Thats certainly not the intent, I agree with you.
I think it is, in a 100% literal sense, how it can be applied though.
And that’s what sucks.
@Everyone, please understand that I do not support this interpretation of the rules. Im not that much of a terrible person, I promise. I’m just trying to point out a negative effect of how literal the rules in the manual are written.
In my interpretation, each team would receive a SEPARATE yellow card, giving the alliance 4 SEPARATE cards, making T03 relevant.
That’s a nice interpretation but the rule says the alliance gets a yellow card.
Case 1: A G08 is assigned in an elimination match. A single team is given this penalty. There is one Yellow Card, and the Alliance as a whole now has a yellow card on their record.
Case 2: A G12 is assigned in an elimination match. Since this is assigned to an alliance, by definition of alliance, it can be interpreted by the most literal definition of ALLIANCE in the glossary, that up to 4 yellow cards may be given out. Now, since there are 4 Yellow Cards given out, there are 4 Yellow Cards to 4 separate teams, T03 is now relevant. More than a single Yellow Card gets escalated to a RED CARD.
AGAIN, I’m not saying I agree with this 100%, but it can very well be an interpretation by a Head Referee that looks at the rules with the most literal and unbiased rose colored glasses on the planet.
The grey area here is huge.
Obviously, we disagree about the most reasonable interpretation of this rule. I actually think G12 in quals is the edge case, because there isn’t anywhere that says a yellow card applied to a quals alliance actually gets applied to each individual team (is there?), even though that is very obviously the intent of the rule. G12 in elims seems to intentionally avoid T03 by explicitly not saying that each team gets a yellow card.
However, let’s say both interpretations are reasonable. Given (1) a reasonable interpretation of the rules that jives with the intent of the rules and (2) a reasonable interpretation of the rules that does not jive with the intent of rules, I’d expect referees to go with the less dumb option.
Can FIRST just add the rule about applying common sense to rules interpretation that VEX already has? I think we all agree that the language difference is there for qual matches, but literal interpretation leaves reasonable room for debate in elim applications, which is almost definitely not the intent of the rule. If it was supposed to be an automatic red card in elims using the application being lawyered, why wouldn’t it be a red card in quals too?
I LOVE the “Common Sense” rule in VEX.
As for your second question, T03 applies differently to Elims matches than it does Qual matches, as it specifically calls out 2 yellows on an alliance in elims automatically escalates to a Red Card. G12 does not apply differently because it does not call out any differences to the rule during the two different styles of match play.
This is another occasion that makes me think FIRST needs its own version of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.
Its a little off from the main topic but maybe something about needing to be 100% sure of rules before just making them final would be a bigger help in this situation. Ref talks can take a while, and sometimes its super important that they do take a while to make sure all the facts are known. Thats mainly the reason this blew up to me. This wouldnt of had such an adverse reaction if they just had the extra time to deliberate.
Yeah but who has common sense? I rather argue about a champs host and how mods on a forum are mean than to think rationally.
By this reasoning G12 is potentially inconsequential in a Finals tie breaker match unless the ref wants to apply C01 or T03.
G12 during playoffs can be interpreted either way and therefore needs clarification by FIRST.
David
Is this not true of any foul that would result in a single yellow card for an alliance? It seems like a lot of yellow-card fouls could be exploited in a tiebreaker, since there wouldn’t be any long-term consequences.
This is true of all yellow cards, barring the alliance having a yellow card in a prior match. There’s nothing unique about this rule in that regard.
Having seen this in action its a YELLOW card for all alliance members on the alliance that had a “collusion” to shut down a key aspect of the game… so each team going forward on that offending alliance then carries that through whatever part of the tournament they are in say qualifications. It then gets erased in eliminations according to the rules.
Yellows in themselves are warnings and have no effect on that game, its only after that they sting and can convert to red.
The “4 or more” is to cover the elimination rounds when you can carry 4 in certain situations on your alliance, otherwise, its always three or those that played that game, a team not on the field would not receive a yellow. IMO
Your common sense isn’t necessarily my common sense. In fact we have people here arguing both ways. Given that FIRST has seen what happened (hopefully), they should have the time to think through this and attempt to patch the rule so that is clear and concise.
I’m simply arguing that the rules at least somewhat support the decision that was made.
I actually think the intent of the rule is such that a single Yellow Card is enforced, but in the way the rules are written, with the specific definitions, there is a contradiction between the implied intention, and the “correct” enforcement in the rules. Whether or not which interpretation is correct is not for me to decide, but I think people are basing their opinions too much on how it’s been enforced in the past, and not how the rules are actually written. This discrepancy is understandable, but the idea that we have this discrepancy itself is worrisome.
I wanted to point out that we actually can’t fault the Head Ref for being blatantly wrong, because I don’t think he was blatantly wrong. His logical progression through the rules is at least somewhat followable through the rules in their most literal definition. And that is where the problem surfaces… as literal as the rules are written, they can be interpreted in 2 distinct ways.
I hope this will be corrected in Rev1 of the manual for next season, however, if it is not, I will be posting a Q&A so we all have a record on what FIRST deems is the correct interpretation (as long as someone doesn’t beat me to it). I don’t want an in-season event (or any event for that matter) decided on a similar note.
If you need a rule explicitly stating to use common sense in order to employ your common sense, there may be a larger issue afoot.
Would such a rule be considered “meta”?
Absolutely agree. There’s been discussions earlier about exploiting this loophole. I think the solution is that if a yellow card is issued in this situation to the winning team, that a match replay is required. That would at least void the results.
This is why even in real world, we have the Supreme Court…
And even the supreme court gets it wrong on occasion. :]