So we are at Tennessee state when on qualification 129 the red team had a full mobile goal of 5 red and 1 blue that was close but not in the positive corner when the clock was at 30 seconds. One of the red teams had then bumped the wall by the goal causing the goal to move into the positive corner after the 30 second limit. When they were scoring this goal counting as a positive was a match changing score as if it did not count then the blue team would win and if it did the red team would win. They did not count this positive scoring after 30 seconds as a dq but had rather counted the goal as a positive even though it was scores after the 30 seconds as they called it an “accident “ scoring the goal as a positive even though it was pushed into the positive after the 30 seconds. Is there a rule that allows for this because they hit surrounding element causing the goal to go into the positive after 30 seconds and counting it as 30 seconds.
Per Game Manual all decisions of Head Referee are final.
Seeing as this was match affecting, it would not matter if they did it intentionally or not, it is a DQ.
Although I am curious…how did bumping the wall move the goal into the corner?
Which team were you? we were supposed to be there but couldn’t go
I see what you’re trying to do, but this is not and will never be the place for it.
In any competition with referees, there is stiff they will see and stuff they won’t. Especially in a game like V5RC, with the game being different every year, the edge case calls will be different every time and will be hard for the referees to get right every time.
In any competition with referees, it doesn’t matter what happens, it matters what the referees see. You need to not only win, but win in such an overwhelming manner that the referees will have no choice but to give you the win. If you let the match be close, while the referees get it right most of the time, mistakes will be made. Sometimes they just don’t see it, sometimes it’s interpreted differently than it should be when they do see it correctly.
Your head referee does want to get it right. They want to see everything and they want to have the manual memorized.
This is valuable experience for you. I understand your disappointment. But you need to accept it as part of the competition experience and move on.
The head ref clearly has a subjective decision here to determine the intent of the red robot action, and cannot be faulted – there is no objective standard to argue against. Some decisions have to be left to the final say of the Head Ref, and this is one.
The state of the scoring objects after everything has stopped moving is how a match is scored. There is no basis for a ref to pull a goal out of the positive corner no matter how it got there. Match is scored as the objects sit with the potential outcome of a DQ if the goal was placed illegally.
Bold statement. Even if you were there live in the moment, you would be making a subjective assessment based on your understanding of the rules… Just like the Head Ref did.
Suppose red was defending the neutral wall stake on the positive wall and this caused the event in question… would it be obvious to red that the defensive play would lead to the goal placement? Pretty different from red ramming the wall an inch from the goal over and over.
There could be a whole range of legal actions that make a goal go from barely not placed to placed.
My bad if I’m wrong, but seeing as this was match affecting, the flow chart seems to dictate that this is automatically a major violation (seeing as SG11 has no provisions for match-affecting accidental violations)
But I do agree that the head ref probably may have not seen it (hitting a wall and causing a mobile goal to move seems pretty difficult to do, and especially to spot) or did indeed make the right call, just we lack context. It’s a shame the webcast is off, that would’ve provided some nice context to evalue @Dinkbot 's statements.
From the head ref’s perspective, it would be nice for those positive corners to be in the back of the field instead of the front.
The flowchart starts with “Rule is Violated”, which is a determination the Head Ref must make.
You might observe the event and conclude violation, and others might disagree. Both drive teams will naturally conclude things should be ruled in their favor. This is why there has to be a neutral party with rules expertise making the final call. We have to accept that Head Refs are doing their best to observe closely and rule fairly.
This seems like a question for the GDC / Q and A rather than the forums
I agree that this should probably be an official Q&A, but until then I’d look to Q&A 2300 for guidance. This Q&A was about descoring a ring on a (protected) alliance wall stake by hitting the field perimeter.
By applying the same logic, the action described by OP would not be a violation.
But of course, the GDC should have the final and authoritative word.