so basically if a ring goes underneath a platform during the last 30 seconds its a dq? How does this work?
Not quite. As pointed out earlier in this thread, a ring going underneath the opposing platform, at any point in the match, and not immediately removed is at best a warning, probably a DQ.
but why would this be a violation its not match affecting?
Because SG3 says so?
I recommend you read SG3 if you havenât already, I believe it makes this quite clear.
I could see why the gdc thinks that this a good dq and I can also see why its harmful to the game. In my opinion I think the intention was that the ring could have potentially in some way cause another team to win because they had said ring on a mogo. The thing is this scenario almost never happens and rings are easy to throw everywhere making it easy to get dqd. They want the game to be a battle not a capture the flag then proceed guard the flag and make it impossible for opposing teams to take your rings and goals. Rings arent big enough to cause a shift in tower balance, but goals are. The thing is you cant get the rings that are under the towers because bots werenât made to go under there . I think they were trying to predict for every possible situation the rules can be finalized, but since rings have no affect on tower balance then it angered a lot of people and sort of backfired.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Also what happens if you are pushing a mobile goal, is that illegal?
look at the definition of possession
I think that in order to enforce this rule they need to take appropriate action and potentially add more than just one ref. It will be nearly impossible for one head ref to see where every game piece is at, at nay time.
As someone being part of a new kid VEX V5 team, Iâm finding all these rule changes (that hugely affect gameplay) increasingly confusing to explain, and it makes me feel bad telling teams that if they so much as accidentally bump a ring under the other platform, theyâre going to get DQed.
This also raises the point though of a potentially lockdown strategy. If no changes are made to this interpretation of the rule, then I feel it is safe to say that teams at the higher level of play will exploit this rule (with match loadsâŚ), making the other alliance aviod the far section of the field altogether and your platform safe for virtually the whole match. If the opposing alliance is virtually not allowed to get to the last part of the field for fear of putting a ring under the platform, then if you can manage the majority of the goals on your side of the field (like the match a while ago where the blue robots sat there for a minute holding 4 goals), the other alliance wonât come over to try and get them. Sure, this opens up the possibility of a high goal robot, but that has all the flaws pointed out in the thread about whether or not the tall goal is worth it. I wonder if someone can devise a strategy to get rings out from under it?
A life lesson here - sometimes there are rules that are just rules. No need to explain these further than, the GDC made this the rule and we have to play by it.
Thereâs the hope that being vocal here and on the Q&A will give the GDC a reason to reverse course, which is another good life lesson. Very real possibility that they wonât change it though. Also a good life lesson.
| elimination_round | instance | possible_dq | matchnum | percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2_R16 | 1 | 1 | 58 | 1.72 |
| 2_R16 | 2 | 5 | 148 | 3.37 |
| 2_R16 | 3 | 4 | 83 | 4.81 |
| 2_R16 | 4 | 3 | 104 | 2.88 |
| 2_R16 | 5 | 4 | 68 | 5.88 |
| 2_R16 | 6 | 9 | 137 | 6.57 |
| 2_R16 | 7 | 4 | 75 | 5.33 |
| 2_R16 | 8 | 10 | 116 | 8.62 |
| 3_QF | 1 | 20 | 202 | 9.90 |
| 3_QF | 2 | 16 | 229 | 6.92 |
| 3_QF | 3 | 11 | 211 | 5.16 |
| 3_QF | 4 | 9 | 221 | 4.03 |
| 4_SF | 1 | 13 | 232 | 5.56 |
| 4_SF | 2 | 14 | 241 | 5.79 |
| 5_F | 1 | 15 | 261 | 5.70 |
Here are the data for the Elimination rounds. A âPossible DQâ is one in which one team had 0 points. Obviously, it is possible for a match to be a shutout where the losing alliance was not DQâd, so this will overstate the number of DQs by definition. But itâs the best proxy I can think of.
Instance is the âMatch Instanceâ - so in R16 instance 1 is seed 1 vs seed 16, R16 instance 2 is seed 8 vs seed 9, etc. Basically even-numbered instances are going to be closer seeds than odd instances. Based on this, it would seem that the 9.9% âPossible DQâ rate for QF Instance 1 (likely the 1 seed against the 8 or 9 seed) contains a fair number of actual shut-outs, as it seems most likely that a 1 seed against an 8 or 9 would dominate.
Overall, there are 2397 elimination matches analyzed with 138 possible DQs for a rate of 5.76%. If we assume all 20 of the 1v8 matches are false-positives (e.g. legitimate shutouts), then we get 118 possible DQs for a rate of 4.92%. Maybe we say thereâs some more legit shutouts, and the DQ rate in elimination matches is ~4% under current rules.
I donât expect to see a shift in possible dq statistics for this weekend for a few reasons:
- The vast majority of people competing will have no idea that a ring under the platform can lead to an automatic disqualification, this hasnât been the case all season and they would have no reason to suspect that would change, seeing as it defies all common sense
- events that are aware of this change might simply not be able to enforce it, seeing as itâs virtually impossible to. Iâm convinced that asking a referee to keep track of who knocked what ring where with any level of accuracy or consistency is simply unreasonable. It canât be done.
I still donât think this is exactly what the gdc intended. I just canât believe that they would require from the referees that make this program work an impossible and pointless task. I think that, in the process of updating the q&aâs and the manual, they simply didnât consider the implications. Is there any sensible or rational reason whatsoever that a ring sitting inconsequentially under a platform should be the sole reason for a team being automatically disqualified?
@Sidoti and @Jon_Jack are seemingly eager to engage in discussion about the balancing of point values or hoarding in this game, as seen earlier in this topic. But now when weâve discovered this pressing issue, right before a round of weekend competitions, they seem to have disappeared. Iâm not expecting the gdc to remedy this issue overnight, obviously there is a process that needs to happen. But can we at least get some indication of acknowledgement of this issue? Something like âwe are aware of the automatic disqualification scenario this manual update introducesâ?
My fear is that the gdc will double down on this ruling like they did with the auton line rules in TT for those who remember that, ignoring the pleas of competitors and referees alike. Except this is a much more extreme scenario in my opinion. Itâs not just a silly rule that doesnât need to exist, itâs a requirement that is impossible to referee and preposterous to follow for a team. We appreciate the work that you put in to making these games and the rules for us to participate in, but I really wish the you would listen to community feedback more often.
Here, Iâll provide some sources of feedback right here. Please donât respond to the polls unless youâve educated yourself on this scenario. Select all the roles for each question that apply to you.
What do you think about this change that introduces the auto-dq from pushing a ring under an opponentâs platform.
- I think itâs an overwhelmingly negative change
- I think itâs a somewhat negative change
- I donât care
- I think itâs a positive change
- I think itâs an overwhelmingly positive change
0
voters
What do you think about how easily this can be refereed with accuracy and consistancy
- Virtually impossible to referee (I am a referee)
- Virtually impossible to referee (I am a student)
- Virtually impossible to referee (I am a coach, event partner, or other involved participant)
- Very difficult to referee (I am a referee)
- Very difficult to referee (I am a student)
- Very difficult to referee (I am a coach, event partner, or other involved participant.
- Mildly hard to referee (I am a referee)
- Mildly hard to referee (I am a student)
- Mildly hard to referee (I am a coach, event partner, or other involved participant)
- Non-problematic to referee (I am a referee)
- Non-problematic to referee (I am a student)
- Non-problematic to referee (I am a coach, event partner, or other involved participant)
0
voters
What do you think about how easily a team could avoid this scenario?
- Virtually impossible to avoid (I am a student)
- Virtually impossible to avoid (I am a referee)
- Virtually impossible to avoid (I am a coach, event partner, or other involved participant)
- Very difficult to avoid (I am a student)
- Very difficult to avoid (I am a referee)
- Very difficult to avoid (I am a coach, event partner, or other involved participant)
- Mildly hard to avoid (I am a student)
- Mildly hard to avoid (I am a referee)
- Mildly hard to avoid (I am a coach, event partner, or other involved participant)
- Trivial to avoid (I am a student)
- Trivial to avoid (I am a referee)
- Trivial to avoid (I am a coach, event partner, or other involved participant)
0
voters
Iâm curious to see if the rest of the forum is as strong-opinioned about this rule as I am.
I like your emphasis here on consistency. It is a big thing in VEX that referees always rule consistently, even if they learn halfway through the event that the way theyâd been doing it had been wrong. This new rule however seems to demolish the consistency aspect of refereeing, as a very pushy team that points out every time a ring is put under the opponents platform will skew the reffing calls. I think that now more than ever, Illyanaâs point about the game rules holds true:
I realize that the GDC obviously doesnât care much for its competitors, and prefers to stifle game play, innovation, and design. All this update is doing, is forcing teams to play in a very boring way. All we will now see is a goal rush, and the bots with the 3 neutral goals will turn to their corner and sit there for 1:00 protecting their goals in the corner, and then platform. The opposing side will be too afraid of an auto dq to do anything so they will concede defeat. This game has officially been ruined and we should look to see what first is doing, their game must be better than this. It seems apparant that no GDC member has been to a competition or seen a live match, and came up with these rules for no apparant reason.
I think you will find a lot of people who have been in VRC for a long time will disagree with this blanket statement.
Welcome to VEXforum!
I am sure they will, but seems obvious to me from these changes, they do not care much for game play.
???
While no one can prepare for every situation, the GDC try hard at what they do to make a fun, fare, and educational environment for all Vex participants. Sure there may be a rule that is highly debatable, but thats part of the design process. You have ideas, you sketch those ideas, you refine your ideas, you build a prototype then make a mach up. Im thankful the GDC is hard at work to let us all be here and discuss the competition in the first place.
Sure, you canât prepare for every situation, and some things are unavoidable, but I feel like making the rule outright worse after hearing all the feedback is probably very avoidable. Iâll say it again â I get they want us not to mess with the opponentâs platform, etc., etc., but with the way SG3 is devolving, youâd think the platform was made out of glass.
Obviously, we all prefer something over nothing, but just like everything else, the GDC is not immune to criticism. I donât think weâre asking for too much in the sense that weâre just looking for a change to a rule that makes everyoneâs (mostly referees) lives a tiny bit easier and allows the game to feel like you arenât walking on eggshells past auton.
Iâm not trying to say that the GDC should be invincible to receiving criticism for this especially when the situation is dire. Some posts were either sounding a bit rude or impatient so, Iâm trying to provide some understanding to calm some people down. Not saying all posts were like that but some were.