This would make it even more important to be extremely careful to avoid any fouls at the end. Learning to be extra careful in a specific situation is an important life lesson for students. Rather they learn it in an inconsequential game than in a real life work or legal setting.
Nothing about that counters the use of common sense in applying rules.
This seems like the discussion that Tom Hanks as the insurance agent from the movie “Bridge of Spies” had about plowing into 5 motorcycles as being 5 accidents versus 1 accident, the analogy used as bowling a strike as 10 incidents or 1 incident.
G12 seems to be geared towards qualifications specifically… in elimination how do you “collude” with your alliance. If a similar rule is implemented in the future, there probably needs to be specificity about qualifications versus elimination.
Maybe the GDC would agree that a red card is warranted for blockading in elimination.
This is the same kind of logic that justifies all kinds of appaling events in FRC - like the incident in 2017 where a pilot was red-carded for following the directions of a volunteer asking him to climb down the airship early. “Gotcha!” fouls are not the least bit inspiring, and there are plenty of better avenues of learning the lesson “sometimes you should be extra careful!” in FRC without making up more of them arbitrarily.
Im still struggling to figure out why red alliances actions were a G12 violation. G12 specifically specifies that:
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
(emphasis mine)
I don’t see how the holding of only one robot in this situation qualifies as a G12 violation. As i’m not a referee I’d love to hear other interpretations.
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 **
I’d be curious how you interpret that. Here’s how I read it:
“Don’t spend too much time reading into the rules looking for secret meanings. Take them at face value.”
Wouldn’t that be the common sense you desire? If applied in this instance, that says “yellow card for the alliance” rather than “yellow card for each member of the alliance which compounds when each yellow card spreads to the alliance and generates a red card for the alliance” Isn’t that exactly what you want? I’m entirely lost on how the rule you cite blocks common sense when read following the rule itself.
What major compenent of match play is being closed off or isolated in this instance?
The ability to get away from your Portals and actually go score, maybe?
at least the way I’m interpreting the language, the actions must disable the ability of the alliance as a whole to access a component of match play because every given example impacts the opposing alliance as a whole and the phrase “all opponents” when referring to quarantine.
I interpret the second half of the rule–anything after “e.g.”–as examples of action types that could cause the rule to be triggered.
So let me paraphrase the rule as follows:
Two or more ROBOTS may not isolate or close off any major component of MATCH play, for example: 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
Read that as the GDC saying: We do not allow two or more Robots to isolate or close off any major component of MATCH play. Examples of closing off major components include blocking the Exchange, blocking both Portals at the same time, and probably a few more that we haven’t thought of but we’re sure teams will, so if it looks like it might fit there’s a non-zero chance that it will be called.
In this case, both portals were being blocked AND there was a significant blockage of ability to play the End Game. Either one would be grounds for the call being made. The other option is a pinning call, and that’s not exactly going to be easy to call.
Now we are trying to decide how to interpret the rule that specifically says not to interpret the rules and to instead read them for what it says.
I agree that those sort of situations are egregious. However, my point is that in a final deciding match which is what I’ve been describing, students must learn to be extra careful. If we’re choosing between having replays or not due to a yellow card of any nature in the final match, then I’m with going with replays under all conditions. You are complaining about WHY yellow cards are called, not whether they are an appropriate basis.
He’s not exactly doing that. He’s pointing out one of two things is true:
- yellow cards currently are an inappropriate basis
- we could change (1) by modifying what actions warrant yellow cards
Currently, the “why” make them inappropriate. As such, you’d need another basis or you’d need to change the aspect about them making them inappropriate.
To be fair, I’m against the idea. Even if we remove the yellow cards he suggested, I’d still say it’s not an appropriate basis. Would repeated C07 (attempts to draw fouls) make sense as a replay? Even if the team that received the yellow card was on the winning side, the yellow card wasn’t beneficial and doesn’t change the outcome here. Their actions took them away from playing their game, had them doing something silly to try to get foul points, instead saw them giving the other alliance free points, and then added a yellow card. Let’s say all of that happens and they win. Why would we replay that due to the yellow card? It didn’t provide a strategic advantage to the team. The actions certainly warrant the yellow card, meaning you cannot reasonably adjust the yellow card to make it an appropriate basis.
Instead of trying to find a basis for a replay, it’d be a better exercise to make penalties fitting of the “crime.” If that happens, we don’t need to discuss how to facilitate replays when the punishment is weak enough that teams opt to take it as a strategic advantage.
Chris is clearly saying it’s point (2) he has problems with: “I’d agree to this provided they stop making inconsequential-to-the-match actions yellow cards in order to deter people from doing them.” So his issue is with what causes some types of yellow cards in the first place, not whether yellow cards are an appropriate standard. Saying they are inappropriate because of a few outlier cases isn’t a valid argument. That’s arguing that they are only appropriate if they are absolutely perfect, which will never happen. Do not make the perfect the enemy of the better.
As for your repeated fouls example, I’ve seen strategic reasons to create repeated fouls because point loss consequences are less than the competitive advantage gained.
I’m sure it would be better to come up with a more appropriate penalty instead, and maybe that will come up here. But if we’re staying in the same basis framework, replay appears the best option, and reasonable calling of yellow cards is appropriate. (The 2017 example is a case where a competition staff failed to take responsibility for their on failure to communicate adequately and then took it out on the students instead. The Regional director should have fired either the ref or the volunteer on the spot when the foul was called and enforced.)
For defense to qualify as blockading, I would create the rule so that several conditions need to be satisfied:
- Minimum duration
- Field areas are defended, not robots
- Robots considered participating in blockading are not achieving game objectives
1 - Similar to pinning. Referee should give a count so teams have an opportunity to stop. Maybe make this a foul, escalating to cards quickly.
2 - Robot to robot interaction should be governed by pinning. Harassing a robot for the entirety of the match, even 2 on 1 defense and corralling a single robot isn’t shutting down the game - there are still 2 robots on the opposing alliance left to play. Blocking areas that introduce game elements or loitering in a choke point on the field is playing against the field, not a robot.
3 - Plain and simple, if the team is scoring, they’re playing the game.
Which 2017 example are you looking at?
The quote you provided shows both 1 and 2 to be true. “I’d agree to this provided” means “currently, I wouldn’t agree to this.” As it stands, they do not believe yellow cards are a reasonable basis. In order for that to change, 2 must happen. I’m not sure where you’re getting they believe yellow cards, in their current state, are a reasonable basis. It’s “clearly” stated otherwise.
Not blockading, but the Australia playoffs double yellow card from 2017 (I forget if it was South Pacific or Southern Cross). And I would partially agree with Citrus Dad that the volunteer should be re-somethinged–absolute minimum retrained, preferably reassigned. Either works.
Incidentally, the number of yellow cards dropped drastically from last year to this year; this is probably because teams got warnings for their safety stuff instead of cards on the first offense. A number of other rules are escalations through cards so teams have time to modify their behavior before the card hits. Strategic issues that are blatantly strategic don’t fall into that category though.
Ironically, I was watching match film and saw this champs match, where 1323’s alliance received a yellow card. While I don’t know if it was called for blockading, it seems like it could have been (likely on 179), which is interesting in that the Chezy Champs call (red card) was different from the precedent.
When I read the rules for this year’s game, I pinged someone from the GDC and asked them to pass on thanks. There were a number of changes this year that appeared to be specifically targeted at lowering the number of yellow cards. As you mentioned, most rules escalated to cards rather than being immediate cards. The frustrating little lapses like forgetting the lights were purple being reduced to a warning were glorious. We also had a full year to get used to the system making it less likely we’d see two infractions by a single team on these rules virtually ensuring we’d get rid of those cards.
While I can’t say for sure, those choices sure suggest the GDC liked the yellow cards just as little as the rest of us and made a point to modify things such that the intent to keep people safe was still there without such a harsh punishment for small errors.
I’ll have to go take a look at the Aussie event to see what we’re talking about there.