What we learned from week 1

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

*Interesting clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spyRub7z1Bw

Do you know if 2848 got called for a foul when 16 shoved them into the pyramid? By rule they shouldn't have since you can't be forced into taking a foul for anything except a G30. I'm just curious how the refs at Hub City called that.

[hrench]

I haven't had time to read this whole string, but I'll say that I learned that even teams that say they can climb for 30 (or 50) didn't at the Hub City and shooting frisbees four at a time is the best skill.

But like others here have said, even rookie teams were competitive and a ten-point hang is completely worth it.

Many videos of Hub City (for team 1108) at my youtube site.
[url="https://www.youtube.com/user/hrench"]

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Do you know if 2848 got called for a foul when 16 shoved them into the pyramid? By rule they shouldn't have since you can't be forced into taking a foul for anything except a G30. I'm just curious how the refs at Hub City called that.

That was a huge hit if I've ever seen one. If you look at the picture they show a little later, 16's bumper comes up and hits them inside their frame perimeter. Nothing against 16 but if I was a ref and saw that I feel like I would call something.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by PVCpirate

That was a huge hit if I've ever seen one. If you look at the picture they show a little later, 16's bumper comes up and hits them inside their frame perimeter. Nothing against 16 but if I was a ref and saw that I feel like I would call something.

There is no foul rule that applies to this situation.

[smistthegreat]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

There is no foul rule that applies to this situation.

3.2.6.2 G29
Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

G29 does apply, depending on the severity of the contact.

Edit: The blue box appears to limit the impact of this rule to contact by appendages. Contact by bumpers may be a good candidate for a Q&A question.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by smistthegreat

3.2.6.2 G29
Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

G29 does apply, depending on the severity of the contact.

My comment was not that G29 did not exist, only that it did not apply to this situation. A robot tipped while being pushed and their bumpers overlapped momentarily. Hardly deliberate, damaging contact.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

There is no foul rule that applies to this situation.

G29
Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL


High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

A ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER may be penalized under this rule if it appears they are using that element to purposefully contact another ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER. Regardless of intent, a ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER that causes damage to another ROBOT inside of its FRAME PERIMETER will be penalized.

You sure?

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

You sure?

Read your own quote:
High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

16 had no such extended element. Their bumpers overlapped. It happens.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

Read your own quote:
High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

16 had no such extended element. Their bumpers overlapped. It happens.

That part of the quote had nothing to do with this incident, the rule just goes on to explain that if you extend something out there is no penalty for hitting it.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

Read your own quote:
High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

16 had no such extended element. Their bumpers overlapped. It happens.

I know it's hard to tell from a still, but it sure looks like 16's upper frame is hitting the vertical that 2848's shooter is mounted to. Which is well inside the frame perimeter.

At any rate, I think the primary issue is that your initial post seemed dismissive of the whole category of G29 fouls. Since you acknowledge that they do exist, the issue boils down to whether athe few stills and video we have show some evidence of deliberate and damaging contact. I think we can file this under "Judgement Calls" and everybody can move on.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I know it's hard to tell from a still, but it sure looks like 16's upper frame is hitting the vertical that 2848's shooter is mounted to. Which is well inside the frame perimeter.

The rule itself acknowledges that this type of contact may occur and is not a foul. The purpose of G29 is to make clear that the element must be purposeful and the damaging contact deliberate in order for there to be a foul. I do not believe I "dismissed a whole catagory of fouls." Since I wtnessed this contact myself, I was offering my opinion that it did not violate any foul rule.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

The rule itself acknowledges that this type of contact may occur and is not a foul. The purpose of G29 is to make clear that the element must be purposeful and the damaging contact deliberate in order for there to be a foul. I do not believe I "dismissed a whole catagory of fouls." Since I wtnessed this contact myself, I was offering my opinion that it did not violate any foul rule.

"There is no foul rule that applies to this situation."

I'm sorry, but that right there dismisses the fact that any rule applies to what happened. Rule G29 specifically applies to what happened, was it violated is a completely different question.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I'm sorry, but that right there dismisses the fact that any rule applies to what happened. Rule G29 specifically applies to what happened, was it violated is a completely different question.

It stated my opinion that no foul rule applied here. It does not "dismiss" any rule.

G29 refers specifically to robot elements outside the frame perimeter which are purposefully used to cause damage to another robot. That rule does not apply here, if for no other reason than because 16 had no such element. Two robots came in contact while pushing when one of them tipped. If you would like for that to be called as a technical foul in your match, you may want to be careful what you wish for.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

It stated my opinion that no foul rule applied here. It does not "dismiss" any rule.

G29 refers specifically to robot elements outside the frame perimeter which are purposefully used to cause damage to another robot. That rule does not apply here, if for no other reason than because 16 had no such element. Two robots came in contact while pushing when one of them tipped. If you would like for that to be called as a technical foul in your match, you may want to be careful what you wish for.

No, it doesn't. I refers to any contact inside of a robot perimeter. It then goes on to warn that when you have something that extends out you run the risk of it getting damaged because they rule does not cover extended pieces.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

No, it doesn't. I refers to any contact inside of a robot perimeter. It then goes on to warn that when you have something that extends out you run the risk of it getting damaged because they rule does not cover extended pieces.

It is silly to debate the content of something that is in writing. The rule and its blue box explanation speak for themselves. I don't think the rule applied to this situation, but that is just my opinion, which is all it ever was.