12.

Specifically the difference between:

Violation: YELLOW CARD

and

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.

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.

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.

The difference in language is meant to penalize all teams involved in a G12 violation during qualification matches.

Rules are not meant to be interpreted differently in QUALIFICATION and ELIMINATION matches unless explicitly stated in the rules.

I think we can all agree that G12 is much too vague for comfort.

Context: 1 yellow card assigned to blue for 1 count (arguably 2???) of G12 in a playoff match

The reason the verbiage is different is obvious - it’s so that the rule assigns a yellow card to more than one team in quals. There’s no way the rule was written to secretly escalate to a red card in eliminations. It’s yellow card, singular - this verbiage is important.

Not sure how T03 would apply, since G12 gives the yellow card to the alliance, not to an individual team. In fact, it seems like G12 is worded specifically to avoid this interpretation, since it could say it’s a yellow card for each team on the alliance.