|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
If I am correct it's perfectly legal to throw tubes at an opposing alliances robot. Thus causing then to drop such tube. It is illegal in the same regard to throw a tube to knock a tube off the wall. Although I'm not condoning this because it's un gracious.
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Quote:
I've said it before and I will say it again, if I am on the field across from you and find a way of winning a match that is within the rules I will take it. If this means that my strategy incidentally results in damaging your gripper because it was not designed robustly enough then so be it. Will I help you rebuild the gripper? Sure. Were my actions in any way "un-gp"? Not in the slightest. I'm not going to pull a punch on any team. I think going easy on anyone is disrespectful to them. |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
This is the only rule governing the situation and it only talks about scoring on a opponents peg or descoring, nothing about the feeder interfering with the act of scoring.
G39> ROBOTS and FEEDERS may not SCORE on their opponent's PEGS or descore their opponent‟s GAME PIECES, or interfere with their opponent‟s TOWERS. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD. I would bet that if the GDC is made aware of teams intentionally interfering with a robot in the act of scoring they would make it a penalty. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
At Peachtree this was specifically clarified as a LEGAL strategy- HOWEVER, if that Human Player throws a tube, it bounces off of our robot, and DESCORES one of our hung tubes, they get a penalty. (I believe a red card)
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
This Q&A response should help answer your question. Particularly, read the GDC's answer to question number 3:
Quote:
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
As far as I can tell, this was 100% legal.
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Its an awful strategy. You pretty much give the other team another piece to use directly in front of their bot.
Don't think of it as unprofessional, they are actually helping you out. hehe |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Not when there's not enough time left it's not. And it's not unprofessional regardless.
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Folks,
I never cease to be amazed that so many people want to substitute their opinions about GP-ness, Spirit-of-the-Game, and similar nebulous concepts for the rulebook. I certainly don't. Instead I embrace the rules; and I consider following them meticulously to be the very embodiment of those sorts of concepts. If the rule authors make statements outside of the rules that contradict or appear to contradict what the rules allow, then I come down firmly on the side of those statements being either mistakes, or being interesting but irrelevant; and not on the side of treating them as new rules. If those statements made outside the rules were new/different rules, then they would actually be rules, and not comments associated with the rules. I can sympathize with the OP asking their question, for the sake of confirming that they didn't overlook something when they did their mental post-mortem review of the situation. It's the rest of the folks (and its not the same people each time) that make me scratch my head. Dear OP - What occured wasn't illegal. Referees use the rules to call the game. The rules determine what is legal/illlegal. What would you want a referee to do? Decide to add a rule? Recently at a robotics tournament I commented to someone that following the law (the rules) doesn't always result in justice; but, that I believed the alternative leads to worse outcomes. That comment might apply in this situation. Blake |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
I believe that I was the thrower that hit your tube and I would like to say I am sorry. I did not mean to hit your tube and would not like that to be the reason that we won if it was. I hope that you will forgive me.
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
I did something just as bad... I am the human player for 503, and I threw a tube over the wall, hit the nearest minibot pole, and it bounced back and scored for the opposing alliance on the middle rack thus earning a red card (it was a square). this was at the troy regional, match 13. wow.
|
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Quote:
However, you obviously need to be careful about strategies that "incidentally" damage an opponent's robot. There that whole rule outlawing strategies solely intended to damage or disable an opponent's robot. Your intention should clearly be defending the robot in some fashion. As opposed to aiming directly for its arm to damage and disbale it while it doesn't even have a tube near it. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Quote:
|
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Going a little off topic, since i think the original question has been answered, has anyone tried "spamming" the opponets zone by throwing tube after tube into the zone until the teams cannot score? seems like a fun strategy for the human player
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Works great until you realize that they can floor load.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|