Is there an explanation for why G208 wasn’t called on 7028 for their contact with 4607 in this match? I know it wouldn’t have changed the match outcome since 4607 climbed, but I want to make sure our drive team is informed how this is called so we can be better prepared for future events.
Match in question:
https://youtu.be/H02fk6SpImo
G208 Let them climb. A ROBOT may not contact (either directly or transitively through CARGO and regardless of who initiates contact)
A. an opponent ROBOT contacting their MID, HIGH, and/or TRAVERSAL RUNGS or
B. an opponent ROBOT whose BUMPERS are at least partially in their HANGAR ZONE during the final 30 seconds of the MATCH.
Violation: The contacted opponent ROBOT is awarded TRAVERSAL RUNG HANGAR points at the end of the MATCH regardless of the opponent ROBOT’S eligibility for HANGAR points
Rule G-208 Item B was violated pretty definitively. I don’t think there was a reason it wasn’t called other than it was missed and wasn’t significant contact (although “significant” doesn’t matter RAW).
The robot that got contacted climbed to traversal normally so g208 penalty didn’t actually do anything.
Here is a similar, more definitive one, that also was not called: https://youtu.be/BdacMxohPtk?t=130
Related to G208, I think there should be also be a foul or tech foul associated with the violation, instead of just giving a free climb. If the opponent has a nearly 100% traversal climb and all of their partners are on the other side of the field, there isn’t that much downside to playing tough defense to stop them from getting into the hanger – or worse, hitting them when they have already started their hang, hoping to get them stuck on the middle bar, when their partners are expected to climb to high/mid right behind them.
The refs should waive the flag to alert 4607 that they were awarded a free climb and thus can go score additional cargo. If they don’t do that, again, there is little downside for the defender here.
The nearest ref is on the radio when it happens, the head ref is nodding. They decided to not call it live. Like Alex said, the bot got the climb, so no extra points.
Waving the flag is for a foul and 4607 didn’t draw a foul, g208 penalty doesn’t result in a foul
I fully understand it shouldn’t have added any additional points. I was just trying to understand why it wasn’t called so our drive team is better prepared for how to handle these situations in the future.
Just show them the video and note that the HF knows a violation occurred and was waiting to see if it the bot climbed. The refs will not tell the team “Hey don’t worry about climbing, you got a G208!” They let the game flow. If your bot did not get to the traversal, they would have communicated to scoring that a traversal should be entered, and then the GA would have announced it as such.
…if all goes according to the book!
Take a step back and read everything in the thread. You are making an argument on details no one is disputing.
It’s definitely a miss on FIRST’s part not to have some sort of signal associated with G208 - but the only signals the refs have to communicate are for fouls, tech fouls, pinning counts, and clearing (clearing the pin or cancelling a foul that was called by mistake), none of which apply to G208.
Having been standing behind the scoring table during the match, I can tell you - this wasn’t missed, and points would have been awarded if the climb wasn’t successful at the end. FIRST just doesn’t have anything in place to communicate that, in real time, to the drive team.
This same thing happened to us(6574) in quarterfinal 1 of the Wisconsin Regional. I went to the question box and the explanation I was given was that since we climbed to the traversal rung anyway, we weren’t allowed to get the penalty points that would have been given had we not climbed, which is frustrating because the referee standing right next to us did not wave their flag indicating a foul which resulted in us still attempting to climb. Although I may be biased in this situation, it’s extremely frustrating for me how this rule is called and how it is worded in the rulebook. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I have not found anywhere where it specifically states that if you climb to the traversal rung after getting fouled under g208 that you won’t be awarded the penalty points for the foul that occured. Just to add on to my experience, I believe the question box needs to be reworked, I have never seemed to get an adequate explanation as to why something happened or an adequate clarification of rules. The referees in my experience always seem to have one of two answers: “I didn’t see it” or “The rules aren’t very clear on this” and it’s extremely frustrating especially when you aren’t contesting a match or a call or anything like that and you just want to know why a foul was called or not called the way it was or clarifiaction for something and the referees never give you an answer that is clear. I am also extremely frustrated with the way the question box works in regards to mentors. I understand that students should be the ones talking and agree with that part, however, we had a situation where one of our mentors went to the question box with me to listen to what the referee had to say to me in the question box and to ensure that the referee didn’t say anything out of line. Our mentor did not say anything or plan to say anything, just to listen, but was removed and told to step away by another official. I think this is a massive flaw with the question box that needs to be adressed immediately. An adult referee shouldn’t be discussing something like this with a student without an adult mentor for the student’s team present.
The robot is rewarded traversal hanger points regardless of the robots eligibility for hanger points. I can see how this could cause some confusion, but it does imply you’re given 15 points regardless if you climb or not.
Thank you Jon for your answer. That was really helpful and informative. Thank you and the rest of the volunteer for making GNR a great event. This was the best regional I’ve ever been to!
Same, it was insanely well run.
They didn’t waive their flag because it’s not a foul. I know it’s frustrating, but it’s an important distinction in the rules. Other rules say “Violation: FOUL.” or “Violation: TECH FOUL.” This one does not. It states:
Violation: The contacted opponent ROBOT is awarded TRAVERSAL RUNG HANGAR points at the end of the MATCH regardless of the opponent ROBOT’S eligibility for HANGAR points.
It looks to me like your team was awarded TRAVERSAL RUNG HANGAR points at the end of the match. You just weren’t awarded them twice. Table 6-1 in section 6.4 clearly states that the Hangar points are awarded per robot.
In @EGrall6 defense, the refs at Wisconsin weren’t consistent in waving flags vs not waving flags for this particular violation.
So at this point, rules as written, it requires the driveteam(s) to interpret the play themselves and if they believe they are the benefactors of G208-B they can either climb (for no benefit, or at the very least some assurance) or play other aspects of the game fir the final 30 seconds.
There is nothing really wrong with this, just drive teams need to know the rules and have faith this rule is going to be called correctly. I agree FIRST should have had a signal to communicate a G208, but this is the hand we were delt, so as long as the refs aren’t missing it I am happy.
Does ref training ban or prevent refs from doing anything else with their hands? It seems natural to me here for the ref you at least point to the interaction which would at least give the drive team indication that the ref saw something (they would have to try to deduce what themselves, but that hopefully will be obvious).
The penalty is that you get the climb–that’s it.
On that note: HQ seems to have gone a “restorative” route on some of the penalties like this in recent years. What I mean by that is that if you do something that denies your opponents points, they get the points anyways. In the past there’s been “penalizing” where if the affected team got the points anyways then another team would also get the points, but they’ve backed off of that.
On the question box notes: I can’t say that I disagree… but the rules are specific. ONE student, ONE HR. Not “two students from different teams”. Not “one student and one mentor”. One reason may be that some of the mentors prefer to argue calls rather than listen to the HR’s explanation…and by “argue” I mean “the call needs to go this way, regardless of what you saw or the rules say”. But I suspect that this topic is best in its own thread. (Some HRs may allow a mentor nearby–but the rule is one student.)
There’s one set of signals to give… that doesn’t mean that refs don’t talk with their hands a lot, the radios are tough to use in many cases.
Thank you for the clarification Jon, this helps clarify a lot
I’m aware that the rule says only 1 student and 1 HR, I just think that that part of the rule needs a rework. Sure, if the mentor is there to purely argue and not just sit and listen then remove them, but I see no harm in having them listen to the conversation taking place. I understand why our mentor was removed in accordance with the rules, however, I don’t personally agree with the rule.