Actually, SG3 is a DQ even if it is not match effecting.
They also gave the auton as a tie based on giving the red alliance the 40 points for balancing a mogo in the auton and that should not have happened. The rule was already clear and then made more clear in the official Q&A a month or so ago.
Refs are not perfect but these are issues that especially should not happen in the finals of a signature event.
(edited to correct my error)
That is a great idea. Someone has to go first and there will always be early season events before refs are completely up to speed on some of the rules. This especially should not be the case, though, for signature events.
It is good that the RECF is looking at this as a learning experience and will take action to reduce this sort of thing from happening again. There is no question the refs got some things wrong. It was not the first time and it will not be the last. Hopefully, this will also be a learning experience not only for the refs but also for the students involved.
In life, not everything is fair. Sometimes we are the benefactors of things that are not fair and sometimes we get the negative results. This should be motivation for all of us to try to be fair in our dealings with others.
Can you explain what SG3 violation you are seeing? I did not see a DQ-worthy violation, especially in the context of G14.
Actually, the rule on scoring in auton was pretty clear and the official Q&A had already been answered for those who had trouble understanding the rules as written. The refs evidently decided to not go along with the rules as written and the official Q&A which made it very clear and unambiguous:
"Does this mean that there are NO elevation points awarded at the end of the 15 second Autonomous period?
This is correct."
Not sure how it could be more clear.
I belive xenon is referring to the mogos not the platform
I stand corrected. I first watched the match on my phone and my old eyes deceived me. After re-watching on a regular screen, I did not see an SG3 violation in the finals.
What I said about the rule still stands. It is an automatic DQ even if it is not match effecting. Additionally, the it is quite clear that there are no points for balancing at the end of auton.
My apologies for my error concerning the SG3 violation in the finals. I concede I got that wrong. Thanks for asking as it caused me to take a closer look.
I edited my comment to correct my error. Thanks again for the question as it caused me to look at the match on a bigger screen. Failing eyesight is a reality of getting old. lol
Actually, it’s not clear in the slightest. Yes, the Q&A was explicitly worded and clear, but a Q&A is evidently not enough to guarantee enforcement at an event. It would have been much clearer if it were written in the manual.
However this isn’t the scoring problem that I fault the rules with. I think it’s mostly the fault of the event for not reading the Q&A on this one.
It’s the rules around scoring rings on neutral goals, and scoring goals in alliance home zones that is very confusing. It took all of us on the forums over a month to realize the full extend of the implications that come from “at the end of the match”, I hardly expect a few people running the event who aren’t on the forums to be able to figure that out on their own.
This is not fully true. There are (many) instances where an SG3 violation does not lead to a DQ, usually involving where a robot bumps into the platform but does not meaningfully interfere with it. In these circumstances, the opposing alliance is awarded credit for balancing of one additional robot.
While Chris was incorrect in mentioning whether the infraction was match affecting (the only qualification for a DQ is whether a robot has “interfered with gameplay”, usually meaning preventing of a balance), that does not change the fact that the incident he was talking about (which occurred in match 3) did not warrant a DQ of either robot.
Q&A are considered an official part of the manual, so it is a defined part of the game.
Actually, they got the scoring wrong in the 2nd finals match as well. They gave red the balancing points in auton and there are not supposed to be any. That was even clarified in the official Q&A. It was one of the first ones answered this season.
Match 2 was 90-80 red because they had Auton as a tie. If they had properly given the auton to blue, it would have been 80-90 Blue. In other words, it would seem that Blue should have swept the finals.
I have no dog in the fight. I just hope this becomes a lesson learned about signature events this early in the season.
I don’t contest this, I’m just pointing out that a Q&A wasn’t enough to make the correct interpretation of the rules known to this event. I’m not saying ther Q&A is unclear or worthless, just that it’s always better to fix major, ambiguous things in the manual when possible.
yes, they did score auton wrong. However, if I did the math right the auton would have been a tie either way, because if scored correctly the lack of the 40 points from the elevated platform would have been canceled out by the lack of the 40 points from the two neutral goals on blue’s side. (as the rules are written, goals in home zone’s shouldn’t count towards the auton bonus, although this is very unclear because there’s not even an answered q&a on the issue. )
SG3: Platforms are “safe” during the endgame. During the last thirty (30) seconds, Robots may not contact the opposing Alliance’s Platform.
a. For the purposes of this rule, contact is considered “transitive” through other Robots and Scoring Objects. For example, contacting an opposing Robot who is contacting their own Platform would be considered a violation of this rule.
b. For the purposes of this rule, G13 supersedes rule G14. Any Robot which is contacting its own Platform during the last thirty (30) seconds, provided that no other rules are being violated, will automatically receive the “benefit of the doubt”. Therefore, any contact with this Robot will be considered a violation, regardless of intent.
c. Per SG10, using a Scoring Object to contact the opposing Alliance’s Platform during the last thirty (30) seconds would be considered a violation of this rule.
Violations of this rule which do not interfere with gameplay, such as bumping into the Platform and then driving away, will result in the opposing Alliance receiving credit for one additional Elevated Robot at the end of the Match. (Alliances may still only receive points for a maximum of two Elevated Robots).
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
Yeah there’s a lot of instances where SG3 will absolutely not be a DQ. Only way you’re really getting DQed is if you unbalance the platform yourself or block it from becoming balanced with an alliance mogo.
Please note that the criterion for a DQ is ‘interfere with gameplay’. Based on this, if the contact with the platform prevented the opposing alliance from doing something, you can also argue that it interfered with gameplay. The reference to preventing a platform from becoming balanced is ONE example, it is not the only type of interaction that can result in a DQ (as indicated by the words ‘such as’).
Also note that their example of a non-interfering violation was bumping into the platform, then DRIVING AWAY. This is describing a brief, incidental contact only.
A couple of other types of interaction I can see that could also result in a DQ:
Obviously, some clarification on this from GDC would be helpful, but I would not assume that their example is the only way to DQ yourself by bumping the platform.
Excellent analysis! Game Manual will not go through every scenario, they will give examples when needed. Those examples are not the only one. For example, I place a mobile goal on its side under the platform preventing it from fully rocking downwards to that side. That is an example of interfering with gameplay as it is expect in the game that robots might want to climb the platform from either side.
I had posted a Q&A to explore how far the 30 second protection extended during the match by looking at the example of a team placing an object under the opposing alliance platform ahead of the 30 seconds and leaving it there. The GDC confirmed teams are responsible for any objects they cause to go under the platform throughout the match. More work for Referees, and why I think it will be important to have referees assisting the head referee by being eyes on the hot spots of the field - corners (hoarding) and platforms (interfering with game play).
Fair. Clarification would definitely be useful, and I do think that said clarification will hopefully come with the ref training. However, it feels like the whole intention of changing SG3 was to avoid an absolute ton of DQs, and as a result feels like most instances of just bumping would lead towards the extra robot balance.
That first scenario I could see going either way depending on how we got into that situation, but the last 2 would definitely be DQs because of part a of the rule, and leas because of the robot actually touching the physical platform.
Consider the following:
There’s been a lot of talk about how Benton didn’t follow the Q&A about being elevated during autonomous but what if they did? I can see a potential misunderstanding by either the person asking the question or the GDC in that specific question. The question asks about being awarded the elevated points at the end of the autonomous which of course wouldn’t happen because it’s not the end of the match. However, this is where the misunderstanding could come in. Someone could read and interpret the question like this: If I become elevated during the autonomous portion of the match do I receive elevated points at the end of the match? The answer there would be no because no game has ever played that way. However it’s possible it was interpreted that way by someone involved with that Q&A which would make that Q&A not apply to what everyone thinks it applies to.
Autonomous scoring:
Compare the verbiage used in Tipping Point to previous games for scoring such as Tower Takeover autonomous. Scoring in TT also included the caveat of “at the end of a match” in the scoring section of the manual for cubes. If we interpreted that the same way we interpreted Tipping Point then no one could’ve ever won the autonomous period because nothing is scored until the end of the match so every autonomous would’ve been a tie. "Alliances receive points for each Cube that is Scored in their Goal Zones at the end of a Match. "
In the zone was great because it clearly stated what was needed to win the autonomous bonus. “A bonus is awarded to the Alliance that has the most Cone and Goal points at the end of the
Autonomous Period.”
I’m know there is clear clarification, referee videos, and training coming and I’m sure there were lessons learned by every party involved with the signature event. Just wanted to send out a reminder that sometimes your own interpretation of meaning in the rules might not be the correct and there may be even more ways to look at it. Just as this post here might be an incorrect interpretation as well.
this is an interesting point you bring up. TT did in fact have “at the end of the match” as part of the scoring definitions for both cubes in the goal areas and cubes in towers. Yet, there was obviously no question that they also counted during auton, because like you say, it would have been impossible to win auton otherwise.
I do think that a lot of the rule ambiguity comes from the GDC putting “at the end of the match” in their definitions without really thinking about the implications that has. They’ve done so for previous games, and nobody even considered that this simple phrase could break scoring after auton, and so there wasn’t any issue. But this year we’ve noticed what this phrase could mean for auton scoring, and so thus begins the confusion. Are “at the end of the match” phrases intentionally put there by the gdc to only count at the end of the match, or were they just written like that because they’ve written scoring rules like that in the past and just didn’t think about what that actually means.
It’s impossible to know currently, because there are hints that could be taken in favor of either scenario.
@9MotorGang points out here that in the game video, it does show alliance goals being counted for points at the end of auton, despite there being an “at the end of the match” condition for these points.
But on the other hand, they answered that no, elevated robots and goals do not count for points at the end of auton in that Q&A.
So it’s really unclear what they intend to count or not at the end of auton.
But, as the manual currently stands, anything that relies on being “at the end of the match” to count as scored cannot legally be scored at the end of auton. It’s entirely possible that the technical rules of the manual don’t line up with the intent of the gdc, and since we have no clue what they intended, we have to take the literal definitions in the manual for now.
G22 says they do not apply
Changing the stock phrase “at the end of the match” to “at the end of the scoring period” could clearly resolve many of these potential interpretations, especially given that the AI game uses different terms for the 2 phases of the game. Might also need language to define that all points scored during the first period are only used to determine that period’s AWP and bonus points and do not carry forward to the second period (though that could make for some interesting gameplay and provide a strong incentive for autonomous routines!)