![]() |
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
I can't remember exactly, but I thought at one of the competitions I reffed at we decided that it would be a red card because it was against the spirit of the game, which is one of the blanket rules they give head refs that aren't exactly in the manual.
I might be crazy though. Thats a strong possibility. |
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
Quote:
|
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
Though the 1st and 2nd minibot point values are the same, does the 1st place minibot still break a tie in eliminations?
|
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
I feel like most people would interpret crossing the line with the only purpose being to screw up the other teams auton as egregious behavior, its along the same lines as not being able to shove an opponent into your lane without being penalized. You are intentionally sabotaging another teams ability to perform.
Thats just how I would call it if I was head ref, it makes people mad but when it comes down to judgments like this the head ref's decision is final. |
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
Quote:
|
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
Quote:
Jason |
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
PJ, perhaps you're remembering a situation where the robot not only went backward over the center line, but also went all the way to the other team's zone. That's a second penalty. Should the robot touch another robot that is in the zone, that's a red card under <G32>.
|
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
Quote:
Any ref who would red card a team for playing SMART (take a penalty to prevent 1 or 2 uber tubes from being scored is a smart move since you are trading 3 points for a significant amount of points) has no right being a ref. They are there to enforce the rules as written not to editorialize on how we should play the game. If the GDC wanted teams to be left alone they would either not make it worth our time to play defensively or make it a red card. (I would prefer the former.) |
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
Perhaps discussion of the definition of 'egregious behavior' deserves it's own thread? It seems that many people disagree on what it means.
|
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
How can "egregious behavior" be redefined as "breaking any rule"? If an autonomous disruption is "egregious", so is any and all defense. That interpretation is ridiculous.
|
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
Quote:
Jason |
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
Thanks Gary, thats what it was.
Now I feel stupid. My argument was based off of a flawed memory I had, so I was making points on what I thought was correct based on that memory. So I retract my statement about the red card, which I never said I agreed with, I was just trying to justify it. Obviously I need to look over the rules before MARC...:ahh: |
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
Quote:
I spotted Aidan Browne a little bit after the match and explained him the situation and later saw him talking to the refs on Newton. After we got picked, and saw we were going against 1503 in the first round, we talked to the refs again to determine exactly what we could or couldn't do and they said essentally said what we did in the qualification match was fine. At the time we were no where near the top 8 and really had no chance to win that match, so we weren't upset about the red card, but more confused. I think it just shows how confusing and how many judgement calls were in logomotion. I'm just glad that match didn't matter to us... |
Re: IRI Rule Changes for 2011
I don't think that hitting a robot during auton doesn't get a red card because at niles finals, 2771's robot somehow went backwards during the last match and bumped into a robot but I think only a penalty was given out...I'm not 100% sure on that though...
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:27. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi