pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Who was ruled as the owner of the goal? I saw that part of the match on the webcast, but didnt see the final score.

This would be a great you make the call (YMTC) topic :D .

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

LOL ya, we were like...so...which is on top? In my opinion, it would be red's since there are more red apexes higher than blue, but I was just making up that rule so that's how I would judge it. By the way, do you know what happened with team 706 when everything froze during the finals? I heard they didn't have a radio signal to their robot.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

As I understand...both teams got credited with owning the goal.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Red owned the goal because the tetra was higher.

Very interesting cap, it was weird.. they just came together at the same time, backed away, and voila.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Something very similar to this happened at UCF.... I beleive spam did it and neither of them counted (I'm guessing they were both beyond 6" at UCF).

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

From my understanding of the rules, the top two tetras would not be scored and blue would own the goal. Neither of the tetras are seated properly. We noticed this the day after kickoff while we were playing around with a few tetras and deemed that they wouldn't be scored.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

But all apexes were 6 inches from each other I believe, which should qualify both for being capped.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Well while i was watching the webcast I saw them measuring distances which became the last regular stacked blue one to the odd blue one and then the blue one to the red one. All of those measurements must have been 6" or less im assuming.


ahh got beat to it.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

But tetras arranged in such a fashion can not be seated properly.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

The rule about being stacked properly just deals with the distance between apexes, not really which way the stack has started to grow.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

I agree with tkwetzel 100%. The answer lies in what it means to be seated properly. The rules say that a tetra is stacked when all four apexes are within 6" of the supporting structure.

Obviously, a stack starts with the goal. So, start there and for each tetra ask whether each apex is within 6" of its predecessor.
1 BLUE - Yes
2 RED - Yes
3 RED - Yes
4 BLUE- Yes
5 BLUE- No (The chain is broken)
6 RED- Moot

Any attempt to justify 5 or 6 because they are each 6" from "something" would involve circular reasoning. To say that 5 counts because it is within 6" of 6 pre-supposes that 6 counts. That's begging the question.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Going by which is the highest..they are seated right. The 2nd blue is 6 inches from the 1st Blue. The Red one, being higher, is on top of the stack, meaning it only needs to be 6 inches from the 2nd Blue, which it is. Now I don't know about the owernship call, but I would say it belongs to Red since their tetra is physically higher.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Just to let eveyone know, we placed the blue tetra in that match. It was a very exciting end to the match.

The ruling was that both tetras counted and that red owned the goal. I thought that this was the proper ruling. It didn't matter though - our alliance would have won no matter what the ruling was.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

How did you decide that 5 was more then 6 inches away from 4? I can't say unequivocally that from that picture I know for sure what 6 inches is. And, that picture is certainly better then a view from the stands.

Your logic is correct, but we don't have the information needed to make the determination.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Ignore my "opinion" on the distance between the upper apex on BLUE 5 and BLUE 4. The picture clearly shows that the supporting structure at that apex is RED 6. Can we not agree that a valid supporting structure must first be part of the stack? The upper apex of RED 6 is clearly more than 6" away from anything but BLUE 5. BLUE 5 is valid if RED 6 is valid if BLUE 5 is valid is circular.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Actually, he was the head ref, so he would know better ;).
BTW, thanks and congrats to the referees, we had some disagreements on the finals rounds but your job was really well done!

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

this is true...and i believe it made the ref's decision a little easier to just count them both --- give red the goal and move on. however, a rule does need to be made because this row could have been a lot more crucial to the match

as soon as it happened i turned to Bob Hammond (FRC director) and said "Did you guys ever see that happening" all Bob could say was "wow...we sure didn't. i don't know about that. i'm just glad i'm not a ref"

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

he was a ref...not the head ref

Rick Buessing was head ref at MWR

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Thanks for the promotion, but actually I was one of the grunts. That does not make me "right". It was a very unusual situation. I enjoy the debate.

BTW 383, you are a class act! Looking forward to your return to the U.S.A

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Chris is right. They were both scored and red owned the goal because their tetra was the highest. In my opinion if it would have effected the match they would not have scored ether one and blue would own the goal. But since it did not matter the refs decided to score both.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Well, with that kind of statement, we would need to know why the call was made the way it was called, and if this is how all future instances will be called.
We can't just say - well since it doesn't impact the outcome of the match, we'll just give them both the points. The rule (if there is one specifically dealing with this case) needs to remain constant, regardless of how it affects the outcome of the match. Personally seeing and looking at that, I guess I'd say that both should count and the higher one should own the goal. It was an interesting suspense, seeing the tetras come together over the goal, and then being placed down on the goal simultaneously.
Seems to me like there was a hypothetical case brought up early in the season about this here on CD. I don't recall details.. Maybe there will be another update dealing with this case since now we've seen it physically happen.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

This is why we need to bring back the old skool tie breakers of yester year :) !!! In the good old days this that rule is basically how it would have been settled. Now we are in era of a kinder gentler FIRST so both teams get credit and everyone is happy and we've all copertitionated.

Justin

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

This is what I see in the picture:

The top SEATED blue tetra is supporting both the blue and red tetra above it (right side of the tetra). The supported blue tetra appears to be preventing the red tetra from seating correctly. Based on my reffing experience last week, if the apex of the top blue tetra is within 6" of the top SEATED blue tetra, then it would count, and the red one would then also count and own the goal (assuming that it is within 6" if the blue tetra preventing it from seating correctly).

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

This was during our match, this was a very wierd call, from the looks of it, the red( opponents) went through our tetra, so that was descoring it, but the refs called it as both counting, we were very wierded out, but we still won the match :) , good job to 71, 111, and 537 4 the win, ( that tecnicallyity was very dissapointing, we thought we woulda won the match where 537 was DQed and didnt happen

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

The early discussion here on Chief Delphi had a lot of persuasive arguments for counting it one way or another. I was finally convinced by the ones saying that the blue one in this case is stacked correctly, but the red one is not and should not count.

I'm still convinced that's the correct interpretation, and the judges' awarding the goal in this case to red was a mistake. Before the decision was announced, I had already figured that it would make no difference in who won the match, so I wasn't going to get upset about it whatever they decided. I was excited about the situation actually happening in a real match, though.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Yes, I stand corrected. I will not, however, correct my statement about the great job the entire ref team did. ;)
So, just out of curiosity, according to your interpretation (not the head ref's, apparently :)), on that second final match (the one that had to be replayed) none of the three red tetras on the center row goal (I believe it was the one right in front of you) would have counted? I am pretty sure two of them wouldn't count, but one of them (the one that had all of its apexes within 6 inches from the goal BUT was supported by a tetra that wasn't in the goal) got me thinking. :ahh:

Also, thanks a lot for the compliment! We really enjoyed playing this regional and it was surely the most exciting event I ever attended!

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

In this match, the red opponent (269 I think?) was going to stack and we stuck our tetra into theirs as they were trying to score. So we had a sideways stack of two that got placed onto the stack of 4.

A tough job for the refs for sure....

Ken

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

OK – So you’re not impressed by the rules of logic. Then here’s an even better reason not to count either nested tetra:

Suppose that Redateam (1213) has an epiphany brought about by the ruling at MWR and what would have been the ruling at WMR, had the nesting occurred. (Refs voted == Democracy in action) :rolleyes:

They slightly modify the end of their arm so that their human player can easily nest a second tetra. Redateam is real fast and can cap their end row and one side with a nested pair each – for a total of ten tetras on five goals with two rows. Redateam is so fast that they can get home along with their partners.

Check out this picture of what happened when BlueAlliance tried to cap those Red goals:





Assuming that the rest of the RedAlliance didn’t even bother to move out of their end-zone, Red score equals ((2 * 3) * 5 + 2 * 10 + 10) = 60 points! Beat that Blue!

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

crazy...very crazy....you were saying something like that at OU that one day. that is crazy...so then the blue cant own the gola or score any more on it. so if you cap all of the the middle and all of your home zone with that 2 tetra nest then you win the match. is that legal?

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

I am just now reading this message and I am in Jack's corner on this one.

I don't know what the rules say now, but by the time Atlanta rolls around, the rule should not be that both reds count and blue does not.

If both red tetras count, then it will be a trivial matter for any number of teams to do just what Jack shows on many goals. I can list 20 teams from memory that I think could do this intentionally if they want to.

If both red tetras count, in effect, this not only scores 2 tetras for the red alliance but it also means the following two things:

1. red owns the goal for the rest of the match
2. the goal is out of scoring contention for the rest of the match because it is almost impossible for blue (or anyone for that matter) to score on top of the 2 reds and they cannot be descored.

This is a non-trivial change in the game, one that I believe it will be a change for the worse.

Thoughts?

Joe J.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Someone talked to me about this and thought that stacking two tetras sideways would effectively score the goal for you and give you possession of that goal. They thought that they would use this strategy to win matches. However, I do believe that it would be a waste of time to stack two tetras sideways. First of all, the robot has to be able to carry two tetras, and they have to be sideways at that. Many robots have one tetra on their manipulator and it just swings around, how are you going to balance a second one in the side opening of the first on one their? Most teams will be unable to do this. Next, you will be placing two tetras, but only scoring one. And a lot of matches are decided by only a few points. It is easier to defend against a sideways double stack also. And my last point will be that to make this move worth while, you will have to do this to at least 3-4 goals, which will take a little bit of time. 3-4 goals means 6-8 tetras, which most teams can't even accomplish in a single match putting them on straight, much less a sideways double stack. I only see this happening by accident again and I do not think that any team will start stacking like this to use to their advantage.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

If they only score one of the two tetras, fine, but that is not what they did in this case if the reports are to be believed. They scored BOTH tetras.

If they score both tetras and it make scoring more tetras on top of that goal virtually impossible, then why is it not an advantage to score this way on as many goals as you can? If it is one, fine. If it is 3 better. If it is 5 I can hardly see a way that you can loose.

Let me list just a few the teams I that I have seen first hand that I think could do this WITH THE MACHINE THEY HAVE NOW using a simple double load from there player station (load, back out, re-load in this goofy manner, then go score pretty much as they score now.).

33
47
67
85
201
217
245
302
322
573
910
1213
1596

This is just a list off the top of my head of teams I have seen first hand that I think have grippers that could do it right out of the box in Atlanta.

I am sure that there are more that I have seen but can recall right now and even more still that I have not seen from other regionals and even more STILL that could do it with simple modifications to their loaders.

I am not trying to be an alarmist, but if it is legal and it works as advertized, why wouldn't a LOT of teams do it?

Joe J.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

We considered this a possible strategy at one point, because we could do it. We figured that even if both were not scored, it would have at least been an effective way of locking down the home row. In fact, for us to convince ourselves that this could even come anywhere close to legal (or at least near the spirit of the game), both tetras could not count; that would allow the opposing alliance to dismount the tetras in an attempt to score.

We successfully did it at PNW during a practice match. I wasn't present at the time, but I am told by one of our drive team that she asked a referee for clarification on whether it would be scored. The head ref returned to her and said that it will be disallowed and asked us not to do it again (or face DQ), because it prevents opposing robots from scoring. We decided not to push the matter after.

In short, it is possible, I don't think it was intended in the game design, it didn't seem to be ruled out by the rules (unless I missed something), it is bordering on being un-GP, and it was disallowed by one regional's referees.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

If they score both of them it is a different story, but I do believe that only one of them will seat properly to score and that the other should be disallowed. And at the two regionals I attended (VCU and UTC), I do not recall any robots that would be able to do this, however, there probably were a couple that would be able to.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Joe: what does it matter if they score both or only the bottom one? Either way, the team scoring the nested tetras own the goal for the remainder of the match.

I don't think it would be an issue to score more tetras on the top of the nested tetra. There are two fair ways to handle this situtation: 1) score them both and then allow the other alliance an opportunity to over-cap the goal to take possession, or 2) don't score either tetra and call the goal "dead" (not capable of further scoring). Just scoring the bottom one results in the nesting team possession of the goal for the remainder of the match.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

I agree with you that 1 is bad too, but it is not AS bad. The main reason is time. The number of teams that could get 4 or 5 of these STJB's (the Stack That Jack Built) is a much smaller number than the number that could put up 2 or 3. If you count only one tetra, then the incentive to make STJB's is considerably less (you've wrangled 6 tetras only to get 3 goals and 9 points -- 18 points is much more attractive).

But you are right, once teams get the idea, a single, well placed STJB can be devastating to your opponents.

I don't like either of your proposals to address this by the way. If you can score on top of them, then it is Katie Bar the Door for all kinds of weird stacking arrangements. If you call the stack dead, that allows a team to safely own a goal by making an STJB on top of a goal you already own.

I argue that they should either
#3 the tetras are not scored, period.
#4 a team that is ruled to intentionally make an STJB is disabled and DQ'ed, the tetras don't count and the stack is owned by the opposing alliance.
#5 30 point penalty for intentionally making an STJB, tetras don't count, the opponents own the goal.

#3 allows either team to remove them without penalty. While this is sort of lousy and may effectively make a goal "dead" it is not officially so. This is no different than a tall stack with a vision tetra on top hanging by its finger tips. In most cases, teams from both alliances leave the goal alone fearing the vision tetra will slinky the entire stack off the goal.

#4 is the "death penalty" but it makes it clear that this is not in the spirit of the competition to intentionally attempt to own goals in this way.

#5 gets to the same point as #4 but is less punitive.

I'd vote for #5 if anybody asked me.

Joe J.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

I think #5 would be a good solution.

Edit: I've changed my position. I'm fully supportive of Joe's suggestion #5 above.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

haha!!! ...thats what i thought the first time i saw that pic. i thought that a tetra broke or something, funny stuff.

then reading through the thread i realized that this was actually a serious issue. my opinion on the ruling: neither should be counted... if a team does this on purpose a 30 pt penalty should be rewarded.

i still think the picture is funny. :ahh:

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

This happened at SoCal. The blue was nested further down (within six inches I believe) and blue was counted as owned, as I understand it. I was not a ref, so maybe someone who was can clarify it; I'm just saying what I remember.

-Daniel