2012 Mid-Atlantic Robotics FRC Region Championship

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by dodar

It should have been a 49 point penalty on 1218.

I'm going to try and not clutter this thread with discussion of this issue and refer you to this one, about where the same situation occured but the opposite call was made. Were they right? I think the GDC should make a ruling and wouldn't be surprised if they're on the phone right now.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by George A.

Coming from your announcer, our head ref Sunny called Aiden during lunch and asked him about that exact scenario. Aiden informed him that if a redbot is in contact with the bride and then makes contact with an opposing robot it is 3 points per contact.

Precedent from last weekend in Queen City is contradictory to that call.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by bduddy

But at some point, doesn't racking up penalties violate [G45]?

Nope, some team at CVR racked up 63 points in penalties in 1 match.

[badger3.14]

Originally Posted by bduddy

But at some point, doesn't racking up penalties violate [G45]?

the rule G45 mentions rule G44, and G28 is an exception to G44.

[Grim Tuesday]

So the question is: Were they taking advantage of the exception and thus in violation of [G45]?

Looks like the call will stand.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

So the question is: Were they taking advantage of the exception and thus in violation of [G45]?

Looks like the call will stand.

No, they were trying to triple balance for the win.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by dodar

No, they were trying to triple balance for the win.

But their actions were ramming and sandwiching 1218 to get them 8 fouls.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

But their actions were ramming and sandwiching 1218 to get them 8 fouls.

And 1218 couldn't have driven away from the red bridge?

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by dodar

And 1218 couldn't have driven away from the red bridge?

Is there a rule that says they have to?

[dodar]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Is there a rule that says they have to?

Was their match goal to get 28 points in penalties?

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by dodar

Was their match goal to get 28 points in penalties?

The fact remains that it wasn't their own actions that caused those penalties, it was the actions of the other alliance. If [G45] wasn't intended to apply to that kind of scenario, what it is supposed to apply to?

[dodar]

Originally Posted by bduddy

The fact remains that it wasn't their own actions that caused those penalties, it was the actions of the other alliance. If [G45] wasn't intended to apply to that kind of scenario, what it is supposed to apply to?

it was their own actions, they parked in front of 341 in between them and the bridge. G28 also says there should have been a TF for consequential contact, i.e. instant 49 points for repetitive contact with the bridge.

[chris1592]

Originally Posted by bduddy

The fact remains that it wasn't their own actions that caused those penalties, it was the actions of the other alliance. If [G45] wasn't intended to apply to that kind of scenario, what it is supposed to apply to?

G45 states: Strategies exploiting Rule [G44] are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed.
Violation: Technical-Foul and Red Card

G44: Generally, a rule violation by an Alliance that was directly caused by actions of the opposing Alliance will not be penalized. Rule [G28] is an exception to this rule.

and G28:
Robots may not touch an opponent Robot in contact with its Key, Alley, or Bridge.
Violation: Foul; Technical-Foul for purposeful, consequential contact.

[EricH]

Game - The Game » Robot-Robot Interaction » G28
Q. Is a strategy to exploit G28 considered to be a strategy to exploit G44 which would be a technical foul and red card according to G45?
A. Yes.

Game - The Game » Penalties » G45
Q. Red robot is in its key lining up to shoot. Blue robot approaches close to red robot to block the shot. Red robot intentionally pushes blue robot back to clear the way for its shot, contacting blue robot while red robot is still in contact with its key. Is this a violation of [G45]?
A. We cannot make a definitive statement on a hypothetical situation, and the final decision on violations of Game Rules is left to the Head Referee at each event. However, generally, if a Robot is attempting to play the game, not simply create Fouls for the opposing Alliance, Rule [G45] will not be violated.

That is what the Q&A has to say on this matter (or a related one).

If it was a strategy to rack up the penalties, [G45]. However, if a robot seems to be trying to play the game, say by knocking another robot away from the bridge, then that's not a strategy to rack up penalties, and no [G45]. YMTC. (And please let the refs at the event do the same--it's their call that counts.)

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by dodar

it was their own actions, they parked in front of 341 in between them and the bridge. G28 also says there should have been a TF for consequential contact, i.e. instant 49 points for repetitive contact with the bridge.

But the direct cause of those penalties was the driving of the red alliance - if they had gone at the bridge from the other side, for example, there would have been no penalties. Also, [G28] assigns Technical Fouls only for purposeful, consequential contact, and this was not purposeful. Not really sure where you're getting the 49 points from, because the extra 40 points would come from [G25], which you can definitely not be forced into committing...