Did anyone else see it this way?
 

During the final match I though that 177 repeatedly reached into the staring footprint with their arm and made contact with 233. They also grabbed onto and popped a ringer that was in Pinks possession.

Is this a penalty or incidental contact?


PS I don’t want to start a controversy; I just would like a civil discussion of the rules.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

While watching this online when I saw that I screamed at the moniter "PENALTY: Contact out of bumper zone."

Then I saw that the score was very close so I said "that penalty will decide the match"....

I was apparently wrong...

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

The contact was arm to tube. Not arm to arm and there was no malicious intent to tip the robot. Look at the picture more carefully and note the drivers hands are OFF the controls. Demonstrating to the refs that it was unintentional and allowing Pink to get clear.

Pete

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

[off topic]
Hey! I see me in that picture!... bonus points if you know which one is me.

[/off topic]

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

Penalty or no penalty, I thought it was some dirty play.

It often seemed that 177 used their arm to block pink. I don't think they tried to pop the ringers, but I do think they used their arm to play defense.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

Top right holding an electronic device with a ref shirt on.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

I believe that if a team is holding a tube, it is apart of their robot. Dont quote me on this though.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

What about:

<G36> Goal defense - ROBOTS may defend SPIDER LEGS by pushing and/or blocking other ROBOTS as they attempt to HANG GAME PIECES. If a ROBOT is holding a GAME PIECE, a ROBOT on the opposing ALLIANCE may not grasp/attach to the GAME PIECE in order to remove it from their POSSESSION or prevent them from HANGING. A violation will
result in a 10-point penalty being assessed to the offending ROBOT.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

There's nobody with a better view of the interaction than the referee 4 feet from the robots. I say if he didn't call a penalty, it's because he considered the contact incidental. End of story...

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

When I saw this, I thought it was quite clearly illegal, per G36 and even G38. It seemed clear to me that it was not incidental contact and 177 intentionally was trying to grab the tube to either remove it, or inhibit 233's ability to move.

That's a bit of a flawed assumption, given how questionable (at the very least, not consistent) the refereeing was throughout the championships.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

When playing against 177 in the UTC regional eliminations we experienced similar defense. We were told by the referees it was incidental and just went back to the game. We are partially to blame, as we modified the gripper from NJ and it was rather loose at grabbing the tubes, if the change hadn't of been made it probably wouldn't have been a problem.
http://thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=1339
Around second 0:48

It is just another factor of the game, you have to work around it. 177 plays very tight defense and makes for a very challenging game.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

177 never grasps the tube. If you watch the video, the popped tube merely gets snagged on their gripper, they never actively tried to grasp the tube.
While in many situations this season I would have liked to see more penalties called, especially for outside bumper zone contact, this is not one of them.

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

I'd like to hear what that ref had to say, because I thought he flagged that. I expected the penalties at the end of the match, but wondered if he just didn't report the penalty at the end because of the magnitude of a call in that final match. Or if he forgot...

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

See this is where the ref's job is so hard. It’s totally a judgment call. I think 177 was clearly using their arm for defense outside the bumper zone in that match and they should have received a 10 point penalty, but other see it as incidental contact. Which is correct? Maybe both.

Whatever the ref rules somebody is going to be unhappy.


Anybody want that job?

Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
 

if infact it was incidental contact it should have only happened once. i counted 4 seprate incidents in that one match from 177 against 233