Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

Watching from the stands, my immediate reaction was that 177 should have been called for a penalty. That was only in the heat of the match, though. Almost immediately afterwards, I thought about it and talked with a teammate and it became more obvious that it shouldn't have been called. Granted, we didn't have great seats, but I'm sure the ref made a great call, even though I had trouble with it :).

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

Many robots operate much of the time with their extensions outside of their starting zone, and when in close quaters, frequently make contact with other robots' 38x28 ‘protected’ space. Rule <G35>, if strictly enforced would result in a sizable number of robots receiving penalties. I believe that the enforcement (and thusly the interpretation) of this rule had to be relaxed to avoid a rash of penalties, and the ‘incidental’ clause gives leeway. Because ‘incidental’ is never defined, and a visible line never drawn, interpretation is bound to be arbitrary. To further weaken the rule, note that it is sprinkled with softeners such as "generally" and "guidelines". Perpetrator intent may be a factor too, as the rule is titled "Intentional ROBOT- ROBOT Interaction"

A great deal of leeway has been incorporated into this rule - So much that the rule is no longer a rule but a guiding principle. This one is totally up to the referees.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

I was in the stands talking to my teammates and telling them that that is considered a penalty, but it is really up to the refs and its their ruling.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

This is true, i am surprised it was brought up so late in the discussion. 177 didn't grab the tube. When the two robots and the tube became in tangled 177's drivers took there hands of the controllers.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

In any situation, drivers should NEVER EVER take their hands off of their controls. I always waved with one hand and drove with the other(I think some of the gratitude goes to Aiden Brown). Removing your hand from the controlls garuntees 0% controll of the robot.

Just inputting on general actions,
-Henry Sick

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

This was the biggest thing I got out of the driver's meeting. Basically, the way I understood it they said that unless something was extremely excessive, no penalties would be called on extension contact until someone tipped - then a 10 point penalty would likely be assessed. Obviously grabbing a tube was still out of line, but until somebody tipped it was fair game.

I was actually more surprised when 1270 was DQ'd for tipping 71 in the semifinal match. I wasn't watching when it happened, but I expected nothing more than a 10 point penalty - but it was just a judgment call on whether or not it was 'excessive' play.

(Chris mentioned that he understood it was a DQ for tipping, which would fit for this, but we had a qualifying match in which 217 was tipped and we were only assessed a 10pt penalty, although there was absolutely no hitting high )

- Jeff

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

I agree... taking your hands off the controls could prove worse off. Example: Not being able to save your robot from tipping over if you're tangled and the other robot is pulling away. However, this does not need to be discussed here.


Back on topic: I don't believe this should have been penalized because 177 was consistent in raising their arm when they played defense. However, the photo angle does make it look intentional, but the video proves, in my opinion, that it was not intentional.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

As has been said, this was discussed at the driver's meeting. Using your appendage to block another appendage (the other one with a tube) is perfectly legal in the course of normal gameplay (drivers, remember the silly demonstration?). If it gets incidentally tangled up, oh well, you should probably work to get that fixed, but there's no penalties.

/had my arm blocked by an opposing team's shuttle several times, no penalty on them, which I feel is the correct interpretation

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

Watching that match, I had a good angle to view what the 1270 bot's arm was doing at that point. And it was very clear to me that 1270's arm was pushing 71's bot over, and I thought it was fair that 1270 be DQ'd

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

After reading this thread i noticed many people talking about "useing the arm for defense". can someone cite a rule that specifically says that the arm cannot be used for defense? its says another robot, or a tube that another robot posses cannot be grasped, and that an arm cannot be used to push another robot. However, i see no rule (and please correct me if i am wrong) about useing the arm to just get in the way. if other robots cannot make arm to arm contact legally it seems to me that putting your arm where the opposition wants to put thiers is a great and legal defensive manuver.
As far as i can see, from my interp of the rules the "Arm as defense" argument for a penalty seems void.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

In that case, there should've been a DQ in 2 of 3 matches of the arch semifinal....

those had to be the most intentional tippings (107 on 254) I have ever seen.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

It’s not specifically a problem of playing defense but contact outside the bumper zone not being penalized. I think the rule was too loosely defined and that is what’s causing the trouble with interpretation.

<G35> Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable, and the offending ROBOT will be assessed a 10-point penalty, and may be disqualified from the match if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT.

Next year we need to do a better job of getting the GDC to tighten up rules like this.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

They get a little tighter as you read on... you missed the second part of it...

-If a ROBOT extends outside of its 28 inch by 38 inch starting footprint, it is responsible
for the extension's contact with other ROBOTS and must not use the extension to
contact other ROBOTS outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Likewise, other ROBOTS will not
be responsible for contact with the extension outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Again,
incidental contact will not be penalized.

-Extension to extension contact between two ROBOTS with appendages outside the 28-
inch by 38-inch starting footprint will generally not be penalized.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

The problem is that they weren't intentional in the least. I was right there in on the sideline for those two matches. In sf-2, 107 hadn't moved their arm from their middle row scoring preset, so there couldn't have been intentional tipping with their arm. However, there isn't sufficient evidence in the video to support either opinion. In sf-3, the second match in which 254 tipped, 254 had gotten hung up on the rack trying to hang a tube. What happened, and is clear in the video on SOAP, 107 had just missed placing a tube and at the same time 254 was trying to place one on the same leg and 107's arm was stuck on the leg, when 254 started pushing on the leg it didn't move and they tipped over. There was no contact between 254 and 107 with their arms.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

That rule isn't any clearer.

Must not, but incidental will not be penalized.
Generaly won't be penalized?