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.
I don’t interpret the quote the same way that you do.
That said, are you saying that all yellow cards are unreasonable? That the yellow card situation is so egregious that FIRST should just get rid of them?
His interpretation is correct - I currently wouldn’t agree to your proposal, because there are situations in the current rules, depending upon the interpretation, where yellow cards are handed out too easily. In general, I would rather we have rules be too lenient than too strict, and this proposal would fix a tiny minority of rules issues while causing many more. At no point did I say anything for or against getting rid of all yellow cards in their current form.
If there is behavior so egregious that it should cost you an event with it having occurred only once… we have another card for that.
I do agree that the yellow card situation greatly improved in 2018.
I’m definitely not saying that. There are instances when I’ve firmly been behind handing out a card. There are other instances when I’ve argued against giving a card. There have been times I’ve been involved in discussions that leave me frustrated about giving out a card.
They definitely should stay. In general, I don’t have issues with the reasons for the cards being given, especially with many cards being given after a verbal warning and/or escalation.
If we look at the original thought process, I’d say 2 is definitely true. Yellow cards are not currently a viable way to determine replays.
In order to change that, we’d need to do the following:
-
Update the penalty for things like coming onto the field during purple lights to not be a yellow card (these do not warrant a replay under any stretch of the imagination). But, their penalty needs to maintain enough bite to be worth having the rule. I can’t think of a reasonable system for this.
-
For a yellow card to warrant a replay, we’d need to find a way to make yellow cards beneficial to receive. If they’re not beneficial, they already have a penalty. We don’t need a second. If they’re beneficial, we probably should rework the rules instead of using this as a basis for a replay.
Really, providing the HR with the ability to upgrade a yellow to a red if they believe the actions made to receive the yellow card rewarded the team in such a way that the benefit outweighs the cost of the yellow is an easier fix. This is a deterrent. If it happens, teams aren’t playing within the spirit of FIRST. A red card would handle this easier than requiring a replay.
The context of this discussion has been about issuing yellow cards during the final/concluding match of an elimination round to the winner of the match. The winning alliance currently suffers no consequence for the yellow card in the case of an event final, so can take a yellow card strategically under the current rules. The question is whether under that unique circumstance, is the preferred ruling that a yellow card results in a match replay? (From the outset, I was and am not discussing any other circumstances where yellow cards are issued.)
Your solution is saying that if a yellow card is issued in such a final match, the only available solution is a red card. That’s an overly harsh remedy that will materially and uniquely change play in the final match as teams become excessively cautious, not something that anyone wants to happen.
So are you saying that yellow cards are handed out so freely for fouls like blockading that even if an alliance incurs that foul in the final match and they win that they should be able to simply walk away unpenalized? That until the yellow cards are designed perfectly, they they shouldn’t be used to invoke binding penalties on playoff teams?
Just as a comment here. Out in my area, I personally saw maybe 10 cards issued in the regular season. (Heard of a few more…) Almost all of them were for safety (against the robots), or for strategy, or for damage. The only blockades I’ve seen called have been offseasons.
If an alliance opts to take a yellow card in order to win the event, I cannot say that I’ve found any specific rule against doing that, or that would automatically escalate the card to a red card. (Matter of fact… I’ve seen card calls at very high levels go uncalled.) It would need to be egregious or repeated to draw a T03 on top of (or instead of) the regular rule, and I would strongly suspect that most head refs would think very seriously about whether that was appropriate before issuing it.
Could there be a rule stating that violation of a rule for advantage is against the rules? Well, sure. Should there be? Well… In some circles, that would be best described as “piling on”, or “throwing the book” in others. If such a rule were implemented, I would probably consider it as difficult to enforce as C03 and C04.
I don’t think this is what he’s saying at all. To me it sounds like he’s suggesting that if the Head Referee at an event deems a yellow card in finals, which may be inconsequential otherwise, to have benefitted a team to the point where it changed the match outcome, that Head Ref may upgrade that yellow to a red card. I don’t see at all where he’s suggesting that every yellow in finals becomes a red.
Do you read what you’re debating against or just wildly rant and assign inaccurate meanings that better suit your point? None of this was said. None of your original complaints were said. You’ve been imagining a context for your entire position to this point.
Let’s start here. If we’re going to limit the scope to this very specific situation, the basis of a yellow card is absurd. By limiting it to this scope, you’re agreeing the basis is downright silly. If yellow cards were a good measure, we wouldn’t need half of those conditions.
There’s two logical ways to approach that problem:
- find the rules where the penalty is potentially beneficial to an alliance and modify the punishments accordingly
- accept that with thousands of teams and countless eyes reading these rules, there will always be some “loophole” created where unintended. In an attempt to close that loophole as best as possible, give the HR discretion to upgrade the yellow to a red. This doesn’t mandate all yellow cards, or even all yellow cards for a specific rule, get upgraded. It just means the HR has the opportunity to say “you used this rule in a way that isn’t within the spirit of FIRST in order to fundamentally alter the outcome of the match. While the penalty here is a yellow, your actions were egregious enough to warrant you losing the match.” If this happens in Finals 2/3, so be it. This doesn’t mean all yellow cards will get upgraded. It’s not even relevant in 99% of cards given out. It’s less harsh than the strategic modifier for leaving the platform zone while attached to the rung in this year’s game. As it’s less harsh than that penalty and we still saw aggressive game play, it’s very difficult to logically state this would drastically change game play. The only way you can make that suggestion is to entirely ignore the “context” and assign the idea to a number of cases where it wouldn’t be applied.
What are you even talking about here? He’s saying the exact opposite. He’s saying yellow cards that meet your list of conditions to meet this “very specific instance” happen so rarely that we should consider how other cards would potentially impact the game. Until the case you suggest is the more common, we shouldn’t use this as a basis. Other cards are given far more freely and the rule you pose doesn’t make sense with those cards. As the rules don’t tend to have a lot of flexibility, your rule would also apply to others such as teams walking on the field early. It wouldn’t make sense to replay that. You’re trying to solve something that happens in the minority of cases by changing things in a way that’ll affect the majority in an undesired way.
So the solution is still a red card, it’s just left to the discretion of the referee as to its impact, which VERY hard to judge. Instead of leaving that to the referee WHETHER the final result was determined, a replay allows to address the less definitive question that the outcome MIGHT have been affected and the uncertainty can be solved by a replay.
There’s a third way to approach this logically. This discussion began because of a very specific situation that is unusual–a yellow card to an alliance in a final match with no subsequent matches. I haven’t been discussing a wider application. I appears your presumption is that many/most yellow cards are handed out for superficial safety concerns. That MAY be true during qualification matches. In my own experience, yellow cards in playoff matches are most likely to be handed out for on-field actions such as blockading, in large part because the teams that make the playoffs are usually more experienced and careful. My premise is that the latter type of fouls are much more common in that situation. Maybe you can provide some evidence to the contrary, and I can change how I view this, but as of now I see almost all yellows in playoff matches as having on field consequences. And I’m looking at a solution that minimizes referee discretion as to what is “consequential.” Those types of calls are always controversial in any sport or game. Much better to have a rule that describes a specific procedure as a result of a specific action.
So let me see if I can break out Citrus Dad’s proposal in such a way that it’s clear:
In playoff matches* where elimination may happen**, any yellow card applied to the winning alliance*** will result in a replay of the match.
This accomplishes the goal of removing referee discretion (which, BTW, on many fouls they didn’t have anyways). It also ensures that the yellow card actually has an effect.
Now the question becomes: What other effects might this have on the event in question, and the teams in question?
Let’s see… The event would run longer (on the order of up to an hour in practicality–which could be significant for teams) due to the replays. There’s obvious effects from that on all attendees and volunteers in terms of tiredness. Obviously it would be at least somewhat frustrating to teams. (Citrus Dad, ask around about SVR 2008 and the blown call in finals. Someone up there is bound to remember.) There’s the fairly obvious issue that the “wrong” team could win the replay, or the carded team wins the replay too; to some people that would be seen as “the refs stole the event from us” and trust me, that’s the last thing you want to have happen.
Now set that against either having a “if consequential to the match/event, upgrade the card” penalty added to some rules, or some specific adjustment to T03 that adds similar language to the existing repeated/egregious violation rules. Personally, I’d suggest going with the third option, and let the HR use their best judgement. (That’s why they get paid the big bucks, folks. Er, sorry, that’s “have food tossed their way a couple times a day”. :p)
*I’ve seen more cards in semis and quarters than in finals. Let’s just apply this to all levels.
**QFX-2+, SFX-2+, F2+… any match where one of the alliances is in win-or-go-home mode.
***If it’s to either alliance, you’re in for a long day. It’s safer to assume that if it’s to the losing alliance–which it will be a large percentage of the time–the exit will be penalty enough.
The rule would be invoked only the very final match of the competition when there would be no other matches in which a yellow card might be issued to the winning alliance and therefore could be turned into a red card in a subsequent match. (For example, this would not be used in QFs and SFs because the winning alliance moves on with a yellow card.) In other words, there is a clear opportunity to strategically incur a yellow card with no consequences in the determinative match. I don’t see how a replay under that singular circumstance would turn into an extra hour of competition. It would be no different than having a replay due to a tie or a field fault. We’ve had replays when field faults happened very late in a match and one alliance clearly was on the way to winning.
Other sports have end-of-game rules where the change in circumstances as the end approaches. For example, football charges a time out to a team in the last 2 minutes to treat an injured player to prevent strategic “injuries.”
Leaving the final discretion to a head ref as to who “would have won” is a recipe for even more controversy. Refs are not in a position to judge the “winner” of a match, which is exactly what we want to avoid. Look at how the 2016 championship tie was broken by “judging” (and the other ties broken similarly in 2016 and 2017) as examples of why we do NOT want refs making such decisions.
The issue is not whether the “right” team wins the replay–it’s that the play is reset, and the slate is wiped clean. The winning team loses the surety of having a win, but it is not eliminated entirely by the penalty, which I think is consistent with the intent of issuing a yellow card rather than a red. I’m not sure why fans would view a win by the carded team would be as “stealing” the win–under the current rules the team would have incurred a strategic yellow card and gotten away with it. Last thing that you want to have happen is to ACTUALLY have the refs steal the event by directly making the win/lose decision.
I think at the core of the controversy here is whether yellow cards are being issued during the playoffs for consequential fouls that affect match outcomes, or for incidental occurrences that are not really central to match play. To answer that seems to be in part an empirical question in which we see what is the breakdown of yellow card rule violations during the playoffs. Someone probably can pull that off FRC’s API data. Nevertheless, FIRST must believe that these fouls are significant enough that incurring them twice leads to a match forfeit. If one doesn’t think that these should rise to that level, then one needs to propose a different type of foul, and we’re back to my original point that the objection appeared to be tied to the issue of yellow cards offenses rather than the resolution of what happens when a yellow card is issued.
OK. Let me get this straight.
You want, for an exceptionally rare occurrence, an automatic replay should one ever occur again?
In perspective, this is the one time I’ve actually heard about this happening, ever. ONE. TIME. in my entire FRC career. Which, at last count, I’ve been an alumni for 10+ seasons and active on CD during most of that time, and that’s not counting time as a student before then–I’d have probably heard SOMETHING in that timeframe if that sort of thing happened. That puts the odds of something like this happening again at… several hundred if not several thousand to one? Heck, a TIE in that same match is more common! (2010 IRI and 2016 Einstein come to mind.)
Stop making mountains out of molehills. CA isn’t in districts (yet), Bag Day is still a thing, and you’re choosing to insist that because of a single match there should be an operational change to how FIRST calls matches because “it could happen again”?
Incidentally, the last time I can recall an F3 replay or similar event that wasn’t 2010, I recall hearing complaints about “the refs stole the event win from this alliance”. The Director of FRC (pre-Frank) stepped in to rectify the situation with extra CMP slots for the event.
We’ve recognized for a long time this strategic hole in the rules. And while it may seem rare, it occurs in the most critical moment of the entire tournament during the deciding match. It seems like this moment deserves much more focus than any other single moment in the competition. Why object to such an easy fix then if you think that it will rarely happen? I made what was a simple equitable proposal, and then folks objected based on their perception of how yellow cards are applied. I didn’t make a big deal out of this–others did (but I wasn’t pushed into backing down.)
The only times I’ve heard “the ref stole the match” was when there was controversy about the actual call itself, not about whether there was a replay to rectify the situation. Leaving discretion to the ref to decide the outcome of a match is the recipe for controversy. In fact, the ref shouldn’t even be aware of the match score to be calling it in an unbiased way. Adding a requirement of score awareness and when a match might have turned on an event will make the use of discretion both complex and stressful.
In the situation I’m referencing (SVR 2008), the REPLAY triggered the controversy. If the ref had simply corrected the ruling, and the score at issue, there would have been NO controversy, NO CD uproar[sub]TM[/sub], NO post on the FRC blog, and NO trip to Champs for the finalists. This was, I admit, before your time–ask 100 next time you’re at an event with them if they have anyone who was on/around the team in '08 and talk to that person(s).
I would suggest that leaving the ref without discretion to decide how to call a match is also an recipe for controversy. These are slightly different things, but there have been some cases where the situation may not have warranted a [insert large foul/card] but the ref had to give one because that’s the way the rule was. It’s been a while since that happened, mainly due to the escalating fouls (and fouls appropriate to the score) now, but back when I was a student, a mere brush in the wrong area could trigger pretty much an automatic loss.
It sounds like the issue was an incorrect ruling, not the reliance on a replay, and that there was discretion allowed to the referee. If the rule explicitly calls for a replay and that is taken out of the hands of the referee, then there should be less controversy. We’ve already seen that the decisions at Chezy Champs and Roebling were inconsistent with each other, and there are MANY more examples of that across many years. Again, trying to correct this by requiring referees to make the correct call, rather than just staying “they make mistakes, so let’s solve this with a do-over instead” is a more equitable solution that reflects the imperfect nature of human judgement and decision making.
It doesn’t leave referees without discretion on calling a match, it just doesn’t allow a referee to arbitrarily escalate a yellow card to a red card in the very final match as a solution to a shortcoming in the rule that allows the winning team to escape any consequences. There is ABSOLUTELY no provision in the rules to allow for that circumstance–the escalation is ONLY allowed in which the circumstance is identical to ALL other matches where that foul is particularly egregious. NO foul call should be dependent on the type of match being played.
I feel that you have not been fully reading my posts.
There was an incorrect ruling. The head referee, rather than taking the proper route of correcting the scores, called for a replay. This was not, to the best of my recollection, a rule call for a replay, it was the head referee making a call to replay rather than rescore. This is the plain and simple version.
Had the replay not happened, there would have been disappointment but people would have understood. But no, 20 minutes after the last match robots had to be hauled out of their crates and the other alliance won. People were quite upset. Headquarters had to weigh in.
I agree that if the rule specifically states “In this specific situation, this is what will happen”, people won’t be as upset. (Although… 2016 Einstein F3 did have a bunch of people saying that that shouldn’t have happened. Result, the one exception to the tiebreakers.) They’ll be somewhat annoyed (particularly if their team got the yellow) but the shouting should be down to “normal CD chatter” levels.
I’m trying to understand your position. Let me try to sum it up to make sure we agree with what you’re suggesting. Your position is:
In the very narrow instance of finals matches where neither team will move on, there should be a new rule written to mandate a replay if the winning alliance is given a yellow card. The thought process here is this card is meaningless otherwise as the alliance still wins and there’s no change later for this card to escalate. As most cards given at this stage of an event are for actions on the field rather than the safety cards, you believe in this very rare circumstance we can settle this with that change. You don’t want to leave it up to HR discretion because you believe leaving it open to judgement brings error into things. You’d prefer see that decision taken out of the HR’s hands and instead codified so that it’ll be applied evenly across all events.
Does that sound about right? If so, let me point out why I’d still disagree with pretty much every point there.
First, I’m generally a huge advocate for taking things out of the HR’s hands. I prefer being able to point to a rule and saying “this is how it has to be handled. There isn’t a decision here.” You’re right, this IS more consistent. However, this doesn’t match what you actually desire. You cannot cite Champs in 2016 and 2017 as reason to validate your point. In fact, they show your idea to be inherently flawed. In 2016, a foul was called without the option for a referee decision. As a result, those 5 points pushed the game to a tie. With the way the game was scored, this pushed a tiebreaker in one’s team favor. Referees had absolutely zero decisions in this process. You’re mistaken in every aspect to suggest they did. Do you think ANYONE was excited to be a part of that? In 2017, we see something similar. Penalties were called because they had to be. There was a large number of them. As a result, the outcome was fundamentally altered. In both of these cases, the problem was the result of a rule without the ability to apply common sense to the situation. If we remove the decision from the equation, it’s just as likely to result in bad things as good. You’ve pointed to instances that show this.
You also mentioned referees shouldn’t know the score when making decisions. In most cases, I’d agree. In fact, I’ve been in huddles where an aggravated FTA comes in and pushes us to hurry it up because the outcome was a 100pt difference and we were debating 5-25 points. Why? We simply didn’t know the result. We didn’t have time to watch. I’ve also worked events where a card should have been applied to alliances during elims. Why weren’t the cards? The team that would have been awarded the card was just eliminated. In one case, an alliance should have received a second yellow card escalating to a red in the final match. If refs are completely unaware of scores, this results in the final match ending on a red card. If refs take a quick check to the score before determining to give the card or not, the event ends on the score. In either situation, the same alliance wins. Don’t you think it makes for a better event for spectators and teams to see it end without the card? That’s impossible if there’s never a check at score. It’s difficult to be respectful to all of the effort teams put into this if you never use common sense while taking a quick look at the scores.
I also fundamentally disagree with the premise this should only be applied in finals. If the same foul is given in a tough semis match, it’ll send the other alliance home and the winning alliance into finals with the yellow card. Can they do this again? No. But, that doesn’t change the fact one alliance’s event was ended by this. If we believe this is wrong, we shouldn’t limit it to finals under the flawed idea the yellow card carrying on matters. It certainly wouldn’t to the team eliminated in quarters/semis. They’re still eliminated by something that’s not exactly within the spirit of FIRST and the winning alliance only receives a wrist slap. As you want to point out the majority of cards given out in elims are for in game actions rather than safety, it’s important to point out most matches in elims don’t receive cards. As the probability the team will receive another card is slim, the idea of a card carrying on isn’t something that’s more important than the other alliance going home.
This isn’t about trying to make you be shy about your opinion or make you want to be quiet. It’s about pointing out the idea isn’t very good and would require nearly a separate game manual to handle all of the possible situations that could arise in order to fix the rule. Yellow cards are a terrible basis for a required replay, especially if they’re only considered in 1 (maybe 2) matches at an entire event. The cases you’ve provided show this to be the wrong path to take. If the events you think are a good example of why we SHOULD use this plan are examples of where this would cause more problems than help, doesn’t that make it rather clear this is the wrong path of action?