View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-03-2007, 12:23
Mark Garver's Avatar
Mark Garver Mark Garver is offline
Registered User
AKA: Garver
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Milford, Michigan
Posts: 129
Mark Garver is a splendid one to beholdMark Garver is a splendid one to beholdMark Garver is a splendid one to beholdMark Garver is a splendid one to beholdMark Garver is a splendid one to beholdMark Garver is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via AIM to Mark Garver
Re: Ramps extending outside of the home zone

Quote:
Originally Posted by IndySam View Post
Except for accidental deployments, we had it happen both in St Louis and at Boilermaker and each time the ref didn't penalize us because we went straight into the home zone and it didn't affect the match at all.

It's a different story if you intentionally deploy and come out of the zone.
At the St. Louis Regional I thought that we called all of the bots exceeding 72" outside of the home zone, but evidently we missed at least one (I was one of the refs). The way it was called in St. Louis was if you exceeded the 72" outside of the home zone you were accessed a 10 pt penalty and were asked by the referees to try to get back to your home zone. After the regional was over, we discovered that asking them to return to the home zone was needed. There weren't any matches where we felt that a robot great than 72" had a drastic impact on the outcome of the game so it wasn't disabled/DQed.

At the GLR robotics weren't called for being greater than the 72" outside of the home zone as Karthik pointed out.

At the Detroit Regional referees seemed to make the right calls for robots being greater than 72" outside of the home zone and for robotics being greater than 72" that went in and out of the home zone repeatedly.

Has there been any regionals where robots have been disabled/DQed for being outside of the 72" while outside of the home zone during a match? Either because the referees thought that was still the rule as it was originally or because they thought that it provided an unfair advantage by being greater than the 72", instead of just the 10 pt penalty.