Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur (Post 939631)

From what I can see all rules were followed to the letter (with the possible exception of an additional <G16> penalty), which is what I would hope would happen. By doing it any other way you will get variations in refereeing, which is exactly what we don't want.

39 points in penalties is a bit excessive, but I betcha no one will make that mistake again ;)

Originally Posted by JesseK (Post 939622)

To be fair, why should we not play by the rules, particularly in the 2nd scenario you're describing? In other words, how is it in FIRST's best interest to not play by the rules they set?.

Originally Posted by Rule G29, as of Rev K

Defending ROBOT Restriction - Only one opposing ALLIANCE ROBOT is allowed in the opponent’s ZONE. A ROBOT is considered in this ZONE if any part of the ROBOT is in contact with the ZONE's green carpet. Violation: PENALTY; plus a RED CARD if effort to remedy is not immediate.

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter (Post 939639)

I'm not suggesting that the rules be ignored. However, the 2nd scenario is, in my opinion, a question of interpretation, as I can see a valid interpretation which results in a red card being issued and I can also see a valid interpretation which results in no red card. Below is the rule in question...

I would note that I am not complaining about the 1-point penalty in this situation (where a 2nd robot illegally enters the opponents zone, but falls over into the opponents zone while crossing the bump, and then incurs a PENALTY and a RED CARD for breaking G29). However, the RED CARD is issued "if effort to remedy is not immediate." One scenario is that if the drivers of the offending tipped robot were attempting to leave the zone by using the joysticks on the driver console to spin their robot's wheels, they were indeed making an effort to remedy, but their effort was doomed since their robot had tipped over. (I have no idea if the drivers of the tipped robot were taking such action, as I was only watching on the webcast, which gives a poor impression of what is going on even in the best of circumstances.) If I were the head referee (which I'm not) and the drive team was trying to get their tipped robot back out of the red zone by operating their controls (but simply spinning their wheels on their tipped robot), I would definitely issue the team a 1-point penalty and probably not issue a red card, since the team had attempted to remedy the situation (even though they had been unable to do so since their robot tipped over.) I would note that my decision on a red card would probably be affected by other circumstances such as whether or not the tipped robot posed a significant obstacle to the other alliance, which would be highly dependent upon the location and specific circumstances of where the robot is tipped. (For example, in the bump/wall corner with no balls obstructed would be relatively benign, but right in front of the tunnel/tower on top of a couple of balls could be a major impediment to the other alliance.)

Originally Posted by JesseK (Post 939622)

To be fair, why should we not play by the rules, particularly in the 2nd scenario you're describing? In other words, how is it in FIRST's best interest to not play by the rules they set?

The first scenario sounds like it's unprecedented (how can you even return a ball without putting it through the cyllinder?) and thus the referee would rather error on the side of literal rather than subjective. If anything, the head ref may receive clarification tonight and simply change the score tomorrow. I would much rather a referee error on the side of literal rather than interpretive, and at least in these two cases the rules are very clear.

For the second scenario, if the bot flipped then the other bot should have left the zone.

Edit -- After some research, it would appear that the alliance in scenario 1 should be issued a <G16> of 2 penalties + Yellow Card. So perhaps if the team challenges the ruling with what the rules state, their score can be changed even without GDC intervention.

Originally Posted by Nigel (Post 940132)

on a side note, does anyone have a picture of us after we climbed kilroy? I know there were several pictures taken and i was hoping to find one... oh thanks to kilroy for having such a sweet bot for us to climb :p :D