You make my motors hot!
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy > You Make The Call
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 12-04-2012, 18:42
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [YMTC] Red robot on blue bridge

Video is here. That was SF 2-3 at Queen City.

Further discussion was here, starting with post #71.

Basically, it comes down to an interpretation problem: does [G44] negate everything except [G28], or does the rather absolute phrasing of [G25] also constitute an exception to [G44]?

I'd say only the [G28] exception conclusively exists. The language of [G44] ("[g]enerally", "an exception") leaves the possibility open that other rules could be interpreted as exceptions, but those would be for the referee or the GDC to identify. We clearly can't accept the situation where every absolutely-phrased game rule is an exception, to the point where the generality of [G44] is in question.

So, in other words, the lack of [G25] effects was correct, because all contact with the opponents' bridge was caused by an opponent's own actions.

However, it appears that there are possible instances of [G28], at match time 51 and (possibly repeatedly) around match time 23. In between 0 and 3 instances, 1038 may have touched an opposing robot in contact with the opponents' bridge.1 Those were unlikely to have been "purposeful, consequential contact", and as such, only a foul is merited each time. Apparently, however, that's not what the one foul called was for.

Also, I don't know if the referees were instructed to remain in a fixed position, but it looks like the nearest referee is not in a good spot to observe the action. It therefore doesn't entirely surprise me that there was no foul called.

And finally, if zero, one or two fouls were missed, the outcome of the match wouldn't change. If three fouls were missed, red would have won due to the tiebreaker.

1 It's hard to say from the video which ones are actual contact, and which ones merely come close. It's also an open question whether multiple penalties are to be assessed when a robot briefly breaks, then immediately re-establishes contact with an opponent touching the bridge. (I'd say the rules support a new penalty every time, as painful as that sounds.)
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:04.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi