During a regional match we had another robot go inside our frame and break the board that all our electronics was attached to. This also blocked our intake and shooter for the rest of the match. The other team received no penalty points or card, but after the match the referee came over to apologize for missing the hit. He emphasized that they could not make a call due to replays not being allowed. The match was a blow-out and our robot working or theirs being disabled would not have changed the outcome.
We were working on our team culture this year and emphasizing gracious professionalism. So although the students were upset, our mentors and parents put the focus on immediate repairs and on needing to design better next year. We had 13 matches and a lunch break before our next match, so we somehow made repairs, screwing in the replacement as we were in the queue.
The offending team did check on our robot from a distance in the pits. They lingered a bit too long, someone must have said something funny (I doubt it was about us), and, of course, our students’ immediate thought was they were laughing at the damage to our robot. They had sense enough to quickly leave.
Here is where I realized the problem with not assessing a card post match. I wanted to go over and talk to the other team and give them an actual update, but couldn’t without seeming accusatory. The damage to our robot was probably going to happen at some point from some hit or another, if only over time.
They also could not approach us and apologize, which it seemed like they really wanted to do. They could not offer assistance or advice, both of which we could have really used from the more experienced team. The teams spent the rest of the regional avoiding each other.
When a rule is interfering with gracious professionalism, I think it needs to be evaluated. Damage to a robot can be event or event season ending. When it happens “unpunished” by another team, that’s asking a lot from our teenagers.
My thought is that a review can only be initiated if there is physical evidence after the match (parts on the field or if there was clearly damage to a robot due to lack of movement or visibly damaged parts). A single drive team member from the damaged robot may bring this to the attention of the head referee immediately after the match who will make the determination to review or not after inspecting the damage. A team may only ask for a review once per regional/district. The head referee may initiate and ask a team if they would like to use their review or not.
Only the event that caused the damage is under review, from initial contact(s) to release. The referee will determine the proper penalty and offending team(s) if any. It is possible that the requesting team incurs a card and/or penalty.
Outcomes:
- The offender and time of the damage must be clear, if it is not clear when the damage occurs, no action can be taken. (Ex: A robot is hit multiple times during a match. Later, it stops in the middle of the arena without contact.)
- There is clear evidence of an alliance robot damaging the opposing robot in a way that breaks one or more rules. Penalties are assessed for those infractions.
- There is clear evidence of multiple fouls causing the damage to the opposing robot which incurs penalties against more than one team in the alliance. (Ex: Blue #1 pins Red #1 against a wall for an extended period. Blue #2 then rams Red #1 with an extended part, causing damage inside the frame.)
- There is clear evidence that the damaged robot broke a rule as well as the offending robot. Both alliances are assessed proper penalties. (Ex: Red #1 pins Blue #1 to the wall for over 5 seconds of time. While still pinned after the 5 seconds, Blue #1 extends a part which damages Red #1 inside its frame.)
I think keeping the replay limited in this way prevents it from being misused, and unnecessarily delaying matches, while encouraging fair play.