Chief Delphi
Page 4 of 4 < 123 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Championship Event (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Galileo Division 2008 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66771)

Racer26 19-04-2008 14:50
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
I suspect Galileo SF1.2 will be talked about for quite some time.

It seems to me that the red card was a little extreme, since the refs made it sound as though it was because of the team cheering. While un-GP it shouldn't be a deciding factor, as I'm fairly certain many people would cheer if their main opponent was unable to continue scoring, the fact that it was intentionally wouldn't factor in to most people in the stands.

SSMike 19-04-2008 14:51
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
7 more penalties on that last match, 5 being on the red alliance forcing a 3rd semi-final match. Wow!

I said this before and I'll say it again, these close matches will be decided by penalties. The alliance that is the best at avoiding them will win it all.

Joe G. 19-04-2008 14:53
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSMike (Post 739041)
I said this before and I'll say it again, these close matches will be decided by penalties. The alliance that is the best at avoiding them will win it all.
I agree. Galileo seems to e especially penalty-laden

However, hopefully, by the einstien finals, this will result in penalty free, close matches.

Bongle 19-04-2008 14:53
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy (Post 739040)
I suspect Galileo SF1.2 will be talked about for quite some time.

It seems to me that the red card was a little extreme, since the refs made it sound as though it was because of the team cheering. While un-GP it shouldn't be a deciding factor, as I'm fairly certain many people would cheer if their main opponent was unable to continue scoring, the fact that it was intentionally wouldn't factor in to most people in the stands.
The factors I see towards a red card:
-40's drivers had a clear view of what they were doing
-1114 is built so low, it needs to be pushed FAR to tip
-there wasn't really any other traffic around (in my memory anyway, i'll have to re-watch on TBA).
-the team cheering could have soured the refs mood

Tim Delles 19-04-2008 14:54
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy (Post 739040)
I suspect Galileo SF1.2 will be talked about for quite some time.

It seems to me that the red card was a little extreme, since the refs made it sound as though it was because of the team cheering. While un-GP it shouldn't be a deciding factor, as I'm fairly certain many people would cheer if their main opponent was unable to continue scoring, the fact that it was intentionally wouldn't factor in to most people in the stands.

also the Blue alliance had so many penalties it would not have changed the outcome (only the score).

The refs could possibly have given a red card to this team to warn everyone (not just the competitors on that field but everyone left playing) that they will not allow a lot of contact to go on.

Swan217 19-04-2008 15:10
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Delles (Post 739044)
also the Blue alliance had so many penalties it would not have changed the outcome (only the score).

The refs could possibly have given a red card to this team to warn everyone (not just the competitors on that field but everyone left playing) that they will not allow a lot of contact to go on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G52
In the event that any TEAM members in the arena are uncivil towards
competition personnel or other TEAMS, the TEAM may be disqualified from the MATCH.
Please see T05, T07, T09, and G52.

Andy330 19-04-2008 15:12
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
I guess my memory is different from Bongle's. I seem to remember there being at least 3 robots in the immediate area, with team 40 moving away from the driver station. In other words, I didn't get impression that the drivers had a clear view of what was going on. But obviously the red alliance would have won even without the red card being issued, so that's not really an issue.

What I'm confused about is exactly how the team cheering affected the red card. Obviously this is just my impression, but it almost seems to me that the referees used team 40 cheering as evidence that they had tipped 1114 intentionally. So if the drive team had instead appeared sober and apologetic, would they still have issued the red card? Do the referees really expect to be able to control the emotions of excitable high school students caught up in the moment?

To be clear, I don't want to sound like a sore loser. The 1114/217/148 alliance was clearly in control of the match. The blue alliance likely wouldn't have even been in a position to win in the first place had 217 and 148 been fully operational. But I would really like to understand the rationale behind this red card.

EDIT: I just read G52 as Dan said, so I can see they had legal reason to issue the red card. I guess that's all that needs to be said.

T3_1565 19-04-2008 15:23
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Swando (Post 739048)
Please see T05, T07, T09, and G52.

I didn't know about G52.. now it makes more sense as to why the cheering part was important.. although I thought red card as it was right in front of the blue alliance station, and although at first it didn't look intentional (40 hit 1114 with the trackball in there gripper), but it seemed to me it went from an accident to "there tipping!! help it out!" (this may not be the case, just so people don't yell at me :yikes: this just seems like it to me)

At the same note 90 minus point decided it anyways.. so it didn't really matter


These are some intense matches!!!

Tim Delles 19-04-2008 15:40
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
congrats to 1114 217 and 148!

Steve W 19-04-2008 15:42
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
I know that I would fear any alliance that had Karthik, Paul and John teamed together.

SSMike 19-04-2008 15:45
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Just announced by Andy, Galileo will be playing Newton on Einstein

rsilverstein 19-04-2008 15:51
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Great division. There were so many quality, close matches (and controversial ones too).

Congrats to all teams, especially the winners!

Bongle 20-04-2008 02:23
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy330 (Post 739049)
I guess my memory is different from Bongle's. I seem to remember there being at least 3 robots in the immediate area, with team 40 moving away from the driver station. In other words, I didn't get impression that the drivers had a clear view of what was going on. But obviously the red alliance would have won even without the red card being issued, so that's not really an issue.
My memory is certainly fuzzy. I remember there being a big traffic jam at that end, then it kind of clearing*, then 40 hitting 1114 as they also cleared out. So I'm not entirely sure, those were just my raw thoughts soon after it occurred.

*this may not have happened. It is possible I was focusing so much on 40 and 1114 the other robots got blanked out.

I do know that the webcast caught it (as well as the early-game 1114 ram) very clearly, so once it gets posted on TBA or SOAP we'll have clarity.

In other news, congrats to 1114 for a well-deserved championship.

jayjaywalker3 20-04-2008 09:45
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manoel (Post 738988)
How could 148 go unnoticed 'till the last pick?

Scout, people, scout...

Can we call them 2008 World Champions already? :p
I dont understand why 148 is a good pick. All I saw was 148 picking up penalties in qualifications and then picking up penalties in the eliminations. I will look at their videos from other regionals though.

EDIT
So after watching finals and semifinals from St Louis I see them having a crazy hybrid and making many many laps but at champs I saw them going backwards over two lines in hybrid (although i thought it looked like it was on purpose) and picking up other penalties with poor driving.

AmoryG 20-04-2008 12:28
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Team 148's robot is one crazy defensive robot. And I mean that in a good way.

Travis Hoffman 20-04-2008 13:08
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bongle (Post 738965)
They failed to score 100 in their 2nd match (barely), but 72 is certainly much farther from 100 than they're used to. So it appears it is indeed possible to play strong defense against them, even with a dead robot. Though if 254 wasn't stuck against the divider, 1114 might have had an easier time getting around 8, and thus scored more.
8 spent a decent amount of time during this match trying to poke 254 out of its predicament.

I think a lot of the scoring depression was indeed a result of the traffic jam created by 254's unfortunate situation.

Quite a blah sequence of events considering all the hype leading into the match.

XaulZan11 20-04-2008 13:14
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
[quote=jayjaywalker3;739345]I dont understand why 148 is a good pick. All I saw was 148 picking up penalties in qualifications and then picking up penalties in the eliminations. I will look at their videos from other regionals though.
QUOTE]

When they picked 148, I was thinking the same thing. While I still think they should have taken 70 just to have a backup hurdler, which they could have used a few times as both 1114 and 217 tipped in matches, 148 played great defense. They don't play dominate defense by pushing opponents, but by just getting in the way and pushing balls around. I saw countless times they get inside someone's gripper and push the ball around. 148 was certainly a good pick.

Vikesrock 20-04-2008 15:41
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
[quote=XaulZan11;739437]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjaywalker3 (Post 739345)
I dont understand why 148 is a good pick. All I saw was 148 picking up penalties in qualifications and then picking up penalties in the eliminations. I will look at their videos from other regionals though.
QUOTE]

When they picked 148, I was thinking the same thing. While I still think they should have taken 70 just to have a backup hurdler, which they could have used a few times as both 1114 and 217 tipped in matches, 148 played great defense. They don't play dominate defense by pushing opponents, but by just getting in the way and pushing balls around. I saw countless times they get inside someone's gripper and push the ball around. 148 was certainly a good pick.
Also with the penalties flying the way they did during Galileo elims, there is a lot less risk for 148 to get a G37 (read: almost none) than 70 getting one.

ErikaE1717 20-04-2008 19:20
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
I just wanted to thank all of the teams for their energy and passion throughout the three days! Team 1717 (D'Penguineers) has a rookie team every year of 32 seniors so we didn't know what to expect in Atlanta and though the regionals were phenomenal, the World Championship was such an eye opener into the spirit of the entire FIRST community. It was amazing to see how far people traveled to compete, and the sense of camaraderie was not only inspiring for the world of science, but it was also refreshing to know so many people share my dream to better the world in every way we can.

For those continuing on next year, keep up the innovative ideas and hard work! Keep FIRST alive and thriving!

Thanks again :)

sayso_411 20-04-2008 19:46
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Thank You Teams 1717 and 254 for picking us and I am really happy that all of us were in the Galileo Finals!!! :D

Team 384 had been an offensive bot all year, we found that we can defend as well :)

Thank You again 1717 and 254

galewind 20-04-2008 22:11
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Someone had asked why 148 hadn't been picked until last. Not to offend 148, but there are some clear reasons why. From our scouting meeting Friday night, we knew that if we were going to be in a position to pick, that we'd need two good hurdlers, because we know we're not that good at it. We figured that since we can play decent keep-away (and legally), the only way we'd do as well as to get two good hurdlers. When some kids complimented 148 at our meeting, other people made it clear that they cannot be one of our picks because we need better hurdlers, and we would be that defensive bot if we could get the hurdlers. Fortunately we did in 103 and 1503, and we had a great run with them!

That being said, I think 148 wasn't picked until the end due to some alliances needing good hurdlers (the amazing hurdling teams weren't all in the top 8), and possibly some inexperienced scouts on other teams. I had a really strong feeling that 1114 and 217 were going to pick them once it came back to their second selection. 148 was a great pick to complement their style, and I had really high hopes for Galileo once they picked them, because I truly believe that almost everyone in that arena knew what the outcome of our elimination brackets was going to be before QF1-1 even started.

jayjaywalker3 21-04-2008 00:22
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by galewind (Post 739781)

That being said, I think 148 wasn't picked until the end due to some alliances needing good hurdlers (the amazing hurdling teams weren't all in the top 8), and possibly some inexperienced scouts on other teams. .
That 3rd Alliance was painful for everyone on my team.

65_Xero_Huskie 21-04-2008 02:08
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by galewind (Post 739781)
Someone had asked why 148 hadn't been picked until last. Not to offend 148, but there are some clear reasons why. From our scouting meeting Friday night, we knew that if we were going to be in a position to pick, that we'd need two good hurdlers, because we know we're not that good at it. We figured that since we can play decent keep-away (and legally), the only way we'd do as well as to get two good hurdlers. When some kids complimented 148 at our meeting, other people made it clear that they cannot be one of our picks because we need better hurdlers, and we would be that defensive bot if we could get the hurdlers. Fortunately we did in 103 and 1503, and we had a great run with them!
I think this is why the alliance selection was so strange in my eyes.
It looked like every alliance was looking for firepower. They knew if they were gonna go up against 1114/217 they needed to try to get firepower.

BoyWithCape195 21-04-2008 08:45
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
In terms of the match with the 40 DQ. They actually took all the points scored by 40 in that match off the board completely. Had there have been no DQ, the 195,330,40 alliance would have won and brought it to a third match.

Karthik 21-04-2008 12:12
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyWithCape195 (Post 740038)
In terms of the match with the 40 DQ. They actually took all the points scored by 40 in that match off the board completely. Had there have been no DQ, the 195,330,40 alliance would have won and brought it to a third match.
This is incorrect. The final score before the DQ, but after all penalty points were assessed was 50-48 for the 1114, 217, 148 alliance.

Tom Bottiglieri 21-04-2008 13:15
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
1 Attachment(s)
Great time on Galileo. We recorded every point scored by every team and these were the results:

Code:
Team    Avg Contribution
1114    87.2
195    56.4
469    56.3
25    54
121    49.2
254    49.2
330    49
103    47.6
217    46.8
40    39.6
1319    39.6
494    39.2
694    39.2
1503    38.4
2062    38.4
291    37.2
1676    37.2
234    36.8
70    33.2
1717    32.8
88    31
384    30.4
176    29.6
343    29.2
1089    29.2
1629    28.8
716    26
612    25.2
316    24.8
1983    24.5
1758    24
548    23.6
1138    23.6
364    23.2
2487    22.8
1816    22
2046    22
65    20.8
180    19.6
1038    19.6
1212    19.2
2237    18.5
1540    17.6
2437    17.2
48    16.8
115    16.8
894    16.8
1885    16.8
597    16.4
932    16.4
1450    16
2549    16
2354    15.6
2621    15.5
1023    15.2
2165    15.2
2340    14.8
2568    14.4
1523    14
8    13.6
1390    13.6
84    13.2
2423    13.2
2599    13
399    12.8
457    12.8
1296    12.8
839    12.4
980    11.6
2468    11.5
148    11.2
1739    10.8
1880    10.8
302    10.4
425    10
812    9.6
2638    9
134    8.8
1595    8.8
509    7.2
1254    6.8
2023    5.2
168    3.2
226    3.2
1366    3
1576    2.4
(We may have missed a line or two here or there, so ours may not agree 100% with every other teams scouting data. But its close enough.)

EDIT: These are for Friday's matches only.

BoyWithCape195 21-04-2008 16:26
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik (Post 740154)
This is incorrect. The final score before the DQ, but after all penalty points were assessed was 50-48 for the 1114, 217, 148 alliance.
Yes, I am not disagreeing with you on that. The score, pre penalties, was altered though. With the DQ, they removed all the points that 40 had scored during that match. The 48 points was the amount scored by 195 and 330 only.

Zflash 21-04-2008 16:51
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
[quote=Tom Bottiglieri;740213]Great time on Galileo. We recorded every point scored by every team and these were the results:

[code]
Team Avg Contribution
1114 87.2
195 56.4
469 56.3
25 54
121 49.2 254 49.2
330 49
103 47.6
217 46.8
40 39.6 1319 39.6

Being in the top 10 in avg contributiuon scores and not getting picked; shocked 1319 to some extent. This was our fifth year and we were aware that it could occur because anything can happen at these things. Does anyone have any suggegestions as to how we can prevent this from happening again.

Karthik 21-04-2008 17:57
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyWithCape195 (Post 740409)
Yes, I am not disagreeing with you on that. The score, pre penalties, was altered though. With the DQ, they removed all the points that 40 had scored during that match. The 48 points was the amount scored by 195 and 330 only.
No, the only points removed were for the penalties. The score was not altered in anyway. Nowhere in the rules does it call for the removal of points scored by the DQed team. Also, there is no way for the refs to track the individual points scored by a robot, aside from their laps. The scoring system credits all hurdles, herds and deperches to the alliance not the robot.

CzarValvador 21-04-2008 22:16
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Average contribution doesn't exactly correlate to how you will be picked for a team. Some Robots work better with others. Some features compliment other features. It's all about how people scout out different mechanics and matches.

Besides, if you played in 7 defensively absent matches, you could have easily raised your "Average Contribution" above that of 1114's if they have played in very defense heavy matches. This is why we have scouts... if everything would have been decided by Average Contributions, Scouting would be a job for one person on the team who just pulls information off of some database.

Anyway, Congratulations 1114, 217, and 148. Great defense, great offense, and I must say I honor your dedication to your team, playing 2 vs 3 without replacing 148, and letting them have some time to repair their bot. Congratulations! It was an honor to play against you guys.

Thanks to 254 and 384 for playing on our alliance.

jasper.s.jacobs 21-04-2008 22:31
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
[quote=Zflash;740428]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri (Post 740213)
Great time on Galileo. We recorded every point scored by every team and these were the results:

[code]
Team Avg Contribution
1114 87.2
195 56.4
469 56.3
25 54
121 49.2 254 49.2
330 49
103 47.6
217 46.8
40 39.6 1319 39.6

Being in the top 10 in avg contributiuon scores and not getting picked; shocked 1319 to some extent. This was our fifth year and we were aware that it could occur because anything can happen at these things. Does anyone have any suggegestions as to how we can prevent this from happening again.
many teams in the top 8 alliances were nowhere close to the top avg score contributors. average score is bs... so is the ranking score which promotes lack of competition by giving more to points to teams who beat teams by less. A good team can choose not to play defense to let their opponents score more so that they can achieve a higher ranking

Cascade 22-04-2008 02:38
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyWithCape195 (Post 740409)
Yes, I am not disagreeing with you on that. The score, pre penalties, was altered though. With the DQ, they removed all the points that 40 had scored during that match. The 48 points was the amount scored by 195 and 330 only.
Something similar happened to us during a quarter final match in LA. We were disqualified for lifting the overpass off the ground some four-six inches. Apparently this caused some cables to be yanked as well. They tried to e-stop us somehow us but it failed. What they did do was deduct all points we scored after the point of disqualification and this contributed to our alliance loosing the match.

I wonder, then, if this was really the case with Team 40 and the DQ was so early in the match it caused all points to be deducted because they had not scored yet?

Cascade 22-04-2008 02:42
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
[quote=jasper.s.jacobs;740762]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zflash (Post 740428)

many teams in the top 8 alliances were nowhere close to the top avg score contributors. average score is bs... so is the ranking score which promotes lack of competition by giving more to points to teams who beat teams by less. A good team can choose not to play defense to let their opponents score more so that they can achieve a higher ranking
On the other hand, with all the penalties this year and so many matches decided by penalties, a team playing too much defense may have wished for more offense after the score was posted as a buffer against penalties. Your premise is correct; however, depending on the game maybe a costly idea.

Steve W 22-04-2008 07:00
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Even when a team is DQ'ed they can still score points for the alliance. As Karthik said there is no way to see who scored what at the end of the match. The score will continue to add because the DQ is called at the end of the match if at all. When the refs have discussed and agree on the DQ a red card is shown and the DQ recorded. If they decide on a yellow card or no card, then the points would have to have been counted. The only time the team can't score is when they are disabled.

Zflash 22-04-2008 08:14
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
[quote=jasper.s.jacobs;740762]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zflash (Post 740428)

many teams in the top 8 alliances were nowhere close to the top avg score contributors. average score is bs... so is the ranking score which promotes lack of competition by giving more to points to teams who beat teams by less. A good team can choose not to play defense to let their opponents score more so that they can achieve a higher ranking

Every one of our loss matches were relatively close in score. Our team never played defense because we were always asked to play offense by the alliance. I am curious as to why you would say that average contribution score is bs. What other easy way is there to judge a team by there contribution to any alliance they are paired with. I realize that if you play a good match with a team then you are likely to want to chose them. My question is how does a team that can contribute points that the top 10 teams are contributing get chosen for an alliance of teams they have not played with which is very likely in a field of 86.

65_Xero_Huskie 22-04-2008 08:44
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
The issue with having your average score being high and not being picked is something you shouldnt take into consideration. The alliance selection has so many things that are determined before it happens that score doesnt mean everything. At one point our team was 0-4, but our rank score was 60.50 because we lost our matches 106-94, 96-84, etc. If they went by rank score people would find that the order of teams would have been different. Its all on the teams that are seeded in the top 8, They have won the right to choose who they want, and i say people should not question who they pick to be on their team.

Zflash 22-04-2008 08:52
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Let me start out by saying that everyone who was picked in our division or any other division for that matter totally deserves to be there. As I originally stated we knew of the possibility of not getting picked. Some teams spoke with us about picking us but it just didn't happen. We still had a great season. However no one has answered my question and maybe there isn't an exact answer. How do teams expose themselves to the other 85 teams in hopes of being picked. Any suggestions on that topic would be great.

CzarValvador 22-04-2008 09:45
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
[quote=Zflash;740928]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper.s.jacobs (Post 740762)


Every one of our loss matches were relatively close in score. Our team never played defense because we were always asked to play offense by the alliance. I am curious as to why you would say that average contribution score is bs. What other easy way is there to judge a team by there contribution to any alliance they are paired with. I realize that if you play a good match with a team then you are likely to want to chose them. My question is how does a team that can contribute points that the top 10 teams are contributing get chosen for an alliance of teams they have not played with which is very likely in a field of 86.

Because, like I said already, Average contribution score does not take in consideration the little nuances that happen during the actual matches. Contribution score can be altered by another team tipping your robot, the other team completely shutting you down with defense, and many other unexpected events.

Average contribution also ignores any defensive robot that managed to "prevent" team scoring.


There are many factors that decide the quality of play, and contribution points may be one of them, but it is definitely not the main one.

EricH 22-04-2008 11:04
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cascade (Post 740894)
I wonder, then, if this was really the case with Team 40 and the DQ was so early in the match it caused all points to be deducted because they had not scored yet?
And, it was late in the match. Maybe as many as 30 seconds left to play.

But 90 points in penalties is something you can't exactly argue with either.

Cascade 22-04-2008 15:34
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH (Post 741012)
And, it was late in the match. Maybe as many as 30 seconds left to play.

But 90 points in penalties is something you can't exactly argue with either.
Thanks, Eric for the timing clarification. 90 points in penalties... OUCH! Can't wait to see the video.

Tapoore 23-04-2008 12:26
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Videos are up on SOAP now.

Thanks again SOAP!

Marc P. 23-04-2008 13:10
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH (Post 741012)
And, it was late in the match. Maybe as many as 30 seconds left to play.

But 90 points in penalties is something you can't exactly argue with either.
The match was Semi-Final 1 Match 2- when 1114 goes over, there were still 47 seconds left. The video has a pretty good shot of what actually happened-

195 was in the corner locking down 2 red trackballs. 1114 was attempting to gain access to one of the red trackballs, when 40 came around into the blue home stretch, perpendicular to 1114. 40 tried to push through the traffic jam created by 1114 and 195 battling it out for the trackballs. 1114 tilted up on to 40's chasis because of the blue trackball in 40's arm pushing high inside the bumper zone. With 1114 beached on top of 40, 40 continued to push forward without backing up, and 1114 went over.

http://video.soap108.com/2008/gal/gal_sf1m2.wmv

AdamHeard 23-04-2008 14:07
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T3_1565 (Post 741689)
40 also raises their arm after noticing that 1114 was tipping :rolleyes:
or because they were moving towards the overpass trying to hurdle...

Either is possible, but don't assume.

Corey Balint 23-04-2008 14:13
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T3_1565 (Post 741689)
40 also raises their arm after noticing that 1114 was tipping :rolleyes:
You could question that. There are a few different ways to look at it. Some people say it clearly warrants the DQ, some are on the fence, some are highly against it.


To me...when I first saw it, I saw 1114 going after the ball that 195 was blocking in (I'm not a fan of the blocking the ball in the corner strategy, but it works...sometimes), then 40 gets their ball caught under 1114's shooter as they come around the corner. They continue to lift up their shooter even though 1114 is clearly tipping, then they drive forward.
I see that as a DQ myself and I'm not one to call for DQ's.

If 40 didn't push forward/had started their hurdle earlier, I would have said it was 1114's fault and just went on scores (which still had 1114's alliance winning). However, that is what happened, and you have to deal with it. The Refs made the call they thought was right and took the time they needed to, to decide the true outcome. The Refs played this one the right way.

That was an exciting match though. A great showing by 195's alliance. I don't think anyone could have seen 195 playing ball defense the whole match if predicting what may happen. Looked like some nerves got into the drivers though...it was unlike 330 to get so many penalties in a match..their driver is one of the best in the Nation.

T3_1565 23-04-2008 14:13
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 741692)
or because they were moving towards the overpass trying to hurdle...

Either is possible, but don't assume.
I never said they did it on purpose :o I will change the wording.. sorry

I only meant it as it helped in the knocking over process, they wouldn't of been able to ram 1114 over without the arm pushing up at the very top of the simbot

JesseK 23-04-2008 14:27
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
195 was in the corner locking down 2 red trackballs. 1114 was attempting to gain access to one of the red trackballs, when 40 came around into the blue home stretch, perpendicular to 1114. 40 tried to push through the traffic jam created by 1114 and 195 battling it out for the trackballs. 1114 tilted up on to 40's chasis because of the blue trackball in 40's arm pushing high inside the bumper zone. With 1114 beached on top of 40, 40 continued to push forward without backing up, and 1114 went over.
This may have been excusable/accidental if it happened on the opposite end of the field from 40's driver's station. It happened right in the blind spot for the middle and right driver's station for 1114/217/148, however it happend right in front of 40's driver's station. I think that's why they DQ'ed them, which is unfortunate for their partners.

Cory 23-04-2008 15:22
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
40 was trying to score, 1114 was impeding them (I doubt it was intentional) 1114 tipped over. It seemed innocent enough to me, and I was standing about inline with the involved robots, on the side of the field closest to the stands.

I've seen teams do much worse and get away with it. Personally I thought it should have been a yellow card, but the refs clearly were not allowing any kind of contact whatsoever, and they chose to DQ 40.

Brandon Holley 23-04-2008 15:39
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory (Post 741749)
40 was trying to score, 1114 was impeding them (I doubt it was intentional) 1114 tipped over. It seemed innocent enough to me, and I was standing about inline with the involved robots, on the side of the field closest to the stands.

I've seen teams do much worse and get away with it. Personally I thought it should have been a yellow card, but the refs clearly were not allowing any kind of contact whatsoever, and they chose to DQ 40.
I agree wholeheartedly with cory on this one....1114 was unintentionally impeding 40 by going after their trackball...the whole situation just seemed misfortuante

Marc P. 23-04-2008 15:43
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory (Post 741749)
40 was trying to score, 1114 was impeding them (I doubt it was intentional) 1114 tipped over. It seemed innocent enough to me, and I was standing about inline with the involved robots, on the side of the field closest to the stands.
From what I could see, in the process or cornering off the red trackballs, 195 was blocking what otherwise would have been a clear passing lane around 1114. As per <G40>: A robot can not impede a robot of the same alliance, 195's position would have prevented 1114 from impeding.

EricH 23-04-2008 15:55
Re: Galileo Division 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc P. (Post 741760)
From what I could see, in the process or cornering off the red trackballs, 195 was blocking what otherwise would have been a clear passing lane around 1114. As per <G40>: A robot can not impede a robot of the same alliance, 195's position would have prevented 1114 from impeding.
But 1114 was blocking, as there wasn't a way around them. So they were impeding.

This could go in circles all day long. I say, call it like the refs called it, and let it go at that. Won't change anything now, anyway.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:38.
Page 4 of 4 < 123 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi