2014 Waterloo Regional

[Cullenwelch88]

What a match!! Good job to the ref for taking the time to review and reflect!

Cheers!!!

[JohnFogarty]

1114 is having the worst luck with fouls this year.

[Lil' Lavery]

Eeek. Tough way to go. Getting a 50 point foul from the actions of the other alliances, in which they only get a 20 point foul. By the letter of the law, the calls seem correct, though.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

Did that last blue low goal score go in or not??

What I saw? 3683 pushed the BALL into the LOW GOAL just as time expired. 1114 was defending this action. The BALL went in the front face of the LOW GOAL, and came out the left face of it, instead of out the back face through the ALLIANCE STATION.

According to the announcement at the event?

1241 initiated damaging contact with 1114 outside the FRAME PERIMETER (20 pts awarded to RED)

1114 was > 20" outside their FRAME PERIMETER (50 pts awarded to BLUE)

LOW GOAL at T=0 was NOT SCORED.

[Jonathan Norris]

Goal didn't count.

But 1114 just lost because 1241 broke their 'antenna', I don't get it. Isn't there a rule that you can't cause the other team to get a penalty? you penalize 1241 for causing the damage, but ALSO give 1114 a 50 point penalty for being outside 20" frame perimeter. You can't blame it on one team, then give more penalty points to the other team... ugh.

[Ty Tremblay]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

Goal didn't count.

But 1114 just lost because 1241 broke their 'antenna', I don't get it. Isn't there a rule that you can't cause the other team to get a penalty? you penalize 1241 for causing the damage, but ALSO give 1114 a 50 point penalty for being outside 20" frame perimeter... don't get it. ugh.

The rule prevents STRATEGIES causing the opposing alliance to get fouls.

G14:

Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

Goal didn't count.

But 1114 just lost because 1241 broke their 'antenna', I don't get it. Isn't there a rule that you can't cause the other team to get a penalty? you penalize 1241 for causing the damage, but ALSO give 1114 a 50 point penalty for being outside 20" frame perimeter... don't get it. ugh.

Here is the rule:

G14
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

I don't think 1241's actions can be classified as a "strategy aimed" towards causing 1114 to take a foul, and certainly "solely" aimed at that goal. Thus it didn't violate <G14>, and not triggering <G14> means the foul on 1114 counts.

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

Goal didn't count.

But 1114 just lost because 1241 broke their 'antenna', I don't get it. Isn't there a rule that you can't cause the other team to get a penalty? you penalize 1241 for causing the damage, but ALSO give 1114 a 50 point penalty for being outside 20" frame perimeter... don't get it. ugh.

I believe that rule only applies to strategies aimed at trying to force your opponent to commit fouls. I doubt 1241 did that intentionally.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay

The rule prevents STRATEGIES causing the opposing alliance to get fouls.

This foul will be discussed all week.

[ErvinI]

http://www.watchfirstnow.com/archives/89799948

At 1:15, you see the contact for a split second and 1114 losing their antenna. Not sure what you guys see, but it looked like 1241's intake hit the antenna from this angle.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by paperBot

seriously hope that 1114 has better luck at the worlds.

1114 still has a chance to win ONWI in 2 weeks time.

Brutal luck though.

[Richard Wallace]

Why does 1114's G24 violation result in a 50 pt technical? Was it continuous or repeated?

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by ErvinI

http://www.watchfirstnow.com/archives/89799948

At 1:15, you see the contact for a split second and 1114 losing their antenna. Not sure what you guys see, but it looked like 1241's intake hit the antenna from this angle.

That's exactly what it looks like to me. Looks like incidental contact from 1241's intake broke the antenna.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Why does 1114's G24 violation result in a 50 pt technical? Was it continuous or repeated?

I started at ~1:15 in the match, so it was continuous.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Why does 1114's G24 violation result in a 50 pt technical? Was it continuous or repeated?

Their broken antenna remained >20" outside the FRAME PERIMETER for the remainder of the match.