Red Card? Oklahoma Q32

Can someoney explain the Red Card here? Not sure we understand what is acceptable contact and what is not. We had had much more heavy contact between robots in our matches in St. Louis with no fouls. This looks like normal game to play to us. (I am guessing the contact 17 1:42?)

3 Likes

The only thing it could possibly be is G205, but it was clearly not inside the frame perimeter. Perhaps the referee thought the contact was intentionally damaging, which is also bogus.

“Agressive contact” is not a penalty, unless it is deliberately damaging.

Edit: I guess it’s possible that slamming them against the grid might be slightly more likely to be considered deliberate since blue had the opportunity to stop, but they’re also clearly trying to go around, and if the bar for deliberate is that low then that should be made clearer.

1 Like

Unfortunately, the way I’ve seen this called, hard hits, even bumper to bumper. that result in a disabled robot can easily draw a red card :frowning:

Okay…So what I’m seeing is at the 1:42 mark. When team 6424 on the blue alliance hit team 9007 on the red alliance, initiated contact and forced team 9007 into their community. It is then a foul on team 6424 because they are the ones who made contact and forced team 9007 into the blue alliance community. It was out of 9007’s control.

1 Like

So how are we are supposed to know which robots can withstand heavier contact without the risk of red card? We spent considerable time this year hot gluing electrical connections, coming up with a plan to make sure all terminals are tight, purposerfully running into a wall at high speed, etc. to reduce the risk of becoming disabled from hard contact. With the defensive intensity picking up every week as a result of thie game mechanics, it looks to be more risky to play defense if bumper/bumper contact + robot becoming disabled equals red card.

I completely agree that with the information I have about this situation this call is complete nonsense and not at all based in the rules.

I think the only thing you can do is ask in the driver’s meeting and make sure it is very clear and adapt.

5 Likes

I think the referees at the events we’ve each attended have been really awesome. I haven’t seen any cards handed out that I didn’t think were warranted based on gameplay.

From the little bit of information I have about this incident in OK Q32, it seems like a blown call. In general I think Referees should be very selective about handing out Red Cards. Assuming there’s nothing else going on and the card was handed out for the hit… it’s just a terrible call and completely unnecessary.

3 Likes

Foul != Red Card.

On top of which, no flags waved at that point.

1 Like

Could you have a student go up to the question box to ask the head ref? That way, at least you can get their line of thinking, even if it’s unreasonable.

EDIT: Lol I have no critical thinking skills, OK regional was last week.

1 Like

It was last week.

Was a little surprising, but not every call will be correct and it is easier with video to watch. My guess is that hitting them twice in a short time period and not tip-toeing around them that second time made it seem more flagrant than it was. I don’t think the first contact was one that could be maneuvered better with last second turn and tight quarters. It seems the call wouldn’t have been made if they left the opposite way or drove more around 9007 leaving, at least the first cycle, which seems to be more in line with fouls on downed robots. Anyhow, I don’t think either time was flagrant enough to deserve a card after watching the video.

Red Cards have been given out like candy this week…not totally sure if or what is going on.

Arguably, “unstable” bots seem to be an issue. Either they are HCoG or RCoG or whatever…Teams can’t expect to have a stable bot if they are driving like someone possessed. That said, there are some bots that even at slow speeds…don’t handle well…and just want to take a nap on the carpet.

Simple physics…small base plus quick movements plus top heavy superstructure PLUS a well timed tap or bump equals nap time for bots.

For once…I would like to see a video replay…for red card moments…not something that is 5 points…just for something that affects a team and their standings like a red card. We are only human…we make mistakes. I get it.

A team friend of our team, 6800, got a red card today…about an hour after the end…the card was recalled and points corrected. There are huge implications with that card…especially in the Alliance matches. That could end the day for a team…and they can’t correct that an hour after the awards are handed out. It only takes a moment to see. It can be confirmed with all the judges or refs.

1 Like

Refs only, in this case. And all I’ll say on replay is: It’s an HQ decision, all the way to the top. Make sure to contact them directly if you want something like that for future seasons.

1 Like

Personally, I think a lot of teams are going to ask for it…Especially for state and world competitions. It is too subjective and final…especially at those levels. IF HQ is going to allow bots to be in this configuration…they need to do something. The game is full contact…not battlebots full contact…just full contact. We are gonna bump and bang each other. AND we feel bad for the other team that we accidentally put them out of the match…or even worse…the rest of the game. Every team follows the rules as published…some stretch the rules…mostly follow.

I tell my driver to stay clear of tipsy bots. I don’t want to deal with them. To me they aren’t worth the foul points or cards. I know that sometimes we don’t get what we want on that…however…we try our best!

I agree that there will be missed calls but this seems like a complete disconnect between the rules the ref is using and what I have read.

Is bumper to bumper contact (at any speed) with a strategic reason eligible for a red card?

1 Like

My team was at this event and we talked to 6424 about it after the match. The referees called the red card for 6424 “aggressively contacting” 9007 and resulting in them dying in the community. We personally felt this was not the best call on the referees’ part. The contact was not that aggressive and the dying seem more based on 9007’s design and not based on aggressive play on 6424’s part. I think the fact that 9007 died in the community also attributed to it but that mostly seems like bad luck and definitely wasn’t intentional on 6424’s part. I’m pretty sure 6424 contested the red card in the question box but to no avail.

Yes, it can be argued that this was a violation of G201 *"G201 Don’t expect to gain by doing others harm. Strategies clearly aimed at forcing the opponent
ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FIRST Robotics Competition and not allowed. "

However, the blue box examples suggest maybe it should not be "This rule does not apply for strategies consistent with standard gameplay, for example: … c. a blue ROBOT attempts to enter their COMMUNITY to score a GAME PIECE and pushes a red ROBOT just outside the blue COMMUNITY into the blue COMMUNITY. "

In any event, the first penalty for G201 is a FOUL, not a RED CARD.

The rule which can result in a RED CARD is G205 “*This isn’t combat robotics. A ROBOT may not damage or functionally impair an opponent ROBOT in either of the following ways: A. deliberately, as perceived by a REFEREE.”

I, (and it appears most people in this thread), can see no evidence of a deliberate attempt to damage – the robot was engaged in normal gameplay (attempting to enter its community to score a game piece).

And, as the blue box below G205 says “FIRST Robotics Competition can be a full-contact competition and may include rigorous game play. … teams should design their ROBOTS to be robust.” To me, it looks very much like 9007 did not.

5 Likes

You just hit on one of the things that bothers me quite a bit with the “modern” game manuals. The rule you’re citing used to explicitly point to a yellow card for egregious or repeated. A few years back, most of those egregious/repeated references were abstracted away to the catch all H201 rule instead. (I’m not trying to say the actions here were either egregious or not. Just pointing out the rules don’t read as clearly as they should)

For your next argument, you’d need to ensure both A and B weren’t met. I think everyone would agree with A. Is there a case for B?

This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.