Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Extra Discussion (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=68)
-   -   paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85824)

GaryVoshol 17-05-2010 07:26

paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
Thread created automatically to discuss a document in CD-Media.

MARC 2010 Rule Changes by GaryVoshol

johnr 17-05-2010 09:22

Re: paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
Just to make it easier on refs, would it be possible to have the field clock count up to 10 after the match ends? Also, i take it the standings will be viewable just like the regular season?

GaryVoshol 17-05-2010 10:13

Re: paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
There is a clock on the field that counts to 10 after the final buzzer. Kind of a hidden feature - they didn't even tell the refs about it until Week 2 or 3. But that's how we knew when 469 was "done".

pathew100 17-05-2010 15:05

Re: paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
It's not a secret either. :) There is an amber light on the scoring control box above the middle driver's station. Normally the light is OFF.

The light turns ON for 10 seconds at the end of a match (when the buzzer sounds). When the light turns OFF then the scoring controller stops counting.

Also, the light will blink/flash during a match when DOGMA has assessed a penalty for that side (Red or Blue).

Some teams knew about it, some didn't, which is maybe an unfair advantage. If you can see that the other side got a DOGMA (which is not counted in "real time" total on the audience screen, btw) then it might make a difference in your strategy...

Jack Jones 17-05-2010 18:09

Re: paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
<
Quote:

G44> BALL CARRYING
There will be no penalty for carrying a ball so slightly above the floor that a referee must take extraordinary measures to see it.
So - you're saying there will be no extraordinary refeering at MARC? ;) ;)

GaryVoshol 17-05-2010 23:02

Re: paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones (Post 962613)
<

So - you're saying there will be no extraordinary refeering at MARC? ;) ;)

We will extraordinarily referee the other 46 penalties and cards. :D

And of course, give extra attention to the mentor matches. Can I nominate Jack to be working the trident on an alliance with 469? Dan K has to push the buttons working the flipper lever, and do any pushups for violating <G45>.

kenavt 19-05-2010 18:41

Re: paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 962660)
We will extraordinarily referee the other 46 penalties and cards. :D

And of course, give extra attention to the mentor matches. Can I nominate Jack to be working the trident on an alliance with 469? Dan K has to push the buttons working the flipper lever, and do any pushups for violating <G45>.

+1. Of course.

GaryVoshol 25-05-2010 15:08

Re: paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
A technical correction: In one of the revisions, I mixed up the terms NORMAL CONFIGURATION and FINALE CONFIGURATION. That is now fixed - thanks, ExTexan.

IKE 01-06-2010 10:50

Re: paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
Will there be a change to the tournament ranking system, or will it use the standard system after update 16?

GaryVoshol 01-06-2010 15:20

Re: paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
In the other MARC thread, Steve said the decision was made to stay with the standard seeding. W-T-L does not accurately rank teams any better than cooperition points. A 12-10 win should count more than a 2-0 win. The concern was whether to tweak the coopertition points or not, to avoid 6v0; make a 6-3 win better than a 0-22 loss. Other schemes could make 6v0 less beneficial, but not remove the advantage entirely; under certain situations it would always be better score for the opponents regardless of the seeding scheme. So it was decided to leave things as they were, after Team Update 16.

fuzzy1718 02-06-2010 20:42

Re: paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
Does this scenario fall under the last rule change?

A robot with a ball in a pincher roller traverses the bump and the ball looses contact with the ground.

My gut says penalty, but I'm not sure.

GaryVoshol 02-06-2010 22:52

Re: paper: MARC 2010 Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718 (Post 965029)
A robot with a ball in a pincher roller traverses the bump and the ball looses contact with the ground.

That's still a penalty. It would only not be a penalty if the loss of contact with the ground/bump was so slight that it would be nearly impossible to see. No "gotcha's".


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:18.

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