I was in a compition and the other team pushed a mobile goal under our platform. We didn’t get the extra points for balanceing because of it. They did it before the final 30 seconds. I was wondering if that was legal or not. The judges sed it was legal but I read on the rules and official q&a that it was not legal. Was just wondering if anyone had an answer to this.
If it was match effecting, it would be illegal. If it was a accident and it was in the last 30 seconds, that would mean they get a dq
If you didn’t get the balance points that would be a offence and the other team would get the dq (you shouldve won)
If does not need to be match effecting to be an automatic DQ according to SG3:
Violations of this rule which do interfere with gameplay, such as preventing a Platform from becoming Balanced, will result in a Disqualification, regardless of whether the interference was Match Affecting or not.
and my Q&A <SG3> section c clarification - use of game objects to prevent platform from becoming balanced. : Robot Events
shows any game object placed by the opposing alliance prior to the last 30 seconds is still their responsibility to remove or be disqualified. The Q&A has an edit, which the Head Referee can deem that the object does not interfere will game play:
“However, the penalty for the violation would would be dependent on the context of the Match, i.e. whether it was ruled by the Head Referee that the Mobile Goal interfered with gameplay or not.”
This would probably refer to rings which might not interfere with game play, such as balancing the platform.
A mobile goal shoved under the platform preventing it from operating, should meet the definition of interfering with game play, more so if you were actively trying to climb the platform to balance it.
11 Likes
Full agreement with @lacsap. If the goal touching the platform interferes with gameplay (and preventing the objects on the platform from being balanced definitely counts) and was placed there by an opposing robot then a DQ is in order, no matter if it changed the outcome of the match or not. This is how we have been ruling this kind of interaction in AZ this season.
I might write a post on this later, but I will note that it is extremely difficult to referee this kind of interaction properly. There are 4 robots and 7 goals on the field, so maintaining a constant mental history of which robot placed which goal where is very difficult to do accurately, while also enforcing all of the other rules in the game. I have found it necessary to have a second referee fully focused on enforcing rules and not scoring, etc. in order to properly enforce SG3 this year. If there is only one referee at a field it is very easy to miss this kind of interaction, and, since no video review is allowed, a a DQ cannot be issued since the interaction was not directly observed.
5 Likes
Yup that is the problem - having two extra sets of eyes, one focused on objects around for each platform area helps answer the question “how did that get there?” and if possible “who put it there?”
No miracles expected - it is a fast game with lots going on.
In the original post, I took it that the Head Referee acknowledged it was placed there by opposing alliance, but passed on issuing DQ - that very well may be because they did not see which team specifically caused the infraction. Who knows.
9 Likes
Agreed.
It is a very frustrating circumstance for everyone involved, because one alliance might by the rules be entitled to a DQ, which, especially with Bo1 could substantially change the outcome of their tournament, while the referee feels overloaded and bad that they may have inadvertently ended an alliance’s tournament because of a split second interaction that they missed. I sincerely hope the GDC understands the increased workload they have placed on referees this year and keep this fact in mind when writing next year’s rules.
One thing I will say to teams though that can seriously help this way significantly more than past years: PLEASE make sure I can only see one color of license plate on your robot. I’m usually not super strict about R26a in the early season but after my experience at the last tournament I refereed I absolutely am going to be very strict about it going forward. Being able to instantly tell the alliance color of a team makes it drastically easier to referee SG3 this year.
9 Likes
I did I showed then the SG3 rules and they kept saying that since it was before the 30 last seconds It was legal
Our team had the same interpretation of that rule as the refs in your case, and negligently wasn’t reading most of the Q&As. We got dq’d for that today.
Sorry to hear that. EPs and Head Referees should have the latest Game Manual and Q&A answers on hand. It does not hurt for teams to bring a copy along as well. At our November event, I worked with a team to correct an incorrectly installed GPS strips - we reviewed the installation manual and relevant Q&A which enabled the strips to be properly installed.
Events don’t always go the way you want, but I do know good communications with event staff usually yields outcomes that make the event run better. Problem solving is an important skillset to have and one that VRC definitely enables all to learn.
1 Like
I’m a teammate of the OP and can confirm that both SG3 and a related Q&A were shown to multiple higher-ups at the event. In the end, they still refused to accept this interpretation and kept allowing this to happen. It ended up ending the competition for us and our sister team’s alliance in the quarterfinals and it lost our sister team at least 2 qualification matches.
I don’t really blame the refs as this rule isn’t made very clear in the first place but they should still hear us out.
3 Likes
The rule was clarified in the original Q&A I linked, then in the Game Manual update, and then the original Q&A was updated with consistent clear guidance. If the referee knows which team placed a game object under the platform that is still present in last 30 seconds that interferes with game play, it is an automatic DQ. The referee may have determined that it did not interfere with game play if they did not see any attempt to by alliance to balance platform. This rationale may be related to past rulings that trapping requires the team that is trapped to actively attempt to move, hence why it is a bad idea in that situation not to try to push way out of a trapping situation. In the case of SG3, there is no clause that requires that the team attempt to climb platform if a mobile goal is wedged under platform preventing it to balance (intentionally or not). My line of thinking may be flawed, and that may merit another Q&A by you and your team to seek clarification on these points of “interfering with game play” and does it require team to attempt to drive up platform to demonstrate that game play is being interfered with. This would benefit teams at future events in a similar situation.
At this point just email your RECF Team Engagement Manager, RECF Event Engagement Manager, and EP to see how in the future how this can be better handled.
Do note there are only two event “higher ups” at events - the Head Referee and Event Partner. The Head Referee typically is certified for the current season’s game. The certification just came out a few days ago. EPs, Referees, and pretty much everyone who volunteers at events try hard to make the day run smoothly for all. Overwhelmingly, this is the case all around. SG3 seems to be quite a challenge this season.
Sorry it was a rough day.
8 Likes
Yes, I’ve been very strict about this as well. Still have problems when the plate gets ripped off during the match…
4 Likes
maybe have blue and red masking tape on hand - add strips to structure, or get the extra mile and prove red or blue self-powered LED strips to put on bots 
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.