Quote:
Originally Posted by sastoller
The interference at Vegas did not significantly change the outcome of the semifinals match. The margin of victory of the first match was 78 points (203 to 125). This is more than the 60 points of a perfect cycle (and how many perfect cycles have we seen with a catch?). A perfect cycle under heavy defense takes much longer than 15 or 20 seconds, and would still not have been enough to change the outcome of the match. The actions of the cameraman did not significantly impact the outcome of this match.
There was a match at Vegas on Friday, Q-41, where a referee punched a ball that was coming at him. The result of this match was a tie. In this case the referee's actions did have a very significant impact on the outcome of the match, as 15-20 seconds chasing down the ball could have drastically changed the outcome of this match. No replay was given for this match.
I would like to see the head referee and the FTA be more consistent in their decisions of what merits a replay based on outside interference and the significance of it's impact on the outcome of the match.
|
Good info.
With respect to Q-41, it is hard to assign either way how much time is gained or lost. How can time lost due to a deflected ball bouncing back into play be compared with how much time it takes a volunteer to chase down a ball if it is not directly deflected back in? Personally, I see it as a wash one way or another, especially with the inconsistent Human play inbounding a ball we have seen. Not including the time to retrieve the balls that have wandered past the volunteers, I have seen many human players (all positions) hold the ball up to 40 seconds trying to get a perfect throw into a bot after the ball went out-of-bounds. I would venture to say, on average, that can easily eclipse any extra times needed to chase down a ball deflected back inbounds.
Besides refs, I have also seen many cases where volunteers have stuck their hands up and deflected the balls back in, both accidental and on purpose. I think the larger problem here is the lack of definition of interference of "outside of game field", especially how it ties into rule G11. I would rather see a cameraman and other nearby personnel be given the opportunity to defend themselves and/or their property from a loose ball without fear of causing an interference fault. If there is no malicious intent to cause a delay, any non-field-of-play person should be seen as no different than hitting a table or chair or whatever. Luck of the bounce, I suppose.
With all that said, I need to applaud team 1717 and their alliance for surviving the grudge match as they did. I really liked the robustness and repeatability of their design, and was fascinated by their serpent-like defense that was effective with minimal contact to any other bot. Here's to hopefully meeting up again in St. Louis, either as alliance partners or competitively!