Chief Delphi - 2014 Waterloo Regional

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Regional Competitions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

- - 2014 Waterloo Regional (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127716)

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Should it maybe be this?

G28
Initiating deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside the vertical extension of its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace (Post 1362604)

Why does 1114's G24 violation result in a 50 pt technical? Was it continuous or repeated?

It was continuous. One of their PVC antenna things fell backwards and went outside the 20 inches for a decent part of the match.

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur (Post 1362600)

This foul will be discussed all week.

There's nothing to discuss though, 1241 didn't do that on purpose - I'm sure even Sims would agree. Tough loss nonetheless.

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay (Post 1362597)

The rule prevents STRATEGIES causing the opposing alliance to get fouls.

Quote:

G14
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

1241 was not strategically trying to make 1114 extend out of their frame perimeter.

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

I'm pretty sure in good defense you want Incidental contact, but I'm absolutely sure it wasn't the intention of 1241 to break anything on 1114

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Quote:

Originally Posted by PriyankP (Post 1362610)

There's nothing to discuss though, 1241 didn't do that on purpose - I'm sure even Sims would agree. Tough loss nonetheless.

Oh, I agree. Nothing against 1241. It didn't look intentional at all.

But a 20 point foul caused a 50 point foul for the opponent. It will be discussed, even though I believe the refs got it right.

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

I know this will be another stick to beat Aerial Assist with (which is a shame, because these semi-finals/Waterloo in general has been one of the best exhibitions of what AA is capable of), but before it is, hasn't a scenario like this been possible every year?

Either way, with the definition of SCORED, the result was going to be unfortunate towards one alliance.

EDIT: I expect an update to change the wording of G24.

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Called correctly within the rules or not.... You should not be able to damage someone elses robot and cause them to get a penalty.

Especially if you only get a 20pt penalty and they end up with a 50pt penalty.

Common sense should come into play at some point.

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Am I watching the wrong video? Looks like 1114's red teammate, 4039, breaks off 1114's antenna with 69 seconds left in the match.

http://www.watchfirstnow.com/archives/89799948

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur (Post 1362613)

Oh, I agree. Nothing against 1241. It didn't look intentional at all.

But a 20 point foul caused a 50 point foul for the opponent. It will be discussed, even though I believe the refs got it right.

The rules in question, by my viewing:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRC 2014 Game Manual G24

A ROBOT’S horizontal dimensions may never exceed 20 in. beyond its FRAME PERIMETER (see illustration in Figure 3-6).

Violation: FOUL. If continuous or repeated violations, TECHNICAL FOUL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRC 2014 Game Manual G27 As Modified by 03-20-2014 TEAM UPDATE

Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage, destruction or inhibition of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed.

Violation: FOUL. If strategic, TECHNICAL FOUL. Potential YELLOW CARD.

<BB>For example, use of a wedge-like MECHANISM to flip ROBOTS would be considered a violation of G27.

MECHANISMS outside the FRAME PERIMETER are particularly susceptible to causing such damage and drawing this penalty and/or penalties associated with violations of G28. Teams are encouraged to be cautious in their use of such appendages when engaging in ROBOT to ROBOT MATCH play.</BB>

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRC 2014 Game Manual G28 As Modified by 03-20-2014 TEAM UPDATE

Initiating deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside the vertical extension of its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

<BB>High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. Generally, ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk.

A ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER may be penalized under this rule if it appears they are using that element to purposefully contact another ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER. Regardless of intent, a ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER that causes damage to another ROBOT inside of its FRAME PERIMETER will be penalized, unless the actions of the damaged ROBOT are the catalyst for the damage.</BB>

We all agree that G14 is not invoked, as the actions were not deliberate.

G24 certainly should be called on 1114. Their antenna was >20" outside their FRAME PERIMETER for a continuous time. TECHNICAL FOUL.

G27 should be invoked by the "gameplay resulting in damage to opponent ROBOTs" clause. FOUL.

G28 should ALSO be invoked by "Initiating... damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT... inside the vertical extension of the FRAME PERIMETER". TECHNICAL FOUL.

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

With these finals though?

3683 is guaranteed their first seat at CMP (either they win, or 254's WILD CARD).
2056 is guaranteed their seat. (either they win, or 1241's WILD CARD)

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Nishimura (Post 1362620)

G27 is not called because the "via" clause is not enacted.

"via actions such as..." provides examples, not an exhaustive list.

Regardless, the TECHNICAL FOUL from G28 would have made the red alliance win.

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racer26 (Post 1362622)

"via actions such as..." provides examples, not an exhaustive list.

Regardless, the TECHNICAL FOUL from G28 would have made the red alliance win.

"unless the actions of the damaged ROBOT are the catalyst for the damage"

The refs may have deemed that 1114's action of playing defence while 1241 was picking up was a catalyst to the damage caused.

Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Quote:

Originally Posted by 45Auto (Post 1362617)

Am I watching the wrong video? Looks like 1114's red teammate, 4039, breaks off 1114's antenna with 69 seconds left in the match.

http://www.watchfirstnow.com/archives/89799948

The antenna was broken beforehand. You can see for a split second that when 1241 is trying to pick up their ball a couple of seconds before, 1114's antenna is falling.

What is the use of those antennae, anyway? They light up once in a while.