2013 Championship Curie Division

[FrancisTherrien]

Here is a link to a video of the technical foul of 967 on 148 on the pyramid. Judge it for yourself...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlswJ...ature=youtu.be

[minhnhatbui]

Here's the famous hit: http://youtu.be/YlswJfhkrNQ. Judge by yourself.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by minhnhatbui

Here's the famous hit: http://youtu.be/YlswJfhkrNQ. Judge by yourself.

Good call by the ref, clearly in contact and clearly interfering.

[minhnhatbui]

I would think that it would be at most a 20 points technical foul since 967 did push them to the pyramid, but they were not in the process of climbing - the 30 points climb awarded to 148 was dubious.

[iVanDuzer]

Should not have been called interfering with a climb. Climbing requires contact with the pyramid. The only reason 148 was touching the pyramid was because they were pushed there. Since the contact with the pyramid was independent of the act of climbing (148 had to break contact with the pyramid to line up again to climb properly), it should have been a 20 point technical foul and red should have won.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

Should not have been called interfering with a climb. Climbing requires contact with the pyramid. The only reason 148 was touching the pyramid was because they were pushed there. Since the contact with the pyramid was independent of the act of climbing (148 had to break contact with the pyramid to line up again to climb properly), it should have been a 20 point technical foul and red should have won.

No, it should not have been just a 20-point foul.

G30
Regardless of who initiates the contact, a ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOT

A. contacting its PYRAMID or
B. touching the carpet in its LOADING ZONE.

Violation: FOUL. If purposeful or consequential, TECHNICAL FOUL. If an opponent's CLIMB is affected, each affected opponent ROBOT will be granted credit for a Level 3 CLIMB at the end of the MATCH.

First off, you are correct that it's a 20-point technical foul (purposeful and consequential being the reason).

However, you don't have to interfere with a climb to get the 30 tacked on. You just have to affect it. If you affect it (and I would consider that potentially breaking raised hooks and forcing a realignment is most certainly affecting a climb, thank you very much--don't believe me, I'll try it on you and ask if you were affected), then it's a technical foul plus 30.

148 was attempting a climb, their climb was affected, and in the process they contacted the tower. If they hadn't contacted the tower, no foul. If they hadn't been attempting a climb, 3-20 points in fouls. But they contacted the tower due to opponent action (though initiator of an action does not matter in this case), and their climb was affected after lining up had begun. When a climb begins--whether it's when you latch on or when you start lining up--is a matter of interpretation.

[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by EricH

No, it should not have been just a 20-point foul.
However, you don't have to interfere with a climb to get the 30 tacked on. You just have to affect it. If you affect it (and I would consider that potentially breaking raised hooks and forcing a realignment is most certainly affecting a climb, thank you very much--don't believe me, I'll try it on you and ask if you were affected), then it's a technical foul plus 30.

Just as background, my robot's climber DID get mangled by defence while going for a climb this year, resulting in us being eliminated from our only regional, so I definitely know how the folks on 148 would feel if 967's defence resulted in damage to their robot.

148 was attempting a climb, their climb was affected, and in the process they contacted the tower. If they hadn't contacted the tower, no foul. If they hadn't been attempting a climb, 3-20 points in fouls. But they contacted the tower due to opponent action (though initiator of an action does not matter in this case), and their climb was affected after lining up had begun. When a climb begins--whether it's when you latch on or when you start lining up--is a matter of interpretation.

If the climb was truly affected, they should have also gotten a red card due to G27, no?

ROBOTS may not contact or otherwise interfere with their opponents’ PYRAMID. Inconsequential contact will not be penalized.
Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL.

If an opponent’s CLIMB is affected,
RED CARD, and each affected opponent ROBOT will be granted credit for a Level 3 CLIMB at the end of the MATCH.

Since the 967 did not get assessed a red card, I take it to mean that the refs did not feel like the climb was affected, and so the climbing points should not have been awarded. And the refs on Curie were very clear that they knew what constituted a violation of G27 in the first finals match when the red alliance was disqualified due to that same rule.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

If the climb was truly affected, they should have also gotten a red card due to G27, no?

Since the 967 did not get assessed a red card, I take it to mean that the refs did not feel like the climb was affected, and so the climbing points should not have been awarded. And the refs on Curie were very clear that they knew what constituted a violation of G27 in the first finals match when the red alliance was disqualified due to that same rule.

The pyramid was not touched by 967. G27 (and its associated penalties) therefore does not apply to this situation. G30, on the other hand, does apply, due to robot/robot contact when a robot contacts its own pyramid being a factor--and G30 does not have a provision for a red card.

If 967 had in fact contacted the pyramid, I would have expected at least another T-foul to be added on to the score, regardless of whether or not the climb bonus was applied.

[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by EricH

The pyramid was not touched by 967. G27 (and its associated penalties) therefore does not apply to this situation. G30, on the other hand, does apply, due to robot/robot contact when a robot contacts its own pyramid being a factor--and G30 does not have a provision for a red card.

G27 does not state the exact method used to interfere with the pyramid. The use of the word "interfere" suggests that a robot can affect the opposing pyramid in other ways besides direct contact. I would say pushing another robot into the pyramid is one such way of initiating contact with the pyramid.

967 purposely (in the ref's eyes, hence the G30 violation) used 148 as means to contact the pyramid to create a momentary pin (otherwise that would have been a 3pt foul). That's both indirect (but not inconsequential) contact and interference with the pyramid (use of the pyramid in a way it was not supposed to be used: the "safe zone" rules surrounding the pyramid clearly shows that the pyramid is not meant to be used to pin robots). Again, the climb points awarded to 148 show that the refs felt that 148's climb was affected: under G27, 967 should have been given a red card as well for interference with the pyramid and affecting a climb.

When it comes to climbing, there's a lot of overlap between G27 and G30. If the refs were going to call one of these fouls, they should have called both. Since G27 was not called, I am left thinking that the climb bonus should not have been added for an affected climb.

[1975Flyers]

Deleted content.

[hiyou102]

Originally Posted by 1975Flyers

Did anyone notice the mentor for 148 that had to be restrained after the red card was called?

Can you please elaborate? What exactly happened?

[404'd]

Originally Posted by EricH

When a climb begins--whether it's when you latch on or when you start lining up--is a matter of interpretation.

This part I was discussing myself. Prior to this match I had only seen refs call a 20pt for something like this because the pushing robot had not directly affected their climb, because the climb had not started. I was shocked to hear when the ref had said that they consider lining up to the pyramid, as "in the act of climbing" and that we had affected their climb. Going with that explanation, couldn't my climb start when we raise our climbing device across the field on my way to climb?

If we had never broke contact with 148 during the push and they raised their climbing mechanism just before we pushed them into the pyramid, how should that be called? (I'm honestly interested in any opinions, I'm not trying to make a point)

In the end, most people I talked to believed that they would only tack on the 30pt climb credit if the opposing robot contacted them during a climb. I see a "climb" as a robot off the ground, a robot touching the ground isn't a "climb". In my eye we affected the lining up process of a climb, not the climb itself, but lining up fell into this refs definition of a climb, so that is why he gave the 50pt penalty.

As a driver I knew not to interfere with a climb, and I would have never done that if I had known what they considered a climb.

Lesson learned: stay away from the opposing pyramid.

Regardless of that call we had an amazing time at Championships this year, 2056 and 3990 were great partners as well. We were ecstatic to be able to play with you guys and are sad that we were only able to make it to the semi finals.

[Ricky Q.]

Originally Posted by 404'd

One of the mentors obviously was not happy with the red card that was called on their alliance. I believe security/police were called but I don't think anything else happened after the situation.

Not quite. We were obviously upset and looking for an explanation of the call. There might have been some raised voices and animated discussions but nothing more than that. Security and police were definitely not involved.

[aharris]

Originally Posted by 1975Flyers

Did anyone notice the mentor for 148 that had to be restrained after the red card was called?

I'm one of the drivers for 862 and our partner 148 did not have to be restrained down on the field after the red card what ended up happening was that after the redcard 4814 67 and 1918 appealed to the judges saying that there was no penalty and that their climb was not effected. This had no bearing on the judges call though. No student or mentor on the field had to be physically restrained. Both alliances played great and it was unfortunate the results of the first match. 4814 67 and 1918 are amazing competitors and I thank them for backing us up on this questionable call and acting with gracious professionalism. I would like to thank 1678 and 148 for being a great alliance. We had an amazing run with you guys.

[404'd]

Originally Posted by Ricky Q.

Not quite. We were obviously upset and looking for an explanation of the call. There might have been some raised voices and animated discussions but nothing more than that. Security and police were definitely not involved.

Okay, misinformation I guess. I guess it looked different from people I talked to in the stands.