Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I don't believe it would be. Most of the climbs were 10 pointers and kind of clogged up the opportunities to slide through an opponent pyramid anyway.

What we noticed is that robots lining up for a shot while touching the pyramid were mugged by aggressive defense without a penalty being called in several instances. Those who were attempting to climb were given much greater protection. Hopefully in week 2 those calls will be more consistent.

We also noticed that if a defender played along the field wall and hit opponents into the pyramid as they went to the feeder station it was ruled a G-18 and the defender was given a technical. The loading robot appeared to have no responsibility in avoiding the pyramid in this situation. Defenders learned to play from the pyramid side and force the loading robots into the wall instead.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Same...I think that selfish players that hogged frisbees really would've become a problem

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Interesting and informative. I wonder why teams who line up to shoot while touching their pyramid aren't getting the calls from defenders that touch you.
If that's the case, how could you ever get a clear shot?
Sounds like missed calls and as you mentioned, hope those calls become more consistent.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

The scenario described are not so blatant.

From what I saw were the following;

Say team XXXX tried to line up at the back of the pyramid using uprights or something, then defenders usually left these robots alone. I never saw an instance of contact in this scenario, but I'm sure that had it occurred, it would've been called without hesitation.

Say team XXXX is trying to line up in the corner or even in the front of the pyramid (at this position, taller robots can really get in your game), then there is guarantee of a call. I suppose there's a little room to tussle but when illegal contact is made, it wasn't called very often, if at all.

- Sunny G.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I wonder if it is just bad angles by the referee's. When you line up on the corner of the pyramid only the very bottom of the bumper is making contact due to the angle of the legs. The higher points of the robot have quite a bit of space. Very difficult to make the call in some cases. (Although the instance I'm thinking of involved mecanums and the shooting robot always strafed until they rocked against that pyramid leg and then aimed to shoot. :rolleyes: )

On a separate note... We saw 60" defenders become effective at blocking full court shooters, but we didn't see many attempt to block pyramid shooters. If the refs continue to have difficulty telling when someone is touching the pyramid we might see the defense become more bold.

*Interesting clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spyRub7z1Bw

*We had a bad battery in this match so you will see us escaping the defensive pressure in low gear instead of our normal zippy selves.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Do you know if 2848 got called for a foul when 16 shoved them into the pyramid? By rule they shouldn't have since you can't be forced into taking a foul for anything except a G30. I'm just curious how the refs at Hub City called that.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I haven't had time to read this whole string, but I'll say that I learned that even teams that say they can climb for 30 (or 50) didn't at the Hub City and shooting frisbees four at a time is the best skill.

But like others here have said, even rookie teams were competitive and a ten-point hang is completely worth it.

Many videos of Hub City (for team 1108) at my youtube site.
[url="https://www.youtube.com/user/hrench"]

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

That was a huge hit if I've ever seen one. If you look at the picture they show a little later, 16's bumper comes up and hits them inside their frame perimeter. Nothing against 16 but if I was a ref and saw that I feel like I would call something.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Sunny - that happened in our match with you! :)
It was round 84 of the qualifications (great match, btw), and it was somewhere around the 1:30 mark. We were lined up against the back of the pyramid shooting when one of your alliance partners came up and gave us a nice firm tap in our rear end. I thought it was crystal clear that it was a foul - not sure how they missed it. If you have video of that match, check it out and see if you agree. We put up 54 points that round on 15-15 shooting, so we were majorly psyched in spite of the loss.

It was a great tournament for you guys - congrats on achieving the #1 rank and best of luck at Peachtree. I hope you guys make it to St Louis.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

There is no foul rule that applies to this situation.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

3.2.6.2 G29
Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

G29 does apply, depending on the severity of the contact.

Edit: The blue box appears to limit the impact of this rule to contact by appendages. Contact by bumpers may be a good candidate for a Q&A question.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

You sure?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

My comment was not that G29 did not exist, only that it did not apply to this situation. A robot tipped while being pushed and their bumpers overlapped momentarily. Hardly deliberate, damaging contact.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Read your own quote:
High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

16 had no such extended element. Their bumpers overlapped. It happens.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

That part of the quote had nothing to do with this incident, the rule just goes on to explain that if you extend something out there is no penalty for hitting it.