Chief Delphi
Page 6 of 9 < 12345 6 789 >
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)
-   -   2012 MSC (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105485)

RufflesRidge 14-04-2012 17:58
Re: 2012 MSC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Adams (Post 1157942)
Why would it be G44 protected? No opponent put 67 where they were.
Because they weren't touching the bridge, hence no possible way to incur [G25] by themselves, if they were to be moved into contact with the bridge it would have had to have been by the opposing alliance.

Quote:
[G25] Robots may not contact or otherwise interfere with the opposing Alliance Bridge.
Note: I am suggesting that the appropriate call for hitting the overhanging edge of a robot on the bridge, per the rules as written, is a Tech foul [G28] even if that contact unbalances a balanced bridge or otherwise interferes with balancing. The "If the act...." section of G25 is written as part of the "Violation" section which means that it is used to stipulate the penalty for violating the rule which requires a violation of the rule itself to begin with (touching the bridge).

Gray Adams 14-04-2012 18:11
Re: 2012 MSC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RufflesRidge (Post 1157946)
Because they weren't touching the bridge, hence no possible way to incur [G25] by themselves, if they were to be moved into contact with the bridge it would have had to have been by the opposing alliance.



Note: I am suggesting that the appropriate call for hitting the overhanging edge of a robot on the bridge, per the rules as written, is a Tech foul [G28] even if that contact unbalances a balanced bridge or otherwise interferes with balancing. The "If the act...." section of G25 is written as part of the "Violation" section which means that it is used to stipulate the penalty for violating the rule which requires a violation of the rule itself to begin with (touching the bridge).
G25 doesn't say you must contact the bridge for the violation to be incurred. It implies that there are ways to interfere with balancing that don't involve contacting the bridge. The balance attempt was clearly interfered with by 67, by definition of interfere. Though that doesn't mean it changed the outcome, its certainly enough to make a case for G25.

Tristan Lall 14-04-2012 18:42
Re: 2012 MSC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Adams (Post 1157948)
G25 doesn't say you must contact the bridge for the violation to be incurred. It implies that there are ways to interfere with balancing that don't involve contacting the bridge. The balance attempt was clearly interfered with by 67, by definition of interfere. Though that doesn't mean it changed the outcome, its certainly enough to make a case for G25.
It's true that [G25] doesn't require actual contact for interference.1 However, if the interference was directly caused by an opponent's action (even if there were other direct causes), [G44] is triggered and [G25] is waived. It doesn't matter that 548 didn't intend to fall on 67; only that they did, that the bridge was interfered with, and that 548 was a direct cause of the interference.

1 Thought experiment: a robot has an earthquake machine and directs it at the floor to unseat the opponents' bridge. [G25] would seem to be appropriate.

Gray Adams 14-04-2012 18:49
Re: 2012 MSC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall (Post 1157956)
It's true that [G25] doesn't require actual contact for interference.1 However, if the interference was directly caused by an opponent's action (even if there were other direct causes), [G44] is triggered and [G25] is waived. It doesn't matter that 548 didn't intend to fall on 67; only that they did, that the bridge was interfered with, and that 548 was a direct cause of the interference.

1 Thought experiment: a robot has an earthquake machine and directs it at the floor to unseat the opponents' bridge. [G25] would seem to be appropriate.
Well now you're in G45 territory for using G44 to waive G25.

Bjenks548 14-04-2012 20:31
Re: 2012 MSC
 
Wanted to thank 2054 and 245 for being great alliance partners and getting us all the way to the finals.
Congrats to 67, 469, and 830. Very scary alliance and a well deserved victory!

Hope to see all of you at St. Louis and hope to meet again behind the same glass in eliminations there!

JABot67 14-04-2012 20:55
Re: 2012 MSC
 
What a great, high stakes competiton! Always great to see HOT win (and to give them a run for their money in quarters 1 match 2). I have a lot to say about the many great teams at the event. but unfortunately I have other things on my mind.

I lost a blue and gray checkered (kind of) hoodie that contains my car keys at the competition. It was on the table in our pit after our last quarterfinals match, and then disappeared. I looked everywhere I had been including the stands and the pit, and my team searched through all our stuff and couldn't find it. We talked to pit admin and to the event coordinator and they weren't able to help me.

Nobody moved it, so barring someone walking into our pit and just taking it, we think what most likely happened is it got bumped into the pit behind us belonging to Team Excel, 2474. They packed up very quickly and were gone the next time anyone from our team was in the pit. 2474, it would really help me if you could check to see if you have my hoodie and keys.

I know what I have to do now that my keys are gone; I am just wondering if anyone has seen the hoodie or has any idea where I could find it. What do they do with the lost and found items after the competition?

EricLeifermann 14-04-2012 21:01
Re: 2012 MSC
 
Who won Chairmans, EI and RAS?

tim-tim 14-04-2012 21:03
Re: 2012 MSC
 
I am pretty sure all lost and found gets sent to FIRST Headquarters. I am not 100% though.

Hope you find your hoodie and keys!

dodar 14-04-2012 21:03
Re: 2012 MSC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricLeifermann (Post 1158008)
Who won Chairmans, EI and RAS?
Chairmans: 27, 33, 503
EI: 1718
RAS: I dont remember.

StephenK 14-04-2012 21:15
Re: 2012 MSC
 
4130 Blue Devils won RAS

Tom Line 14-04-2012 21:19
Re: 2012 MSC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenK (Post 1158023)
4130 Blue Devils won RAS
That was particularly sweet for us - they are a rookie team we started this year and build in our build space. We're in the process of helping them with funding for the trip to St. Louis, and possibly getting them a ride down there.

Go Blue Devils!

Cynette 14-04-2012 21:45
Re: 2012 MSC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Line (Post 1158025)
That was particularly sweet for us - they are a rookie team we started this year and build in our build space. We're in the process of helping them with funding for the trip to St. Louis, and possibly getting them a ride down there.

Go Blue Devils!
Build them a Crate! Fast! :ahh: That's what Team 1511 did for our Regional's Rookie All Star team. Actually we made it in advance and presented it to the winner after they won.

AsianPersuasion 14-04-2012 23:06
Re: 2012 MSC
 
Great match, congrats to the winnings alliance! The wave from the stands :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjep3...ture=mh_l olz

Debbie 15-04-2012 00:06
Re: 2012 MSC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Line (Post 1158025)
That was particularly sweet for us - they are a rookie team we started this year and build in our build space. We're in the process of helping them with funding for the trip to St. Louis, and possibly getting them a ride down there.

Go Blue Devils!
How many of them are there? We may have room on our bus.

AsianPersuasion 15-04-2012 04:32
Re: 2012 MSC
 
The wave :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjep3WMjm3Y


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21.
Page 6 of 9 < 12345 6 789 >
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