Chief Delphi
Page 10 of 14 « First < 3456789 10 11121314 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Regional Competitions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Alamo 2012 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103781)

ratdude747 03-03-2012 17:34
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayTurner1126 (Post 1138204)
now that no-call comes up BIG
QFT

racesick222 03-03-2012 17:35
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubatroopa (Post 1138207)
148 shouldn't have gone for the triple. A double would have won it. Nice try though
No it would have been tied 50-50

jason701802 03-03-2012 17:36
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by racesick222 (Post 1138213)
No it would have been tied 50-50
You're forgetting the penalty points

Sean Raia 03-03-2012 17:36
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by racesick222 (Post 1138213)
No it would have been tied 50-50
It would have been 56 - 50 in reds favor.

racesick222 03-03-2012 17:36
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason701802 (Post 1138215)
Now that would have been fun
never mind the final score was 36-50 not 30-50

EricLeifermann 03-03-2012 17:38
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nahstobor (Post 1138198)
Don't forget the location. The robot playing defense on 148 can argue that they were attempting to go into the lane.
That has no merit to whether they fouled 148 or not. It was VERY obvious that they were not trying to get to their alley and where just playing defense.


After the last match the webcast rewound and showed the tip of 148 and after seeing the whole altercation it was very clearly intentional and something should have been called.

Sean Raia 03-03-2012 17:40
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Read G26:
Quote:
Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of Robots via attachment, damage, tipping or entanglement of Robots are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed.
Violation: Technical-Foul plus Yellow Card
It wasn't a strategy, it was a result of pushing bumper to bumper. It "just happened". Its clear that they made the proper call (in my eyes).

372 lives on 03-03-2012 17:43
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricLeifermann (Post 1138218)
That has no merit to whether they fouled 148 or not. It was VERY obvious that they were not trying to get to their alley and where just playing defense.


After the last match the webcast rewound and showed the tip of 148 and after seeing the whole altercation it was very clearly intentional and something should have been called.
eric can you point out the rule that said they committed a foul?

Botwoon 03-03-2012 17:44
Re: Alamo 2012
 
I'd say it was very clearly within the rules. Even though it's impossible to prove, they had malicious intent, as can clearly be seen through the footage of the event. Weren't they also the same robot who stopped 148 from doing the triple balance in the previous match?

372 lives on 03-03-2012 17:45
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botwoon (Post 1138223)
I'd say it was very clearly within the rules. Even though it's impossible to prove, they had malicious intent, as can clearly be seen through the footage of the event. Weren't they also the same robot who stopped 148 from doing the triple balance in the previous match?
i dont see a rule ..........

Botwoon 03-03-2012 17:48
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 372 lives on (Post 1138224)
i dont see a rule ..........
....Which is basically what I was trying to say. There isn't a rule that prevents you from tipping other robots over, however I think most of us can agree that deliberately disabling other robots isn't in the spirit of the competition.

honour, etc

Chris is me 03-03-2012 17:52
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricLeifermann (Post 1138218)
After the last match the webcast rewound and showed the tip of 148 and after seeing the whole altercation it was very clearly intentional and something should have been called.
For the sake of playing devil's advocate, should 148 not have gotten a foul for contact outside the bumper zone?

EricLeifermann 03-03-2012 18:02
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1138234)
For the sake of playing devil's advocate, should 148 not have gotten a foul for contact outside the bumper zone?
Who did 148 contact outside the bumper zone(I might have missed it)?

Marc S. 03-03-2012 18:04
Re: Alamo 2012
 
These were some of the best matches I've ever seen. The triple balance has a huge advantage in finals as proven by 148. I can't wait to see how the rest of the season plays out!

Something I noticed not just in the final match but in many others is that alliances are risking multiple robots on the bridge when sometimes just 1 (or in 148's case 2) robots would guarantee a win. I think all coaches should be careful when making these calls in the future.

EricLeifermann 03-03-2012 18:04
Re: Alamo 2012
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc S. (Post 1138243)
These were some of the best matches I've ever seen. The triple balance has a huge advantage in finals as proven by 148. I can't wait to see how the rest of the season plays out!

Something I noticed not just in the final match but in many others is that alliances are risking multiple robots on the bridge when sometimes just 1 (or in 148's case 2) robots would guarantee a win. I think all coaches should be careful when making these calls in the future.
Agreed.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:09.
Page 10 of 14 « First < 3456789 10 11121314 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi