Why let a team get away with 2 warnings for intentional violations?

We lost a match last night in which a team was hand loading ball after ball into their robot during the 15 second autonomous. When we said something about it we were told that they would receive their second warning for the same offense and if they did it a third time they would be disqualified. I was told that the results of the match would stand because the points they scored during the autonomous were not enough to change the outcome of the match. The way I see it, nothing that they scored in the whole match should have counted, they had already been warned once and it clearly was not an accident. It looks like they knew about the 3 strikes and just decided to do it a second time because all they would get is another warning and they were almost finished with all of their qualifying matches anyway. As a result, our teams over all rank in qualifying dropped 3 places. :mad:

The referee decided it was not match effecting. In other words they said that you would have lost even if the team played correctly.

Do you dispute that it was match effecting or do you just want to get credit for a win you didn’t earn?

How many balls did they hand load during autonomous?
What was the final score?

I don’t know the exact number. They loaded as many as they could until the 15 seconds ended when their robot was only capable of launching one ball in auton on its own. The specifics of how many balls were illegally put into play or if they landed in the goal is not a valid point of argument. By all of the people who were pointing and commenting about it while it was going on it is safe to say that it was significant. My question is why is any team allowed to commit a blatant violation a second time and not be DQ’d? It was obviously wrong and they were allowed to benefit from it and progress.

I understand that the rules refer to match affecting violations, but also empathize with the sense of injustice of a team blatantly violating a clear rule and continuing to do so. It’s very unsportsmanlike and disrespectful.

I agree. An intentional offense of a rule should result in an immediate DQ. I believe the rule is one verbal warning and a DQ on the second offense (at least, in my region)(or a first offense that is intentional). When the first offense is committed, the offending team should be informed of the rule and it should be determined whether or not if it was match-affecting (as done so in your situation). A second offense (intentional offense) should automatically lead to a loss for the offending team and a win to the other (or perhaps a win to the other three teams like a person has suggested recently).

Repeated intentional offenses is not part of the ethos of the competition. A team that takes advantage of the rules in a wrong way should think about what they have done and rethink what the true goal of VEX is. At least, that is my opinion.

EDIT: Perhaps a replay may be warranted for a major violation such as this.

Did the Ref issue the first warning and then they did it again? If it was I would definitely say DQ but if you told the refs/event ppl after the match I dont think I would say go back and DQ them. Especially if it wasnt match affecting. Just my opinion.

I think it’s unfortunate VRC has an all or nothing DQ mechanism for rule violations. It takes quite a lot to hit the DQ threshold which is of course based around an opinion of “match affecting”. Penalty points systems are much more reasonabe but harder to referee since they’d actually have to dish them out instead of letting it slide.

This is 100% true and I absolutely agree. Perhaps a RESPECTFUL emphasis on respectful, talk with the judges would have delivered a different outcome. This is a blatant violation of the rules for autonomous. I perfectly understand your anger, and it is well within reasonable bounds to DQ that team. There is also the argument that, “maybe they didn’t know” but to that I say this, if you are going to play a game, you need to learn the rules first, I’m not saying that missing a small rule is a big deal. But if you violate a major rule, such as this one, there needs to be a fair way to compensate the other alliance for it.

When we complained the Ref. told us they had already had one warning and that they would give them a second warning and if they did it again they would be DQ’d, but that the match would stay. So we lost the match and they got to cheat with no penalty because that was their 14th of 15 qualifying rounds. The 15th match they launched their one ball and sat there for the rest of the auton because that is all they could do, but the damage was already done.

They might could have said “they didn’t know” the first time, but NOT the second.

Clearly the team who committed this offense intentionally violated a rule to cause themselves to win. I completely sympathize with you, as the excellence award was rigged at cal state championship last year and our team was put into the same situation. However, the manual says repeatedly that all rulings by judges are final and judges are under no obligation to view replays. With all due respect, IMO you are wrong even though the opposing alliance clearly violated a rule because of the judges final ruling. Perhaps VEX could add a rule about a higher authority, maybe even a VEX employee, being able to overrule a judges ruling, similar to the one implemented in baseball a few years ago? In any case, technically you are correct but I’m pretty sure the judges have the authority to make those sorts of calls even if their verdict is contradictory to a rule in the manual. But I don’t know that for sure.

I’m not sure why this is such a big deal since, if they would have won by less than 40 points (I am assuming that this is the maximum number of points they could gain through this), then they would have been DQed since it would be match affecting. Since it is hard for a ref to judge the intentions of this (although I do agree that their intentions were wrong), looking at the facts, this was a non match affecting offense and does not deserve a DQ.

Although your side of the story is correct, saying that they should be DQ’d for a violation of the rules for intentionally breaking them, but if they didn’t tell them that they have broke rule <SG6> in the previous offense, then they can’t call them on it. <SG6> states that balls must be placed in the Driver Controlled Period. Later in that rule, it says that "Minor violations of this rule that do not affect the match will result in a warning. Egregious (match affecting) offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warning may also receive a Disqualification at the head referees discretion. It does not state how many warnings must be given before a disqualification and it is up to the Head Referee to make that call.

I would say it’s clear that it didn’t cause them to win. If the violation was match affecting then they would have been DQ’d - there’s no debate about this. I feel the fundamental argument of this thread is purely about how many warnings it take to get a DQ which, as cokimoto pointed out previously, is not explicitly mentioned and is entirely up to the head referee to decide, if they even want to.

In terms of incorrect refereeing decisions, the only one I can think of is with regards to <SG15>. Don7094 doesn’t mention if the extra balls made an impact to the autonomous bonus (or even the match, he just said it’s “not a valid point of argument”) or if this rule was enforced, so we can’t be sure if this was an incorrect decision or not.

To everyone complaining about the rules, if you have issues with how the GDC has rules currently written and want to see it changed for future seasons then go make a suggestion (as others have) for future seasons. It’s highly unlikely that any major rules would be changed at this point in the season.

Correct me please if I’m wrong but isn’t a DQ in qualification only applied to the offending team and not the alliance. Meaning if you lost on points, you will still have a loss even if one of your opponents was dq’d. I think it is only in an elimination round is the DQ to the alliance.

Yes that’s correct, and is the reasoning for the suggested change in this post.

I know how you feel. In One of our matches the team had 5 preloads during the autonomous period. We had to yell it out and talk to the referees. If they are stuck up and stiff then you can’t do anything about it or else they’ll give you an entire essay of who’s in charge. To make a long story short you should just yell it out and show the referees the rules and they might have a change of mind. (Hope this helped).:slight_smile:

This is one of those cases where the refs were acting within the rules, but they had multiple options available to them so there is some scope for disagreement about which option they should have taken. What the refs did wasn’t wrong, but making the other choice and choosing to DQ wouldn’t have been wrong either.

It doesn’t sound like this was match-deciding, or even all that close to being match-deciding. If that’s correct then I probably would have made the same decision (no DQ). The rules don’t distinguish between a team that knows they are breaking a rule and a team that doesn’t. For decisions where referees have discretion they can decide based on things like that, but they certainly don’t have to.

This does bring up a wider issue though. The rules give referees a lot of freedom to decide how to handle warnings at their events. That can sometimes give referees decisions to make that are entirely subjective and that will have a huge impact on the event. It also creates inconsistencies between different tournaments. Personally, enforcing the rules differently from other events is something I try to avoid. So I wouldn’t mind if the rules were a bit more explicit and told referees in more detail how to handle these situations. The tradeoff is between making sure the rules are enforced the same way at different tournaments, and making sure the rules lead to fair outcomes in every situation that might come up within a single tournament.

I hope you don’t mean it literally when you said “yell”.
They are all volunteers, so let’s be nice to them. And besides, it is never a good idea to leave a bad impression behind to the referees.

Yes… If it is obvious, by all means raise the issue up to the referees, but please don’t yell at them :slight_smile:

Oh no I was just exaggerating, when I said yell I meant to talk louder than I’m supposed to. If you are on team 8059a awesome robot.:D:D