Quote:
Originally Posted by IndySam
What about:
<G36> Goal defense - ROBOTS may defend SPIDER LEGS by pushing and/or blocking other ROBOTS as they attempt to HANG GAME PIECES. If a ROBOT is holding a GAME PIECE, a ROBOT on the opposing ALLIANCE may not grasp/attach to the GAME PIECE in order to remove it from their POSSESSION or prevent them from HANGING. A violation will
result in a 10-point penalty being assessed to the offending ROBOT.
|
Sam,
I first want to thank you for looking up a rule to discuss. Many people will try to dispute a call on these forums without actually referencing a rule.
Second, team 177 is known for playing defense. We use it many times within our strategies and teach our driver (singular because our arm driver has nothing to do with defense) how to play it affectively and more importantly appropriately. They are not out there to break or flip other machines, but instead to properly position themselves to resist opponent scoring. Considering at least 25% of this years robots could not score a tube due to being ramp/lift only, I saw much of this type of play, including defense played against us. In fact, I do not believe that we had a penalty called on us all season.
Thirdly, it is up to the refs to call the rules and we respect that. If they think we have crossed the line and broken a rule and give us a penalty we usually ask for clarification. Not to argue to the call, but to better understand the call and make sure we do not do it again.
Lastly, in response to you questioning of the call and why the ref did or did not penalize us. I do not know what swayed the ref to not make the call, but can point out some of the reasons I think they did not call a penalty. The picture shown was in the final match. I have watched that video multiple times to see exactly what happened prior to the picture being discussed. During that match I noticed a few things which I would like to point out.
1) The arm driver never moves the arm except to raise it back up to a position inside of our starting platform. We had previously had it even more vertical, but the wearing of our worm gear caused it to flop backward if we went to far upright. We are unable to tuck the end effector in and therefore up is the only position we remain in our base platform.
2) As Pete pointed out, to avoid tipping or damaging Pink our drivers were told to take their hands off the sticks and let them get untangled.
3) The claw was never opened; therefore there was obviously no attempt to grab the tube.
4) The point where the tube gets entangled on our claw, pick is coming toward us with their arm outside the platform of their robot which is legal per rule G35: “Extension to extension contact between two ROBOTS with appendages outside the 28-inch by 38-inch starting footprint will generally not be penalized.” However, I don’t think this rule even applies due to the face that it was accidental contact with the tube and not even the robot.
5) The tube is not an extension of the robot. If this were true, human loading over the wall would have been illegal due to this rule: <S02>HUMAN PLAYERS, DRIVERS, and COACHES may not directly contact any ROBOT at any time during the match. Illegal contact will result in the disabling of the TEAM'S ROBOT for the remainder of the match.
I have obviously thought about this a bit and although I understand it looks like a one sided defensive post, but hope I have brought out fact and not just opinions. I commend all referees, not for making a call in our favor, but for doing what I just did in my post in about 10 seconds without a replay reel or manual in hand.
Thank you to all who have made it this far though the post.
Eric