<SC1> Update

[mtaylor]

It looks like the GDC has chosen to update SC1, possibly in response to some Q&A entries.

Original SC1 Text

All scoring statuses are evaluated after the Match ends, once all Scored Blocks, Field Elements, and Robots on the Field come to rest.
a. This rule’s intent is for Driver inputs and Robot motion to cease at the end of the Match, when the Match timer reaches 0:00. A pre-programmed routine which causes Robot motion to continue after the end of the Match would violate the spirit of this rule. Any Scoring which takes place after the Match due to Robots continuing to move will not count.

Updated rule

All Scoring statuses are evaluated after the Match ends, once all Scored Blocks, Field Elements, and Robots on the Field come to rest.
a. This rule’s intent is for Driver inputs and Robot motion to cease at the end of the Match, when the Match timer reaches 0:00. A pre-programmed routine which causes Robot motion to continue after the end of the Match would violate the spirit of this rule. Any Scoring which takes place after the Match due to Robots continuing to move will not count.
b. Any Scoring into Goals which happens after the Match, even if Robots have stopped moving, will result in that Goal being considered “empty”. All Blocks in the Goal will receive zero points, and the Goal will not receive any points for a Uniform Bonus. The Goal will not have reached any Fill Level, therefore no Height Bonus will be awarded.
Violation Notes: A Team’s first instance of Scoring a Block after the end of the Match will be considered a Minor Violation. Subsequent Violations will be recorded as Major Violations and Disqualifications.

Is anybody else struggling with the new wording here? It appears they took a mildly murky situation and muddied it all up. a. and b. seem completely incongruous with each other, and b. is in direct conflict with the main body of the rule. Scores are tallied after all objects come to rest, but also objects that happened to be moving at 0:00 could also result in an ascending series of Violations? A literal interpretation of this rule suggests that a block that was falling into the goal at 0:00, which previously would have been perfectly legal, now empties the entire goal and possibly DQs a team. Are we now penalizing teams because gravity exists, and is uncontrollable?

It is also not clear if the goal is emptied for all teams on the field, or if the (presumably innocent) alliance partner would get credit for the blocks in the goal as ruled in Q1697.

Furthermore, no guidance is given with respect to teams making a last-ditch effort to Park or Partially Park their Robots. I would err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to the team, unless it’s very obvious the Driver continued to control the Robot after 0:00. But this interpretation would be in direct conflict with SC1b. and the violation notes.

Help me figure out what the GDC’s intention is with these updates, and how we can call matches in the future in a way that is fair, sustainable, and supportive to children just trying to do the best they can.

If I was King of GDC, this is what I would write:

All Scoring statuses are evaluated after the Match ends, once all Blocks, Field Elements, and Robots on the field come to a natural rest.
a. This rule’s intent is for Driver inputs and Robot motion to cease at the end of the Match, when the Match timer reaches 0:00. A pre-programmed routine which causes Robot motion after the end of the Match would violate the spirit of this rule. Any Scoring which takes place due to Robot motions initiated by Driver input or pre-programmed routines will be removed from the count for the entire alliance, and the offending team may be subject to a Minor or Major Violation and a Disqualification if repeated or egregious.

[willjlong]

I agree - this rule update appears to be problematic. The situation you describe - blocks dumping as the buzzer sounds - happens quite frequently. Robots that dump blocks could easily be motionless, with controllers down, and still have blocks falling by gravity.

We also have had a couple of instances in which green blocks hang at the top of the goal and don’t fall. By my read, if this happens and then, after the buzzer ends the match, the block falls, the “ascending series of Violations” is enforced, even if the robots are motionless.

[EngineerMike]

My take on this is that there are a number of teams that have been pushing things right up to the limit. I saw some of this during the Speedway Signature Event.

What I think they’re ultimately trying to prevent is to having teams try to do this right to the last second and having to make subjective judgement calls on what’s at rest, what’s intentional, what’s accidental/incidental, etc. Also from having to sort out how many blocks had fallen after the timer expires. Too many things that could make lots of matches nightmares. It’s heavy-handed, but it’s the easiest thing to sort out in the end. Teams have to make a judgement call strategically on whether it’s worth it or not to try and risk the zero or even DQ.

[mtaylor]

I don’t disagree with you, but robotics competitions, and all sporting events, have long pushed for that compelling, dramatic ending. The last second goal dump is analogous to a last second half-court shot in basketball. If that shot is reviewed and found to be 0:00.1 after the buzzer, they don’t retroactively take away all the points that the player had scored in the game.

I believe that with the update, which by the way was not noted in the changelog, the GDC used a battleaxe to swat a fly.

This rule as it is now written also invites a little bit of nefarious gamesmanship. Let’s say teams 1234A and 5678A are well-ranked at the event, and are jockeying for that last spot in the Finals. The last qualification match of the day features 1234A and 5678B. As time winds down, 5667B starts emptying into a goal, and does so through the end of the match. This action results in an empty goal, taking 50 points away from 1234A’s score and securing the playoff spot for 5678A.

I believe this rule change particularly makes the HR’s job much tougher. They are now forced to DQ teams essentially because the driver tried too hard.

Not to mention the countless programming skills runs that have already been posted and counted, that were designed on “scoring statuses are evaluated once all (objects) have come to rest” - teams vying for an invitation to Worlds via skills ranking will be at a disadvantage now, compared to teams that have already competed.

[sazrocks]

@mtaylor

I believe that with the update, which by the way was not noted in the changelog

It seems to be there for me.

[sankeydd]

The hub app still isn’t updated. So people at events today that were using the app would still have the old manual. You would have no idea there was even an update unless you follow this forum. The Q&A questions are still not updated.

[FRC973]

I’d like to give an update on this.

I had the unfortunate experience this weekend (as a head referee of a tournament) of having to issue violations of this rule. We told the teams during the drivers meeting about this rule (as most teams were unaware of it). It happened a few times during quals, to be expected. Most of the time teams were careful. However, it is really hard sometimes to tell if it was after the buzzer or not, so I gave teams the benefit of the doubt. However that’s not what this post is about.

We had to issue a violation of this rule during finals 10, the last finals match. The teams would have won under the old interpretation of the rule. The robot had very clearly stopped moving by the time the timer hit zero, and the cubes very clearly continued to fall due to gravity after the match was over. I then had to over to them and inform them that goal officially didn’t count, and was considered empty. Because of this new ruling, they got 68 points, instead of 138 points, putting them in last place. Here’s a video of the match.

VEX: Was this your intent with changing this rule? Or was this just something you saw happening as an unfortunate by-product of a rule meant to make refs jobs a little bit easier? Or did you not see this happening at all?

I fail to see how this makes refs jobs easier, and how this makes anyone happier. Now instead of estimating how many cubes were in the goal by the buzzer (and risking being off by a couple points), refs still have to decide if buzzer-beater dumps were before the buzzer, but now with much higher stakes. Now instead of being off by a couple points, they are going to change that alliance’s score by often upwards of 30 points, which will seriously alter their ranking/placement in finals.

This also makes the endings of matches much less exciting. I loved seeing all the cubes go into the goal the last second. Now teams will get as many as they can in before the buzzer, and then move away from the goal at the last second, dumping all their cubes on the ground next to the goal instead of in the goal so as to not lose those 20 bonus points for level 1 and uniformity.

I thought competitions were about scoring as many points as you can and playing your best, not losing all your points because a referee misinterpreted the timing of a buzzer-beater dump into the goal.

[joebotics]

I agree with the sentiment and concern from @FRC973.

We also had some discussion of this SC1 change in our org, and came to a similar agreement: the SC1 change doesn’t make sense.

The new rules are too unforgiving of accidents, fosters a fearful and conservative endgame, and kills some of the exciting higher point matches with “post-shot clock” scoring. When I think about rules for these games, I feel that one litmus test should be “are we making the game more fun and interesting, or more stressful and unforgiving?”

Put another way, the rules should avoid “gotchas” if possible.

I’d argue that the GDC should extend the “come to rest” concept to scoring.

I’m sure this audience knows well that the “come to rest” concept is the part in SC1 that says that referees should only score the field after all elements have “come to rest”. That is, the laws of physics cause elements to reach equilibrium and motion ceases. But SC1 only uses “come to rest” to determine when scoring should happen. It doesn’t use that to determine what constitutes a legal scored point.

I believe it would be more fun, allow more strategies and be less strict to extend SC1 to say that any element that “comes to rest” will be scored as appropriate. So if you raise a ramp and stop the bot, the blocks may continue to fall, per the laws of physics on Earth. If you swing a long contact zone arm (last season) and it’s flying through the air after the buzzer, but the motors are stopped - we allow the contact zone bonus as it comes to rest in the 4 point zone of the Slapshot game.

Perhaps the concern is that there are scenarios that are confusing to referees? Like if there’s a roller spinning pushing a few extra blocks into a goal after 0:00, is it rotational inertia or a sneaky endgame program running?

Granted, there are some judgement calls the ref might have to make on whether the motor is stopped or whether it’s inertia and a motor set to COAST at work. Perhaps if the controller is down in time, the ref can test or ask a driver to verify that the arm is freely moving (COAST mode). The refs will have to wait for everything to come to rest. But they already have to do so anyway, per SC1.

While such a change will increase the average points totals for matches, I don’t see that as an issue. I don’t see any fairness issues either: all teams can take advantage of “come to rest” rules equally. I also don’t see this as a way to abuse the game or rules. I may have a blindspot here, but I don’t see problems with applying “come to rest” to the points scored. It certainly will lead to fewer match DQs, and far less tears and endgame anxiety. In short, I’d argue it will make the game more enjoyable, at no cost.

Perhaps internally the GDC has voices that argue, “when the timer hits 0:00, no additional scoring should happen - ever.” If you follow this philosophy and take it to its natural conclusion, you get this new rule change, and you also conclude that you must cite teams with violations and DQs - otherwise, there is no consequence. I get this argument - to which I still say, it’s sucking some of the joy out of the game. I’d tweak this philosophy to say, “when the timer hits 0:00, no additional action may be taken by the Robot to affect the score.”

That should do the trick. No? I hope someone can enlighten me on why this latest SC1 rule change is actually a net positive for the game.

[joebotics]

Sorry, let me amend that last suggestion to be “when the timer hits 0:00, no additional powered motion may be performed by the Robot.” This is to distinguish between:

• Scoring by an element of the Robot as a result of the law of inertia (un-powered motor set to COAST) [OK] vs.
• Scoring as a result of the motor continuing to run under electrical power, under a program designed to spin an extra few seconds before stopping [Violation]

A mechanism using a wound up rubber band would also constitute a “powered” action due to the potential energy stored in the wound up band.

If it’s too challenging to referee all the possible ways this could be abused, then at least we should have “when the timer hits 0:00, no additional motion may be performed by the Robot.” This would require that programmers make sure that motors are set to HOLD or BRAKE, so that COAST doesn’t allow inertia to affect the score post clock. But often drivers/designers can’t easily stop everything; the dampened oscillatory motion of a heavy frame as it rocks to a stop, or the gravitational falling of a 1x beam that’s hinged on another beam. A strict ruling would lead to violations and potential DQs for innocuous bot behavior.

[sankeydd]

@FRC973

We had to issue a violation of this rule during finals 10, the last finals match.

The Emcee was a second off of the actual timer. Were the kids able to see the actual time?

At the end of the day, opinions don’t matter. Gravity is what it is. We can’t negotiate with it. I view the GDC’s decision like gravity. It simply is what it is and we have to simply apply the rule. It’s not unfortunate. It gives the kids an opportunity to think about what went wrong and how they need to do better next time. It’s just like everything else that happens in a tournament.

If you give the kids a lot of energy about the rule then they will take that energy and run with it. We simply need to say, “I’m sorry, but the cubes went in after the buzzer and the goal isn’t going to count. I hope it goes better next time.”

Keep it simple.

[Foster]

I have to say that I’ve always been a fan of the “game elements come to rest” across the years. Lots of teams are doing trays that let the blocks slide into the goal. I think it adds to the excitement of the last seconds to see the trays lock into place and the blocks tumble out.

I like @joebotics ideas, but understand @sankeydd point about the rules are the rules.

[mtaylor]

More than any other competition, VIQRC aims to promote referees as guides of the student competitors, not punishers for their mistakes. This is evident in the long-time “benefit of the doubt” passage in the training, as well as the “wait til things come to rest” precedent.
The GDC had the opportunity to foster a more collaborative, inspiring, fun experience, but they chose to double down on penalizing the drivers during the most stressful part of a match.