Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
Did the refs call it? Then it was legal.
|
I do not understand the logic. Refs cannot possibly make correct calls in every possible situation. Just because a ref doesn't call something doesn't mean that it's legal.
<G36> outlaws any "entanglement" hazards. I would definitely consider a robot wrapped inside the chains of a goal to be an "entanglement".
When Thrust was trying to right itself at :33 and Rosie pushed it again, Rosie was, in my opinion, in direct violation of <G38a>
Quote:
<G38> Prohibited ROBOT to ROBOT Contact - Except as permitted in Rule <G37>, contact is
prohibited under the following conditions:
a. Aggressive or intentional contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Violation:
PENALTY; plus a RED CARD if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT.
|
With the wording of this rule, I think that Rosie intentionally contacted Thrust outside of the bumper zone, meaning that this play should have resulted in
at least a penalty. Whether the contact was "egregious" is an entirely different matter.
I know that during the Finals Match 1 of Palmetto, a team on my alliance (343, actually) accidentally tipped a robot, causing it to become off-balance, and then accidentally bumped into it again below the bumper zone, causing it to fall over. There was a two-second delay in between the driver's commands and the robot's actions. It wasn't even intentional, but it sure looked that way. We were red-carded for this play.
With all this being said, I am unsure if this was an entirely fair and legal play and I am even more unsure as to why this team would want to post this proudly.