Does plate colour really matter this year?

Hey guys.

So, here in the UK we had our first regional competition today. During the elimination rounds, I noticed that the referees were very strict and wouldn’t start the match until our alliance partners had blue plates on instead of red (we were on the blue alliance). But are the plate colours really necessary in this game? It seems kind of pointless since alliances are separated by a fence anyway

As a referee, it much easier to apply all the rules all of the time. Rather than pick and choose which rules to skip or do not matter in a particular game.

As an event partner, we provide all resources to assure teams can play by the rules, including temporary plates.

Details are important, even small ones.

A lot of the rules really aren’t enforced in the UK until nationals anyway. And there are the ridiculous rules that aren’t even enforced at worlds; such as “the red alliance has the right to place its robots on the field last”

It doesn’t matter but it is a rule, and it will be enforced at all higher competitions. It is good to get into the habit of doing it now.

In this game it doesn’t help differentiate teams, but it is a rule that has to be followed, even though, as others have said, it isn’t really enforced at lower-level competitions.

Its true teams don’t really need them, but rules are rules. Besides its not like its difficult to install them. Its like 2 screws.

And this year they shipped the licence plates with VEX IQ pegs.

lol this is hilarious, i was asking the same questions to the refs at a competition yesterday. Of course you have to but they aren’t really necessary.

What do you mean, that that isn’t enforced at Worlds? The rule states that red has the RIGHT to. They don’t have to exercise it. This is an advantage that the higher-seeded alliance gets. I have exercised it tactically at a local tournament before.

Just because you haven’t seen it at Worlds or in general doesn’t mean the rule isn’t still enforced. I believe that if red alliance asked, they would get this right at Worlds. However, it usually doesn’t matter usually, so they don’t.

I don’t think it’s a ridiculous rule, either. In a case where both alliances wanted to see what robots the others placed before placing their own, there needs to be some determiner to keep things moving.

Your right, I exercised it yesterday at our competition.

How, specifically, would one exercise this effectively? I believe I understand, but I want to be sure. Thanks.

Outstanding question.

So basically we were faced with a losing proposition. For the sake of example, we had robots A, B, and C and our opponents had robots A, B, and C. A is the best, C is the worst, B is in-between. However, their A is better than our A, their B is better than our B, their C is better than our C, etc. But our A was better than their B and C, and our B was better than their C. Probably wasn’t that cut and dry, but let’s go with that for the sake of example. The only way we could win would be a fluke, so instead of shooting for two flukes (winning A+B vs. A+B then A+C vs. A+C), we just shot for an easy win, a likely loss, and a potential fluke.

So we were red, and they put out their A+B. We used our right to place our robots last to put in our A+C. That was a sure loss. But the next time, we got to put in our A+B against their A+C and we managed to win. So now it was 1-1 and we only had to fluke out one win. Unfortunately, we lost the A+B vs. A+B pairing, but at least we had a better chance of winning than if we had to win two matches where our opponent was favored. I hope this makes a little bit of sense!

So anyway, graphically:
A+C vs. A+B - sure loss
A+B vs. A+C - sure win
A+B vs. A+B - likely loss, but at least we have a chance

as opposed to:
A+B vs. A+B - likely loss, but at least we have a chance
A+C vs. A+C - likely loss, but at least we have a chance
A+B vs. A+B - probably won’t get here, but also a likely loss

This is pretty much the only outcome changing reason as to why you would exercise this right.

I’m in full agreement with you here, but at the same time I can’t help but feel like you are reducing the validity of this rule’s existence. It’s not a major rule, certainly, but it is necessary and yes, it can have an impact. Then again, I’m interpreting your tone, which is not exactly a reliable determiner of meaning over the internet. :slight_smile:

Was’t trying to; I’m sorry. You’re not the first person in my life to misunderstand my points.

No big deal. I just overanalyzed a single sentence, lol.

What if you know the Autonomous routines of the robots on the other alliance, and it matters which team starts from which square? I’ve seen this rule used to manage Autonomous starting locations more often than for the elimination rounds pairing example above.

Or the ability to switch your auton routine and then place on the field. More applicable in the elimination matches than qualification but can apply there too. Not only which robot but which auton routine designed to not interfere with your partner’s path or your opponent’s path. (go for fence first or as a second step for example, or you go for the back row stars and your partner goes for the cube and fence)

At an event all you need to do is ask the ref, they will make it happen. Lots of places don’t worry about it since we are trying to get matches to go off on time and get out by midnight. But I’ve never turned down a request by a red team to place after blue is set.