Hi everyone – I just wanted to hopefully have a conversation about a red card ruling we were on the wrong side of in the Newton division, Match 123.
My team (4276) was sitting in our own courtyard to play defense next to the batter when an opposing robot (Team 1296) drove over an outer works and eventually into our bot.
Unfortunately, as they drove into us their bumper caught above ours and caused their own robot to tip sideways. We backed away immediately, and about 10 seconds later Team 1296 was tipped back upright and continued the match as usual.
After the match we were issued a red card (deducting 4 ranking points from our team).
Team 1296 immediately came to our defense, explaining to the ref that they didn’t feel it was intentional, that we were not at fault for the tipping.
When my students approached the question box and spoke to the head ref, the ref explained that what we did was a yellow card and a foul, and the combination of these two penalties automatically results in a red card. Besides a mutual agreement between teams that the tipping was not intentional and did not affect the game, I didn’t think the ref’s explanation about this was accurate (we were never issued a yellow card for any other reason at Champs).
I don’t think anything can be done at this point, but I am just not sure we were being treated fairly by the refs in this case. Is there any process in place to discuss these things at the competition when an obviously very busy head ref simply doesn’t have the time to hear us out and let us explain the situation?
I see that you’ve been an FLL ref, but unless you have been an FRC ref, I would suggest not claiming what is or isn’t done.
OP – From your description of the events, I think you are right in that the call shouldn’t have been a red card (also I have no idea how YC + Foul = RC, that’s new to me ) As far as putting processes in place to help refs and head refs to make the right calls accurately in a split second, well that’s a dead horse that’s been beaten over and over. The other aspect of it, changing a bad call after the fact, I’ve seen calls changed plenty of times before, but most often it has to do with what the refs see/say more so than the teams view/opinion. It’s not a perfect system by any means
I’m not sure how being an FRC ref is at all relevant to the point he made. Maybe he has a small sample size, but you don’t need to be a ref to see if head referees tend to revert a lot of calls based on team’s in the question box.
EDIT: just to clarify: I think that 99% is an overexaggheration. It really depends on the ref: I have seen refs never budge, and I have seen the semifinals at NECHAMPS this year where the head ref spent about an hour talking to teams and considering what to do when a scoring error occured. But that is beside my point.
This is similar to the match in which we, 3937, were flipped by Code Orange. Their intake was out and went right under us from the side and we flipped. We went to the question box and told them that we didn’t think it was intentional, therefore, they shouldn’t have been issued a red card. It was just a strange happenings of events, and we knew they didn’t have any intent. I think the flipping rule is just hard to judge in general. Our refs already have a lot on their plate and judging intent is hard enough by itself. Shoutout to all FRC refs, you have a tough job!
A foul + yellow card is the standard penalty for strategies aimed at tipping.
A red card should only be pulled if incapacitation results.
Might be a good idea to try to locate the Chief Referee and ask him to clarify the rules on that point. (And, if he happens to clarify differently than the on-field head ref, asking him to clarify to that head ref may be an option.)
I just want to highlight this. 1296 is a great team and their drivers are a class act. It might not have helped in this situation as far as the ref’s ruling but I know having the opposing team on your side during a ruling like that can help to elevate the spirits on your own team.
I saw that match and it was confusing as to what exactly the refs were giving the red card for. They announced it was for flipping 1296 and I don’t think they were ever out of play for more than a second or two and it definitely was not intentional.
Watching a decent amount of matches yesterday and I saw three red cards for flipping and one flip where there was not (IIRC). It seemed that if a robot got flipped primarily due to contact with an opponent, a red card came out. I think they were being overly strict on the interpretation.
As a mentor on the sidelines, my first reaction to this action on the field was, “Oh crap, they’re going to card us.” This was most likely because 16 got a red card 3 matches earlier for a pretty hard flip of 48.
Newton Q120: https://youtu.be/y56cRWjvW-c?t=56s
You can see 48 playing a hard pin on 16 and the ref does nothing. 16 responds by bulldozing 48 into the courtyard. Red card.
Newton Q123: https://youtu.be/G1H6jq2Q10A?t=1m39s
We receive a foul for contacting a robot on the outerworks. We then hit 1296 while they’re shooting. This goes against what Eric though, and what I thought I saw at the time (I thought we were both moving). However, it was a pretty quick hit.
I feel these two incidents are VERY different, but the head ref felt otherwise.
Being a ref is hard enough. As a first year ref, and considering becoming a regular Referee (at least, until I can break onto the Game Announcer / MC field), it’s posts like that, that make me a little terrified of the job.
The problem isn’t the definition of incapacitate, it’s the definition of intentional. This year it seems like any sort of defense that resulted in a tipped robot was cause for a red card, even when it seemed like that defensive bot was playing normally and the offensive bot was not very stable.
Similar issue occurred in Hopper Q3M1 where the Holy Cows were tipped over by the defending robot, later self-righting, but losing probably 15-20 seconds of play.
Both times I think the refs made the right call in not carding the alliance that tipped the robot - both robots are tipsy with their manipulating arms raised, and neither time did the defending robot over-do it with the pushing (it looked unintentional).
having watched the match about which this thread is, this was a very similar circumstance - 1296 is somewhat tipsy with its arm up, and the defender came in from the side to try and disrupt the shot. the fact that the opponent was knocked over so easily was a fault in their design, not the actions of their opponents
bro, chill. no one is perfect, and those referees volunteer a helluvalot of time towards their jobs so that they can do their best. they deserve respect and understanding before derision.
Very true. I am curious why that was. Is it just a result of the best refs being on the field? Is it a coincidence that this one instance was considered to not be the defender’s fault? Is it actually because 330 got back up? Is it because the referees wanted to let the win happen naturally because it was more exciting that way?
I was getting at the disparity between the Newton match ruling and the Einstein semifinal match ruling. The rule says that the strategy of tipping gets only a yellow card and a foul, harm or incapacitation has to occur to warrant a red card. Thus bringing up the point, when is a robot considered incapacitated?