G43 enforcement level

[Catherine57]

From what you've seen, how tight are the refs calling G43? We're planning to shoot with our bumper in the outerworks, but my general impression was that defenders were not shy about playing defense in that area and I have not seen a lot of penalties called, though to be fair I didn't always have the best angle of view. Do you expect the enforcement to get tighter/looser in later weeks? Is this a strategy that looks good on paper but is too hard to implement in actual gameplay?

[New Lightning]

I think that it all depends on the referee crew. In the St. Louis regional finals 2451 was shooting from the outer workds and several times there were bumped while trying to shoot, and the refs calling the penalty seemed hit and miss. Now I was at field level to see whether or not they were actually in the outer works so I'm not sure.

But the refs have a tough job and if they miss a few then it can be understood. Definitely not ideal that they miss calls, but it does and will happen no matter how badly we want it to be the other way around.

[CalTran]

At Greater KC it was called frequently. The thing to note is that you have to make it abundantly clear to the referee that a part of your robot it within the Outerworks. Additionally, it wouldn't hurt to bring it up with the head ref during practice and alert them that it is a strategy you plan on pursuing.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

At Arizona North it was pretty good. A few times the call was missed but overall it was called enough that teams couldn't take advantage of this and give aggressive shoving to teams shooting from the outerworks.

[SenorZ]

This was called a lot at Los Angeles. Though there were a few times more that spectators thought it should have been called. It is hard for refs to watch three robots and see what sometimes was an inch of overhang.

[Donut]

I think that it all depends on the referee crew. In the St. Louis regional finals 2451 was shooting from the batter and several times there were bumped while trying to shoot, and the refs calling the penalty seemed hit and miss.

Shooting from the Batter is not a protected area, G43 only applies to the Outer Works (multiple teams were confused about this at AZ North this week).

G43: ROBOTS on the same half of the FIELD as their ALLIANCE TOWER may not interfere with opponent ROBOTS attempting to traverse OUTER WORKS (regardless of direction). A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS and no part of it is in their opponent’s SECRET PASSAGE.

We watched for this whenever defense was being played in the Courtyard this weekend. Remember that G43 requires Bumpers be within the Outer Works for a foul to be called for interference. If the Bumpers were not clearly within the side Shields of the Outer Works then it was a no call. After seeing where many teams stopped to take their shots this weekend I would advise that you make it as obvious as possible you are within the Outer Works; on some of the shots the team probably thought they were protected by G43 when their Bumpers were actually too far forward. The drive team is looking from across the field (even if using a camera on a pole) so your viewing angle may make your position appear different than the sideline referee's view.

I think G43 is more likely to be missed in the Neutral Zone. With Outer Works to be watched on both sides and robots flying across the defenses at high speeds contact there can easily be missed if it's not for an extended time.

[Edxu]

I didn't get a chance to watch every single match at GTRE, but for the few that I watched, G43 was enforced pretty well. It was quickly and accurately assessed every time it happened IMO.

[Catherine57]

That sounds pretty good. It is nearly impossible to tell what the penalties are from video and I didn't do much better trying to watch the live matches. We'll see how it goes for us after we get the shooter going.

[New Lightning]

I meant to say outer works in my post. They were shooting from the outer works not the batter.

[cad321]

I didn't get a chance to watch every single match at GTRE, but for the few that I watched, G43 was enforced pretty well. It was quickly and accurately assessed every time it happened IMO.

I too tried to keep an eye on the G43 calls at GTRE while I was there saturday and agree that the refs appeared to be pretty on the ball when it came to making those calls.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Refs called it at Lakeview. We got too close and made contact in the playoffs with a team shooting in the outerworks and got hit with a penalty. Only made the mistake once.

[evanperryg]

The penalty did not seem to be enforced well at Arkansas. Although we really only had a few outer works shooters (3937, 3507 and 5437 come to mind, although 5437 generally shot from a few feet in front of the OW) it seemed like they got beaten up on with little or no repercussions to the aggressor.

[backdrive]

At CVR the refs almost never called fouls, although this might be because teams often crossed defenses, went into the courtyard a bit, then came back on to a defense to shoot. I'm a bit confused on whether or not hitting an opposing bot that does this constitutes a penalty or not.

[Anteprefix]

At CVR the refs almost never called fouls, although this might be because teams often crossed defenses, went into the courtyard a bit, then came back on to a defense to shoot. I'm a bit confused on whether or not hitting an opposing bot that does this constitutes a penalty or not.

It looked like refs were only calling the G43 when it was really obvious that there was contact. Often, the refs wouldn't call it if the shooting robot only had bumpers over the ramp, but would call it if they were actually touching the ramp.

[Tomker]

In Israel it was called most of the time but not enough as far as I'm concerned. The thing is, if they don't give a foul each and every time it is being done, it becomes a viable strategy to keep ramming into the shooter - you are only punished with a foul once in a while and manage to keep your opponent from weakening their tower (since they have less opportunities to make shots).
I think they should have either instructed the refs to call it ALOT more often, or change the ruling so that each of those fouls would also weaken the tower's strength by 1.

[pntbll1313]

At CVR the refs almost never called fouls, although this might be because teams often crossed defenses, went into the courtyard a bit, then came back on to a defense to shoot. I'm a bit confused on whether or not hitting an opposing bot that does this constitutes a penalty or not.

This is a foul

Q532
Q."A robot carrying a boulder crosses a defense into their opponents' courtyard. They then move back such that a part of its bumpers are within the opponent’s outer works while their robot is still in contact with the courtyard carpet. They attempt to line up a shot, but an opponent contacts them. Does the opponent incur a G43 penalty?"
A.This situation does demonstrate a violation of G43. Per G43: "A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS." Even if you are shooting a BOULDER, you would be protected by G43 if your BUMPERS are within the OUTER WORKS.

[mac]

It was not enforced at district Walt Whitman and Battlefield High School. You know why? Because not one shot was taken from the Outer works.
God Bless Mentor Mac

[Boltman]

In Central Valley I never saw it called ..so don't expect protection

There were at least 5 decent-world class OW shooters in CV

[IronicDeadBird]

I feel like the only way to actually fully be protected under G43 you need to be doing that Fadeaway shot as you start moving into the outerworks and take the shot.

If you are moving to cross the outerworks the refs are looking for the G43.
If you are standing still and aiming I think refs are more looking to see if your shot follows all the rules.

I'm not saying shooting from the outerworks does not have you covered with G43, I'm just saying that depending upon how a ref is looking at your robot determines what rules they are applying to it at the time. The traversal part of the rule makes me read it as you need to be moving, I'd be interested in seeing how many refs agree with that.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Shooting from the Batter is not a protected area, G43 only applies to the Outer Works (multiple teams were confused about this at AZ North this week).



We watched for this whenever defense was being played in the Courtyard this weekend. Remember that G43 requires Bumpers be within the Outer Works for a foul to be called for interference. If the Bumpers were not clearly within the side Shields of the Outer Works then it was a no call. After seeing where many teams stopped to take their shots this weekend I would advise that you make it as obvious as possible you are within the Outer Works; on some of the shots the team probably thought they were protected by G43 when their Bumpers were actually too far forward. The drive team is looking from across the field (even if using a camera on a pole) so your viewing angle may make your position appear different than the sideline referee's view.

I think G43 is more likely to be missed in the Neutral Zone. With Outer Works to be watched on both sides and robots flying across the defenses at high speeds contact there can easily be missed if it's not for an extended time.


Out of curiosity (mostly because I saw it happen a few times to us) how would a team shooting, getting hit, and plowed (i.e. other bot remains in contact) into the outer works likely be called?

-S

[Citrus Dad]

At CVR the refs almost never called fouls, although this might be because teams often crossed defenses, went into the courtyard a bit, then came back on to a defense to shoot. I'm a bit confused on whether or not hitting an opposing bot that does this constitutes a penalty or not.

We found that rule was enforced quite well. We made a distinct effort to get into the OW to make it clear to the ref. I rarely saw other teams actually shooting from the OW--they were often off the OW which makes a hit legal.

[Citrus Dad]

In Central Valley I never saw it called ..so don't expect protection

There were at least 5 decent-world class OW shooters in CV

In our first 2 QFs, we accumulated 25 pts in G43 fouls while we were shooting. It's one of the reasons why opposing alliances gave up blocking us the rest of elims.

I was watching pretty closely, and few if any other teams (including 254) were shooting from the actual OW position--they were often close, but didn't pull all the way back into contact when they shot. I saw fouls called when it did happen. In qualifying we were often off the OW when we got hit--I don't remember a time when a foul was missed on us for that reason.

If you can give me some example matches where bots were in the OW and fouls were being missed, I'd be interested to see my recollection is off.

[Boltman]

In our first 2 QFs, we accumulated 25 pts in G43 fouls while we were shooting. It's one of the reasons why opposing alliances gave up blocking us the rest of elims.

I was watching pretty closely, and few if any other teams (including 254) were shooting from the actual OW position--they were often close, but didn't pull all the way back into contact when they shot. I saw fouls called when it did happen. In qualifying we were often off the OW when we got hit--I don't remember a time when a foul was missed on us for that reason.

If you can give me some example matches where bots were in the OW and fouls were being missed, I'd be interested to see my recollection is off.

Perhaps I was not paying close enough attention ..it seems it was more against 1323 and 5817 from my recollection you and 254 did not to seem to be as bothered perhaps due to the earlier calls I missed.

[anishde]

At the NYC Regional we lost our fifth match on what I believe was a G43 (it may have been another foul), but as it seemed one team on our alliance rammed a red alliance robot into the outer works while attempting to defend against the shooter.