[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

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.

469's drivers are 48 feet away, looking through two stationary goals and other robots driving around the field. I think it is forgivable that their first move is to start driving away (especially if they couldn't see that their claw is tangled on 93).

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.

469 would have happily been disabled if it also meant 93 was disabled. Afterall, it appeared that their entire strategy was to play defense and nullify 93. The entanglement would have achieved this objective of nullifying 93. However, they took the high road and put them back on their feet for a fair battle.

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).

To me it was clearly obvious what 469 was doing. It was a near replay of the 67/1241 match up until 469 dropped the big ball (watch the video: you will see 469 take the big ball off of the red movable goal, then drop it. They pause for a second figuring out what to do and then do the next best thing - block the hopper with their claw).

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.

I don't know what history you know of, but I think most teams that go to the competitions around the midwest would agree that 469 is one of the most gracious teams around.

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.

What the rule states is this: if you intentionally damage/tip/stab/cut/etc. you will be DQ'ed for the match (it was ruled that 469 did not do this). Repeated offenses (intentional damage/tipping/cutting/etc.) could result in being DQ'ed from the remainder of the tournament. This rule does not say that repeated aggressive play will DQ you from a match. It says that repeated DQ's from breaking G32 will get you kicked out of the tournament. 469 was never called once for breaking G32. Therefore, they couldn't have repeated offenses.

But pretending that there is no problem because you don't like me doesn't make the problem go away.

Hold on. Who said I don't like you? I just watched to video and gave an unbiased opinion. It's just that what I saw doesn't agree with what you saw.