View Single Post
  #75   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-04-2008, 12:43
Lil' Lavery Lil' Lavery is offline
TSIMFD
AKA: Sean Lavery
FRC #1712 (DAWGMA)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,643
Lil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Lil' Lavery
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)

I'd like to keep the line violation calls the same. While the finish lines are crucial to staying the same, a similar concept applies to the lane markers at the ends of the track. Making it so the full robot has to go across gives defensive robots too much ability to push balls back into previous quadrants. While this isn't as big of a deal as the area surrounding the overpass, when a skilled defensive driver utilizes this, it will be very frustrating for anyone trying to grab that trackball as it's pushed away.
A 2-3" buffer zone would be nice, I agree, but that changes the call from a simple one to a judgement call with a lot more potential to be called incorrectly.

Hopefully <G22> won't be a massive issue at IRI, regardless of how it is enforced. Most of the teams attending are veterans with great robots and skilled drivers (or skilled trainee drivers). I forsee <G42> and <G37> deciding a lot more matches than <G22> at IRI.
__________________
Being correct doesn't mean you don't have to explain yourself.
Reply With Quote