Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

OK,

I have a question of rules interpretation. In finals match 1 at Peachtree, The alliances finished the match tied at 7 to 7. As the buzzer sounded, a robot jammed into its goal pushing balls, one of which passed through the scoring box and was scored (creating the tie). the 10 second timer counted to zero with no further changes. The refs gathered around the robot, and found several balls jammed in the goal with the robot, none of which passed through the scoring box.

After a brief discussion, they added the balls that were jammed in with the robot to the alliance score, giving that alliance the win.

My question: based on this definition:

And this rule:

Was this a good call?

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

Sounds like an incorrect interpretation to me.

The rules you have posted are pretty clear, the balls had not passed through the counter so they were not scored.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

I have to agree with Kevin. I see no place where the rules could be confused. You A precollege student on the losing alliance field should have reported it to the Head Ref.

*Alex goes to download the latest manual to bring to competition.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

Most definitely a bad call. Down at BAE there were a few last ditch efforts like this, but none of the balls were counted if they didn't pass through the counter. We had a pretty bad call though on a hang one match, as the ref used a piece of paper to check if our mechanism was above or below the plane. They ruled against it, but I felt like an official measurement should have been taken from the ground to see if it was most definitely below.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

I have to disagree with you steve. To be elevated you have to be above the plane of the platform. The ref used a pice of paper to extend the plane to make a comparison. Should there be a flat piece of lexan, or something that has less bend, to be used instead of paper? Maybe. Since the platform may vary in height, a measurement from the ground would not be an accurate reading.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

At NJ Regional 2753's eight wheel base got stuck on the bump and could not move - even with all eight wheels on the playing surface (4 on the carpet and 4 on the bump). This put our robot at the 45 degree angle of the bump. We got wedged in a very unusual position. Our hanging arm stayed perfectly straight up relative to the robot base; however, the refs said our hanging mechanism extended beyond beyond our perimeter since the robot was "tipped". Our students unsuccessfully challenged the penalty. The ref's reasoning was something like the following: Since robot could not move for over 10 seconds, the judgement was that our robot was "tipped". Later in the day, the head ref did conclude that the call was wrong (however it was too late to change the scoring).

Unfortunately, the rules do not define tipping. Certainly when all of your wheels are on the playing surface, it can not be tipped.

A definition of a Tipped Robot needs to be included as an update.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

Tom,

The only place that the word "tipped" appears in this year's Game section of the manual is G37 about when it is legal to contact someone outside the bumper zone. For this rule the definition of tipped should be easy enough to discern.

There is no rule that would assign a penalty to a "tipped" robot for a frame perimeter violation. The vertical projection of the robot is relative to a robot based frame of reference, not a field based frame of reference. This has been stated by the GDC in a Q&A somewhere, but I'm busy and don't want to hunt for it right now.

Let's try not to add any more definitions unless we really need them. Bad calls will happen regardless of if we add even more rules or not.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

just my two cents, but the design of the goal is a certain way..

in my opinion, if it passes the plane of the goal opening it is scored, and the counter is as far back by the human player as possible to give them PLENTY of time to get a hold of the ball and get it to the return.

imagine if the ball counter was at the very plane of the goal. a lot of the balls that you score would go all sorts of directions and make the human player's job tons harder.

i believe that the goal/scorer were designed with this in mind, but that the rules were written with the intention of passing the plane of the goal to be in.

of course, that's just my opinion.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

The problem is that your opinion (or anyone except the GDC's and even then only what they actually write down) is not what governs the competition.

The definition of SCORED is in the first post of this thread and it clearly states that to be scored a ball must pass through the Goal Counter.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

I would just like to say, that despite all this negativity, I had no problems with any of the calls at FLR. We had a great head ref, who obviously knew the rules inside and out.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

well, i can point you back to another rule that states "if a robot is in contact with their tower during the finale period, and the other alliance bumps it, they get RED CARDED" the intention of that rule is that hanging robots won't be destroyed, but non hangers can potentially use that to DQ their opponents.

also, the opinion that governs the competition appears to really be the head refs' since they are the ones who interpret the rules and call them differently. the rules were written with a specific intention, but that doesn't mean the intention was explicitly explained in the rules.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

Martin,
The first time I read your post, my thought was "a robot may not possess more than one ball at a time"
<G43> ROBOT BALL POSSESSION - ROBOTS may POSSESS only one BALL at a time. Violation: PENALTY.

Does this apply or not?

I also agree with Kevin, the frame perimeter changes orientation with the floor when the robot is on the ramp. Any determination with respect to the frame perimeter has to be done with this in mind.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

The situation described was two robots being pushed with no actuation by any posession mechanism. The robot "herded" the balls into the goal.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

Is not "herding" possession?

POSSESSION: Controlling the position and movement of a BALL.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13793

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=14238