G27 Standard

[fox46]

Typically, in past games high speed ramming was defined by the refs as acceleration through one or more zones resulting in a direct impact and damage to another robot. This year it seems to be assigned to veteran teams who happen to touch another robot. It got so bad that in Calgary I started telling our drivers not to move if they didn't have the ball.

My favorite one was in Calgary we were called for high speed ramming causing damage when we clipped the corner of one of our alliance partners and the transparent cover on our pneumatic gauge popped off The ref was oblivious to the fact that the collision involved our teammates and in no way made any sense that it would have been intentional or strategic as none of the robots were in possession of any balls. He refused to acknowledge the gauge cover which we showed him was from our machine. Furthermore, at no time during the match did I see a penalty flag go up and yet at the end of it we were assigned 3 G40s to the human player in the driver's station and one G27 for a total of 200 foul points.

http://watchfirstnow.com/archives/91020304

In North Bay we were rammed by a rookie machine against the driver's station while trying to collect a ball. The hit mangled our intake mechanism so badly you can see it in the video. The offending robot had ridden up on top of our bumper and when we cycled the intake mechanism and tried to reposition to collect our ball they tipped over. You can see no call was made by the ref in that quadrant nor the head ref at the time. At the end of the match though, we were assigned a technical for tipping and no call was made against the other team for ramming despite them having accelerated from the truss. We had to bend our intake back into shape and repair 12 cracked welds.

http://watchfirstnow.com/archives/90614841 - @0:40

Someone please correct me if I am wrong to think these incidents were egregiously poor calls.

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by fox46

[url]

In North Bay we were rammed by a rookie machine against the driver's station while trying to collect a ball. The hit mangled our intake mechanism so badly you can see it in the video. The offending robot had ridden up on top of our bumper and when we cycled the intake mechanism and tried to reposition to collect our ball they tipped over. You can see no call was made by the ref in that quadrant nor the head ref at the time. At the end of the match though, we were assigned a technical for tipping and no call was made against the other team for ramming despite them having accelerated from the truss. We had to bend our intake back into shape and repair 12 cracked welds.

http://watchfirstnow.com/archives/90614841 - @0:40

Someone please correct me if I am wrong to think these incidents were egregiously poor calls.

I saw the flag go up on that one, my guess is the tipping call was because after being under their bumpers your driver paused and then accelerated toward them tipping them over. I get your argument on the ramming, but I will never get how those calls are made.

[fox46]

Originally Posted by MrBasse

I saw the flag go up on that one, my guess is the tipping call was because after being under their bumpers your driver paused and then accelerated toward them tipping them over. I get your argument on the ramming, but I will never get how those calls are made.

Ah, I see the head ref wave the flag 10 seconds after the tip, I suppose that was the call. My argument is; when you've been rammed up against the driver's station with a robot on top of you, which way would one drive to avoid tipping them?

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by fox46

Ah, I see the head ref wave the flag 10 seconds after the tip, I suppose that was the call. My argument is; when you've been rammed up against the driver's station with a robot on top of you, which way would one drive to avoid tipping them?

That is a phenomenal question, and also one of the many reasons I have chosen to never be a referee.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

I'm curious how you guys would have called this sequence of events in Semi's 2-2 at the OSU district. I'm starting it right before the g28 foul occurs in the lower lefthand corner. It was called on blue 3712 as time expired.

http://youtu.be/ECiXrExJupg?t=2m28s

G28 - contact inside the frame perimeter, requires either deliberate or damaging contact. It did not look deliberate to me. Blue 3712 was almost motionless, and the Red Robot was approaching blue.

If damage to Red occurred, then I would have called G28. If there was no damage to red, then then I would not have called G28.

In North Bay we were rammed by a rookie machine against the driver's station while trying to collect a ball. The hit mangled our intake mechanism so badly you can see it in the video. The offending robot had ridden up on top of our bumper and when we cycled the intake mechanism and tried to reposition to collect our ball they tipped over. You can see no call was made by the ref in that quadrant nor the head ref at the time. At the end of the match though, we were assigned a technical for tipping and no call was made against the other team for ramming despite them having accelerated from the truss. We had to bend our intake back into shape and repair 12 cracked welds.

http://watchfirstnow.com/archives/90614841 - @0:40

Red was a candidate for G27 - High Speed ramming. So, if damaged occurred, then it should have been called on them. Not only did they come at the Blue Bot from a distance, but the collision caused Red Bot to rock, and thus end up riding up on Blue's bumper.

I would not have called Blue for G28 Tipping. Red caused themselves to ride up on Blue's bumper and violate Blue's frame perimeter. Blue seemed to be playing the ball (and moving in the only direction it could), and not a "strategy" to tip Red.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by rich2202

I would not have called Blue for G28 Tipping. Red caused themselves to ride up on Blue's bumper and violate Blue's frame perimeter. Blue seemed to be playing the ball (and moving in the only direction it could), and not a "strategy" to tip Red.

Much to all our chagrin, neither G28 nor G27 require the tipping to be a strategy. I have trouble seeing a G28 in this as Red is the situation initiator, though Blue arguably initiated that actual action that caused the final tip. G27 though, is a nightmare. Parsing through the conditions, "...game play resulting in the...inhibition of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as...tipping...of ROBOTS are not allowed." If you're judged to have committed an action such as tipping (an operable) robot, you're guilty of G27.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by fox46

My argument is; when you've been rammed up against the driver's station with a robot on top of you, which way would one drive to avoid tipping them?

Neither. You park there until the ref counts 6 with a tomahawk motion--AKA, pin count. Either the team backs off, or you get 50 points out of the bargain. If you need to, quick shove and back up to try to shake 'em loose.

If the ref DOESN'T count 6 (or more), then you stand in the question box afterwards and ask why no pinning foul was assessed, particularly if you see a ref looking straight at it.

[fox46]

Neither. You park there until the ref counts 6 with a tomahawk motion--AKA, pin count

I like that answer! But then could one not argue that if you were indeed capable of moving you'd be drawing a penalty?