Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

Very tough call for the refs in Queen City in that semi final match. It appears a valid triple balance defense is to just park in front of the bridge and let your opponents push you up.

-Brando

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

Should have been at a minimum a technical foul. The definition/interpretation of "interfering with the act of balancing" is hazy in this situation. The third robot was not on/touching the bridge so I would not interpret them as in the act of balancing. The other two robots however were on the bridge and could be argued were actively trying to balance.

EDIT: I'm surprised this is the first time this has happened (that I know of).

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

Ok, so for those of you that didn't see the play:

2481 + 3301 were both on the red bridge. 1038 was playing defense by the red bridge. 829 was attempting to get over to the red bridge to balance, but 1038 was playing defense on them. During the playing of defense, 1038 got sandwiched between the red bridge and 829, who was straight on facing the red bridge ready to drive on . 829 pushes 1038 and they hit the corner of the bridge. No foul called. 829 backs up and gets more situated to get onto the red bridge. As 829 drives forward, they literally push 1038 onto to the red bridge. I didn't see any ref's call any foul, and the posts here make it sound like just a 3 point penalty was called, and i don't know what the 3 point penalty is for. 829 was clearly trying to make it a triple balance and 1038 interfered by getting onto the bridge.

In my opinion, 829's alliance should be in the finals.

Why? A couple of reasons. (updating/editing)

At the very least a tech foul should be called; 3193 touching a red bot on the bridge, which they did, should result in a tech, because it was consequential.

Another tech foul here at least. I would consider 829 attempting to get on the bridge an act of balancing. And if you don't, it still doesn't matter, because 1038 made contact with a different red robot on the bridge. Because of that, this applies: "If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced with the maximum number of Robots possible for that Match."

Conclusion: It doesn't matter if 829 was in the act of balancing, because 1038 made contact with another red robot that without question, was trying to balance. Still should be a triple balance.

------------------

Supposedly you're not interfering with the act of balance if the balancing robot isn't touching the bridge, even if the defensive bot is. If this stands legal, i know what I'm having my alliance's defensive bot do.

-Duke

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

If they were pushed into the bridge, though, there is no [G25] foul. The exception to [G44] only applies to [G28], touching an opposing robot, which is at worst a technical foul.

([G25] is the touching an opposing bridge/interfering with balancing foul)

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

It was 1038.

[G28] states that "Robots may not touch an opponent Robot in contact with its Key, Alley, or Bridge." The penalty is a technical foul (9 points) plus a yellow card.

[G25] states "Robots may not contact or otherwise interfere with the opposing Alliance Bridge." The penalty is a technical foul along with a red card.

Isn't that 1038 did? I'm going on a limb and saying the refs made a very bad call.

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

The relevant rule is this:

So at minimum, 9 points. And there is a pretty strong argument for "the act of balancing [being] interfered with", since they were physically on the bridge.

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

If the defending robot was pushed into the bridge, there is no foul unless they touched a robot touching the bridge (and that would be a 3-point foul because it was not intentional).

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

I believe the correct call was made, although it did happen quite fast. The tech-foul/DQ is for touching the bridge itself [G25]. This is not a "forceable" penalty. Per [G44], ONLY the [G28] penalty can be forced on an opponent. As 1038 was pushed into the bridge, it's a correct no-call. The [G28] penalty was called, when 1038 was pushed on to the bridge and contacted one of the robots already on the bridge, but this is only a 3 point penalty.

$0.02

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

Has this call set the precedent to allow for one to park in front of a bridge where opponents are trying to triple and force them to push you up it if you want to continue?

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

Forgot about [G44]. By the letter of the rules it does appear the correct call was made as 1038 would never have ended up on the bridge themselves.

Given the point trade off, if the right call was truly made this may become more common...

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

I've been suggesting this strategy for a while. The counter is simply to come at the bridge from the other side (where you have a lane) and, if necessary, rack up [G28] penalties on the defender.

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

Nope. Read G28.
And G28 is relevant to G25.

Again, as i said earlier:

Another tech foul here at least. I would consider 829 attempting to get on the bridge an act of balancing. And if you don't, it still doesn't matter, because 1038 made contact with a different red robot on the bridge. Because of that, this applies: "If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced with the maximum number of Robots possible for that Match."

Conclusion: It doesn't matter if 829 was in the act of balancing, because 1038 made contact with another red robot that without question, was trying to balance. Still should be a triple balance.

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

I would point you to [G44], which I already posted above. And the [G28] penalty should be a foul, not a technical foul; if 1038 was pushed into the bridge robot, it cannot be "purposeful" contact, and thus should be a foul.

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

It does not say ONLY, it says AN. It also says generally, which proves it to be a fallacy to assume only G28 applies. Furthermore, Because G28 is relative to G25 (contacting robots in contact with their bridge), G25 can now also be considered an exception.

-Duke

Re: 2012 Queen City FRC Regional
 

The issue is that [G28] is the only exception to [G44] and as such [G25] would not apply if the contact with the bridge came as a direct result of red robot pushing blue robot into red bridge.

EDIT: I have never really been a fan of the way [G44] is written. Since [G28] explicitly calls out applying at all times and [G25] does not I think the right call was made. I don't think by violating [G28] it is transitive to a [G25] red card the way things are written.