[RyanMcE]

First, thanks for the pulic reply so people can see the different sides of this issue.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

I just watched the match. I guess you clearly saw a different match than I did. 469 put their ball grabber in 93's basket in an attempt to block all of the balls from falling into it. This was OBVIOUS. Yes, they became tangled, but it clearly wasn't intentional.

Wheee... Ok, to block the balls from falling is legitimate, but the claw need not be in the basket to do this - above teh basket works fine. What is OBVIOUS to me is that the claw was INTENTIONALLY put into the basket by the drivers of 469, then before lifting it out, INTENTIONALLY drove backwards.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

In fact, I thought 469 did a very gracious thing: in the fight to become untangled, 93 flipped in its side. All 469 had to do was take their hands off their controls and they would have won the match (because 93 could not do anything). Instead, 469 drove forward, righting 93 and putting them on their feet again.

Yay, now its GRACIOUS to get your own robot out of an entanglement that you created! If 469 ha not driven forward, they would have been effectively disabled (trying to drag 93 all over the field). It was hardly in the interests of 93 that they drove forward to try to get out of the entanglement that they created, even if the end result was also better for 93.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Their strategy was clearly not to intentionally damage, entangle, or tip 93. If you were at the Great Lakes Regional and saw when 67 put a ball in 1241's hopper before the balls fell, you would have clearly recognized the strategy. 469 didn't have a ball to put in 93's hopper, so they used their big claw instead. It's unfortunate that it got tangled.

Actually, it was quite fortunate for them. And I guess we're both mind readers now, since we both seem to know what 469 intended to do. Nevertheless, I saw consistent agressiveness in 469 (which I like) but consistent non-enforcement of rules (as I interpret them) when that agressiveness led to entanglement and damaging other robots (as in the case of 494 as mentioned in the thread linked to above).

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

(As a note, in past year's 93 could have been subjet to a DQ since netting was considered an entaglement hazard, so you can argue on either side.)

Since last year's rules apply to this competition, this is clearly germaine......

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Wow... talk about seeing the world thought filtered lenses. It appeared to me that 93 was the aggressor on this play. 469 was trying to hold the moveable goal under the ball dump and 93 was trying to push them out of the way. It simply looks like they flipped over during the battle for position under to ball dump. Anyway, it seemed clear to me that 469 was there first and that 93 initiated the contact. Furthermore, BOTH robots flipped over (not just 93). 469 was just able to re-right themselves.

As I was saying, I didn't see it happen, and the video didn't show it, so its hard to tell what exactly happened. What I do know is 469 had a history of ungracious behavior (once again, in my view, clearly not the referee's). I also said, you may recall, that I thought this was legitimate from the information I had.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Once again, the lenses are filtering pretty heavy. Did you notice during the video that when 93 flipped, 469 flipped as well? Also, did you notice that 469 flipped INTO to movable goal? It seems that flipping into the movable broke the pole. Do you really think that they flipped INTENTIONALLY into the goal so they could break a pole?

No, I don't really think that 469 intentionally broke the goal. But do you really think I said that? This is what I said:

Originally Posted by Ryan McElroy

The question is, does the word intentional apply to both clauses or only the first? Depending on how you read the rule, 469 should ahve been disabled for breaking the mobile goal, and perhaps even disqualified for their continuous agressive behavior. But once again, no call was made.

I mentioned that this one is interpretation of rules. The question is: Does "If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal or damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal, that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified." mean
1. ""If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal or intentionally damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal, that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified." or does it mean
2. "If ROBOTS intentionally tip over any Mobile Goal that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified." and "If ROBOTS damage the poles of a Mobile or Stationary Goal that team’s ROBOT will be disabled and the team may be disqualified."
I wrongly assumed this was clear, but I find it interesting that you only quoted the first part of that point and not the second part that I had to quote myself.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

This is legitimate gripe. However, you should have asked the refs this before leaving the playing field. Perhaps the one referee you talked to was not informed correctly. Either way, complaining about it here isn't the right thing to do. You have recourse within the rules, but once you leave the playing field, the results are final. If you did not pursure your recourse within the structure of the rules, that is your team's fault - don't complain about it here.

Ah, but we did pursue recourse; why do you assume we did not? Our alliance captain went to the head referee immediately after the match and asked about the call. Unfortunately, by the time the (wrong) score was posted, all the balls had already been cleared out of the goals, the flags picked up, the goal replaced, etc... So what real recourse did we have? Referee's decisions are final, wether they be right or wrong, and that is that. I accept that. But to think sweeping it under the rug like no mistake was made is better than bringing it up on these forums is ludicrous. I think this is a wonderful place to have this discussion.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

There is no rule DQ'ing a team for "continuous aggressive behavior." If they break one of the rules you mention, they would have been DQ'ed. When I watch the video, it appears pretty clear that none of their "infractions" were intentional.

Not all infractions have to be intentional, Chris. Nobody ever tried to break the ball chute plane, but those penalties were still assessed. Nobody tried to touch the controls early, but those penalties were still assessed. And as for your first statement, please consult the rules before saying that. Once again, rule <G32>: "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. Accidental tipping over of a robot is not considered damaging and may be allowed at the discretion of the referees. Intentional stabbing, cutting, etc., is illegal. If a breach of this rule occurs, the team will be disqualified for that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team being disqualified from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event."
That to me looks like a rule against "continuous aggressive behavior" that results in other robots getting damaged. There are similar rules about the field.

The real point of this thread (other than blowing off some steam at once again being screwed by rules not being enfored) is to try to show that there is a trend of rules not being enforced over a number of years (see my original post), and to get a some momentum behind the idea of actually enforcing rules. I have probally done a terrible job at this because I am still bitter. But pretending that there is no problem because you don't like me doesn't make the problem go away.