View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-04-2016, 11:48
Jake177's Avatar
Jake177 Jake177 is offline
Registered User
AKA: JT, Jake Troiano
FRC #0177 (Bobcat Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Cromwell, CT
Posts: 286
Jake177 is a splendid one to beholdJake177 is a splendid one to beholdJake177 is a splendid one to beholdJake177 is a splendid one to beholdJake177 is a splendid one to beholdJake177 is a splendid one to behold
Re: Running over a boulder foul

Based on what I saw from the stands, the way the refs at the Hartford District called G38 seemed very fair. If a robot was in possession of a boulder and happened to drive over a second boulder, a ref would signal a five second count (similar to a pin count). After five seconds, if the robot was still in possession of two boulders, a foul was called. This kept the refs from having to judge "intent" while still allowing a case for a no-call on incidental violations. It also gave the drivers a clear signal that they were doing something wrong with time to correct it before the foul was called.

For G41, they called a foul any time a robot caused two boulders to move into their opponents' courtyard in a single crossing. Most of these looked like they could have been caused by the drivers simply not being able to see the second boulder. Usually it was between the robot and the defense being crossed, so they just bulldozed it through the outer works. Even so, I think this is a fair way to enforce this rule. Whether intentional or not, having one more boulder in your opponents' courtyard most certainly gives you an advantage.
__________________
Once a Bobcat, always a Bobcat
2001-2004: Student
(I'm told the team had a couple good years in between here)
2012 - Present: Mentor
Reply With Quote