IRI Rule Changes for 2011

[Aren_Hill]

I was actually ready to spend the summer making a new spiffy minibot deploy, I suppose it'll be more normal now. Sad day

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

I was actually ready to spend the summer making a new spiffy minibot deploy, I suppose it'll be more normal now. Sad day

I like this entire statement, except change sad to "Great."

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Well, we got a red card on our last match on Newton for "egregarious behavior" when playing defense on 1503. We were driving between the towers blocking 1503 from entering and exiting the scoring zone. A couple of times we would push 1503 square on the side as they were getting by us. I thought we did a good job playing defense until we got a red card for 'egregarious behavior." The head ref said that we can screen them from entering and leaving the zone, but once they start to get past us, we need to let them go; basically, we got the red card when we were pushing them from the side. Right at 60 seconds, the ref waves their blue flag for a penalty; I believe that was the red card, but I could be wrong.

I spotted Aidan Browne a little bit after the match and explained him the situation and later saw him talking to the refs on Newton. After we got picked, and saw we were going against 1503 in the first round, we talked to the refs again to determine exactly what we could or couldn't do and they said essentally said what we did in the qualification match was fine.

At the time we were no where near the top 8 and really had no chance to win that match, so we weren't upset about the red card, but more confused. I think it just shows how confusing and how many judgement calls were in logomotion. I'm just glad that match didn't matter to us...

I honestly felt that the red card was not deserved. It was just honest, hard defense and nothing more. I even spoke with 1732's driver afterwards and chatted about his great job at defense.

-Nick

[Duke461]

Maybe people are just exaggerating a bit, but i don't see why everyone's now saying there's no need to work really hard on the minibot and deployment. Just because every team at IRI is an all-star team doesnt mean all four towers are going to be triggered every match, let alone 3. I saw some of the best teams in the world this year consistently miss deployments . And the minibot race is almost more important now because of how close matches are going to be based on tubes, and the extra 10 points Alliance A might get will help them a ton. I'm just glad my team has worked hard on a new deployment. We now have a drop-down deployer with a "Y" to center us and a minibot ramp that propels a 2 1/4 lb. magnet-mounted 1.2 second minibot.

[Marc S.]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Well, we got a red card on our last match on Newton for "egregarious behavior" when playing defense on 1503. We were driving between the towers blocking 1503 from entering and exiting the scoring zone. A couple of times we would push 1503 square on the side as they were getting by us. I thought we did a good job playing defense until we got a red card for 'egregarious behavior." The head ref said that we can screen them from entering and leaving the zone, but once they start to get past us, we need to let them go; basically, we got the red card when we were pushing them from the side. Right at 60 seconds, the ref waves their blue flag for a penalty; I believe that was the red card, but I could be wrong.

I spotted Aidan Browne a little bit after the match and explained him the situation and later saw him talking to the refs on Newton. After we got picked, and saw we were going against 1503 in the first round, we talked to the refs again to determine exactly what we could or couldn't do and they said essentally said what we did in the qualification match was fine.

At the time we were no where near the top 8 and really had no chance to win that match, so we weren't upset about the red card, but more confused. I think it just shows how confusing and how many judgement calls were in logomotion. I'm just glad that match didn't matter to us...

If you look closely, you received a red card for pushing an oponent into your lane, not for defending. It is a red card in the rules(i don't remember which number). It is a red card because normaly they would get a penalty, but because you caused them to cross the line, it is a red card on you.
Hope this clears this up.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Marc S.

If you look closely, you received a red card for pushing an oponent into your lane, not for defending. It is a red card in the rules(i don't remember which number). It is a red card because normaly they would get a penalty, but because you caused them to cross the line, it is a red card on you.
Hope this clears this up.

Not exactly. Only if you cause them to get a red card you get a red card.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Marc S.

If you look closely, you received a red card for pushing an oponent into your lane, not for defending. It is a red card in the rules(i don't remember which number). It is a red card because normaly they would get a penalty, but because you caused them to cross the line, it is a red card on you.
Hope this clears this up.

If the refs told them that they got it for egregious behavior, and the refs told them that it was due to the side hits, then THAT is what they got the card for.

You may be thinking of the <G33> exception to <G61>; however, that violation is only a yellow card.

[Marc S.]

Originally Posted by EricH

If the refs told them that they got it for egregious behavior, and the refs told them that it was due to the side hits, then THAT is what they got the card for.

You may be thinking of the <G33> exception to <G61>; however, that violation is only a yellow card.

Yes that was the rule. Although in both regionals i attended, teams did get red carded for this.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Not exactly. Only if you cause them to get a red card you get a red card.

An exception to this : Galileo F-1, 254 was pushed into the opposing score zone by an opposing team, another opposing team bumped them. 254 got the red card.

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Marc S.

Yes that was the rule. Although in both regionals i attended, teams did get red carded for this.



An exception to this : Galileo F-1, 254 was pushed into the opposing score zone by an opposing team, another opposing team bumped them. 254 got the red card.

Read as: awful but honest mistake in calling that almost completely changed the results of the 2011 World Championship entirely.

-Nick

[Stu Bloom]

Hello All!

I'm really looking forward to another GREAT IRI experience. Can't wait to see all of you in a couple more days ...

Here is the official "2011 IRI Rules Changes" document for your reading pleasure.

Any additional last minute changes will be communicated at the event. Safe travels everyone!

[Chris is me]

So you can hang an Ubertube over an existing top row logo to get the bonus?

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

So you can hang an Ubertube over an existing top row logo to get the bonus?

It appears that the rationale on G63 allows for bonus in the situation described above:
Rationale: To accommodate the potential of an UBERTUBE HANGING over a LOGO PIECE.
If you didnt get the bonus, there would be no reason for someone to do this, thus no reason for the rationale.
Also, in the tube scoring grid, note that it shows "Over" striked through, and replaced with "With".
Also, in the blue box below that, it states: Ubertube will double peg score when hung in front of OR behind logo piece
--------
A couple questions other than that:

-Your rationale on G33 states: "Rationale: Allows short incursions into the LANE which have no effect on game play. Note that if a
GAME PIECE is in the LANE and a ROBOT makes contact with it, the PENALTY does apply. "
What if the game piece is only partly in the lane, and the hostbot only contacts the piece outside of the lane? i know previously this would be allowed but your rationale seems to contradict this.

-You striked through G23, which now allows robots to camp at the tower spot (maybe theres still time to consider this rule being changed back? )
However, the rule about the robot interfering with deployment still remains in effect. So lets say, opponent A is touching My teams tower. I go up to the tower, but instead of touching the tower, im up against the opponents robot that is touching the tower. Now, i have a super long deployment system, and despite me not touching the tower, i can still reach. So, i line up the deployer with the post, and i fire my minibot. Once my minibot has crossed the vertical projection of the base i am considered deploying, by definition. At that time, i am also in contact with the opponent's robot, thus interfering with my deployment, by rule <G24>. Will a penalty plus red card, as stated in <G24> be handed out for this situation?
Thanks,
-Duke

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

So you can hang an Ubertube over an existing top row logo to get the bonus?

Yup. UBERTUBE front or back, it counts.

Originally Posted by Duke461

Your rationale on G33 states: "Rationale: Allows short incursions into the LANE which have no effect on game play. Note that if a GAME PIECE is in the LANE and a ROBOT makes contact with it, the PENALTY does apply. "
What if the game piece is only partly in the lane, and the hostbot only contacts the piece outside of the lane? i know previously this would be allowed but your rationale seems to contradict this.

If the HOSTBOT contacts a GAME PIECE on the part that is outside the LANE, is the HOSTBOT in the LANE?

-You striked through G23, which now allows robots to camp at the tower spot (maybe theres still time to consider this rule being changed back? )
However, the rule about the robot interfering with deployment still remains in effect. So lets say, opponent A is touching My teams tower. I go up to the tower, but instead of touching the tower, im up against the opponents robot that is touching the tower. Now, i have a super long deployment system, and despite me not touching the tower, i can still reach. So, i line up the deployer with the post, and i fire my minibot. Once my minibot has crossed the vertical projection of the base i am considered deploying, by definition. At that time, i am also in contact with the opponent's robot, thus interfering with my deployment, by rule <G24>. Will a penalty plus red card, as stated in <G24> be handed out for this situation?

<G61> would still apply; your robot with the super-long deployment device caused the contact so there would be no penalty or red card. This same rule change was used at MARC with no problems.

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Yup. UBERTUBE front or back, it counts.

If the HOSTBOT contacts a GAME PIECE on the part that is outside the LANE, is the HOSTBOT in the LANE?

<G61> would still apply; your robot with the super-long deployment device caused the contact so there would be no penalty or red card. This same rule change was used at MARC with no problems.

I understand that the robot isn't in the lane, its just that the rationale made it kind of contradictory, but i know what you meant now.
----
As for the deployment situation, the hostbot was in contact with the other one, not necessarily the deployment system. but i guess, you could argue that the robot caused the contact with the other one.
Thanks Gary,
-duke