问与答

回答者 committee

This scenario is covered by rule R2-e, which states the following:

If a Robot has passed inspection, but is later found to be in violation of a Robot rule during a Match, then they will be Disqualified from that Match and <R2d> will apply until the violation is remedied and the Team is re-inspected.

R2-e is primarily intended for a scenario where a Robot has been modified since inspection. However, it is also intended as a "catch" for a scenario where a Head Referee identifies a violation that an inspector may have missed.

Most Robot rules can be considered as "inspection rules", in the context that there may not be a Head Referee present during inspection. So, statements such as "inspectors have the final say" imply that this is being questioned during inspection. Once a Robot passes inspection, R2-e and T1 come into effect for the duration of the Tournament.

回答者 committee

Yes, a Match replay would be warranted in a situation like this. When in doubt, you may refer to <GG5> which lists some example situations that may warrant a Match replay, including a similar situation in which "the Field is reset before a score is determined."

If a Head Referee and an Event Partner cannot come to an agreement about replaying a particular Match, that Match will not be replayed. Outside of extreme circumstances (e.g., too little time left in an event schedule to accommodate more Match replays), the Event Partner should typically defer to the Head Referee when determining whether to replay a Match.

回答者 committee

From time to time, Event Partners may need to review photos or video recordings for concerns regarding the Code of Conduct, Student-Centered Policy, and similar matters. These are separate from gameplay and Robot ruling decisions, which are the responsibility of the Head Referee per <T1>. Event Partners should not be reviewing photos or videos of Match gameplay in order to inform a Head Referee and influence their decision about a score or ruling, as that would defeat the purpose of <T3.a>.

<GG5> requires that Match replays must be agreed upon by both the Event Partner and Head Referee, but their roles and considerations should differ somewhat in reaching this agreement. A Head Referee considers whether a Match replay is warranted based on gameplay events for a particular Match, while an Event Partner brings a different perspective through consideration of things outside gameplay, such as the potential impact of a replayed Match on event scheduling/logistics. Consideration of field fault issues can fall somewhere in between, involving both the Head Referee and the Event Partner.

If a Head Referee and an Event Partner cannot come to an agreement about replaying a particular Match, that Match will not be replayed. Outside of extreme circumstances (e.g., too little time left in an event schedule to accommodate more Match replays), the Event Partner should typically defer to the Head Referee when determining whether to replay a Match.

回答者 committee

Adding a small mark (for example, a Team number) to identify the team or organization that owns a part or Scoring Object is permissible. In general, using a permanent marker to write a number is preferable to adding a label or something similar that may affect a Robot during a Match.

1. To what extent does an Event Partner have the authority to declare a labeled or altered game element appropriate for official matches?
2. Does this authority lie within the Event Partner, Head Referee, or a combination of the two?

An Event Partner has final authority on the game elements that are used at their event, and can disallow game elements for nearly any reason.

3. When are labels, permanent markers, or other markings considered to be as substantial alteration to game-play (if at all)

If a marking or label has affected a Robot during a Match, or in the Event Partner's opinion seems likely to do so, it probably isn't suitable for use in a scored Match at a qualifying event.

回答者 committee

Yes, a Scorekeeper Referee can take the place of a Head Referee if the Drive Team Members cannot reach their Robot for a <GG10> or <RSC5> reset during a Driving Skills or Autonomous Coding Skills Match. Note that resets in Driving Skills Matches are constrained by all of the criteria of <GG10>, and are only available when the Robot requires assistance (not as a strategy).

回答者 committee

Although putting controllers down at the end of the Match is not specifically described or required in the game manual, it can be a reasonable request based on the circumstances of the event. If an event intends to require this of Teams, it's best to communicate it to all Teams during the pre-event meeting.

If a Head Referee asks a Team or Teams to put their controllers down, either during a Disablement or at the end of the Match, the Drive Team Member(s) should place their controller(s) on the ground or another safe location out of the Field. Note that, per <GG11> controllers must stay connected to the Field until Teams have been given permission to retrieve their Robots.

回答者 committee

We believe our answer to scenario 2 in Q&A 2716 addresses the first part of your question.

There is currently no way for a Team to protest or raise concerns about a score from a Match that they didn’t participate in, and we acknowledge that implementing a process to allow it would be helpful to all teams. The GDC is working with multiple events and Head Referees to evaluate potential solutions.

回答者 committee

As described in the definition of Violation in the game manual, "Multiple Minor Violations within a Match or tournament may escalate to a Major Violation at the Head Referee’s discretion or as specified in a rule."

It would be reasonable for a Head Referee to notify Teams that their 4th Minor Violation of a specific rule without specific guidance (and any subsequent Violations of that rule) would become a Major Violation and Disqualification for the Match. This guidance should be provided to all Teams at the event, ideally during the event meeting. However, this guidance might not be appropriate at all times during a season, or as blanket guidance for all rules and events.

回答者 committee

No. As stated in rule <T1>, "The Head Referee has ultimate and final authority on all gameplay ruling decisions during the competition." Additionally, the introduction to Section 3: The Robot in the game manual states that, "The Head Referee has final authority regarding all Robot rules, since it is ultimately their decision whether a Robot takes the field for a Match after inspection has concluded (per <R3d> and <R3e>)."

REC Foundation staff members, the Event Partner, and other volunteers may provide the Head Referee with information about rules and rulings from official Q&As, but the final decision and ruling on any gameplay matter must always come from the Head Referee. If multiple Head Referees are working together and both observe a Match for which a ruling must be made, they must work together to reach a ruling.

As stated in the Commitment to Event Excellence, which is agreed to by every Event Partner, the REC Foundation has the right to modify volunteer and Key Volunteer assignments at events. However, RECF staff do not have the right to overturn or make rulings about game play or robots.

回答者 committee

Given the often sensitive information included in Match Anomaly logs, they should not made available for Teams to view. Discussing and disclosing Violations awarded during the event (Violation counts, rule numbers, match numbers, etc.) with the Team that earned them is fine, but the logs themselves shouldn't be shared beyond the Head Referees and other field staff.