Team Update 18 Posted

That said, it’s still possible to get a C8 call on an attempted forced G13 or G16.

This change actually may make it LESS likely to get that C8 call for a violation of G13. Think about it this way: There are three bins of cookies in a Kitchen with sugar, oatmeal and chocolate chip cookies. The kids munch on Cookies, and Mom says “All right, I’ve had enough of this. You guys CANNOT eat sugar or oatmeal cookies out of the bins.” What does that say about eating Chocolate Chip?

With regard to G16, though, the blue box under C8 already says that C8 applies to that situation.

Interestingly, I’ve seen a few matches where a defender was pushed into a HAB zone and a foul was called against the defender. I have not seen any match a 3-climb was awarded for it, even thought it happened during the last 30 seconds.

1 Like

Hey its been like 2 years since my old New York Districts thread resurfaced… I think we should leave it that way.

1 Like

Interestingly, FTC’s version of C8 has already been that way for years:

This comes with its own set of problems, but I would still be happy to have this version of the rule imported into FRC.

Getting hit so hard while placing a gear that your robot loses power and rolls into the opposing retrieval zone could be portrayed as a similar situation.

Did this happen? I only watched two events that year, so my knowledge is rather limited.

That’s a weird edge case, though. There isn’t really a right way to call that.

Final 2 on Einstein in Houston. Resulted in 175 foul points. You can see the hit on the video–the camera happened to be zoomed in right at that moment.

Edited: Meh this was excessive…

Seeing as you used the Bag Day rule as an example:

Yes, it’s being overhauled. And it’s taking over 1 year to do the overhaul to make sure it’s done right. So maybe C8 will be overhauled. But it will be overhauled only as necessary, to the extent necessary, and no amount of CDer griping will make it take any less time to figure out what is actually necessary to change (THAT a change is necessary takes very little time to determine, just watch for threads discussing rule interactions that have 500+ posts inside a day).

Also: READ the RULE that you put up! C8 does not apply if you’re trying to do something like score, and there happens to be an opponent there, but if ALL you’re doing is trying to get the points, then it does. If you want to argue that it isn’t black and white enough for you, then I’d like to point out that if it WAS all black-and-white (all pushing of an opponent against your rocket is a foul per C8, as an example) then there’d be a LOT of griping from both sides of the field, and a really thick rulebook that tries to cover everything. Example from the example I gave: Robot gets pushed against the rocket several times because they parked in front of the Cargo Bay openings. Now, do I call C8 on their opponents, per the rule, or do I call C8 on them, because they’re trying to exploit the rule, per C8 itself? Now, make that decision knowing that there will be 3 annoyed, or worse, teams either way.

Give the refs some leash here, and assume they’ve got good enough judgement to make the right call on whether something is or isn’t C8.

That’s the best/weirdest part of all of this is that all week at my job with elementary students they asked about how the Arizona Regional went (it didn’t thanks to one bomb cyclone) and I tell them its okay though cause we got rescheduled to Utah and Colorado is going to be fun and that this is a great program, but then the first thing I did when I got home was type a long winded response criticizing someone who is defending the GDC.
I want to be clear if I didn’t like this program I wouldn’t be a part of it.
The joys of FIRST.

When a ref calls C8 they are stating that a team’s actions do not align with the values of FIRST. I will bring up the example of SFR QF 3-2 where I can’t see at all how either alliance’s actions would come close to being outside the bounds of reasonable defense. I don’t think all refs fully understand the gravity of the call such as this case.

1 Like

this still hasnt addressed the hab zone…

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