Re: 2012 MSC
 

So why wasn't [G25] applied to 67 when there was a blue robot touching them while balancing?

Re: 2012 MSC
 

Presumably because the robot falling onto them is covered by [G44]

Re: 2012 MSC
 

That's an interesting usage of it. Has some very interesting connotations in the future if that holds true through championships.

Re: 2012 MSC
 

I wouldn't really say it affected the balancing... if anything, it helped the blue alliance because otherwise the falling robot is probably on its side.

Re: 2012 MSC
 

I agree with the way it was called, but I can see an argument for calling G35 on 67 because their presence prevented 548 from driving off the end of the bridge, preventing a double balance. That's sketchy at best, and I think the refs did the right thing. Another interesting observation is that after 67 died, 469 (I believe accidentally) pushed them closer to the blue bridge. If anyone wants to rewatch it it's uploaded here.

Re: 2012 MSC
 

Because 67 never touched the bridge directly. (At best, you could say 67 interfered with the bridge because the other robot fell on it, but then [G44] would apply and negate the foul.)

As for [G28], I don't know the circumstances of what happened with 67. If they E-stopped in that position (understanding the implications), there might be an argument to be made that the resulting contact was purposeful (and it was obviously consequential). On the other hand, sitting immobile isn't a very good indicator of purpose. I'd say the call on the field was a good one: one foul.

Re: 2012 MSC
 

I disagree...

Well if the robot was on it side, the blue alliance would have won.

There were no bridge points in the final match (F 1-2). This was because the robot 67 was contacting (preventing from tipping) was still in contact with the bridge. Had the robot not been in contact with the bridge, the blue alliance would have received 20 bridge points.

The final score was Red (469, 67, 830) 60 - Blue (2054, 548, 245) 49.
With blue getting those 20 BP, the final score would have been Red 60 - Blue 69.

Re: 2012 MSC
 

Congratulations to 469, 67, and 830 for winning the MSC; which is no small feat!

Re: 2012 MSC
 

And Blue should have (and would have) lost had it gone to a rubber match...67 was not moving nearly the entire match.

Re: 2012 MSC
 

And what if 67 had died for the last half of that rubber match and blue won? I think it still should have gone to a 3rd match

Re: 2012 MSC
 

A bad call at the end of a match doesn't warrant a new match, it warrants a review of the call, and adjustment of the score as necessary.

Re: 2012 MSC
 

I was not saying it would have changed the tournament outcome.

Losing comms, or whatever the issue was, happens. That was not the first time 67 had sat still for a good portion of the match during eliminations.

I am glad that Red won! I am very inspired by 469 and 67 machines. I can't wait to get an in person look at the robots in St. Louis!

Re: 2012 MSC
 

And if the call had been changed blue would have won. Which, to me, would seem logical to warrant another match.

Re: 2012 MSC
 

I disagree. At most, you can call a Tech Foul per [G28] which would still have given Red the win. I can't possibly see how a non-moving robot in the position 67 was in would not be [G44] protected from any potential [G25] call.

Re: 2012 MSC
 

Why would it be G44 protected? No opponent put 67 where they were.