Quote:
Originally Posted by T3_1565
I personally am more upset at the inconsistency of these calls.
I mean waterloo qf1-1 we were in a pushing match that resulted in our opponent getting underneath our bumpers and then driving us from the secret passage to the front of the tower (defense 3) before we finally flipped (we are 13" high and have been almost vertical on the field wall without flipping) and that was not given any card at all.
I'm fine with that decision on its own, but its upsetting to compare that decision to the one shown in the OP video. That was a clear bump and retreat defense on a tall, tippy robot, in a tall, tippy position.
The comparison between the two calls is the thing that is the most frustrating. Either call on there own is fine.
As long as its called consistently then there is no problem. The issue is that it is not being called like that.
|
Agreed. If there is no consistency, there is no clear message being sent to students. Seeing one team "get away" with something your team was DQ'd for leads to a lot of discontent that we as mentors get the pleasure of diffusing at a time when we are likely feeling the same way.
It is an issue that needs to be addressed but isn't any more difficult than expecting a group of 15 year olds to design and build a robot to climb a tower or cross a portcullis. FIRST is more than capable of coming up with a solution that does not involve barriers between competing robots (no more Recycle Rush please). It takes time, and it takes will and it takes communication none of which is difficult.