G43 enforcement level

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by backdrive

At CVR the refs almost never called fouls, although this might be because teams often crossed defenses, went into the courtyard a bit, then came back on to a defense to shoot. I'm a bit confused on whether or not hitting an opposing bot that does this constitutes a penalty or not.

This is a foul

Q532
Q."A robot carrying a boulder crosses a defense into their opponents' courtyard. They then move back such that a part of its bumpers are within the opponent’s outer works while their robot is still in contact with the courtyard carpet. They attempt to line up a shot, but an opponent contacts them. Does the opponent incur a G43 penalty?"
A.This situation does demonstrate a violation of G43. Per G43: "A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS." Even if you are shooting a BOULDER, you would be protected by G43 if your BUMPERS are within the OUTER WORKS.

[mac]

It was not enforced at district Walt Whitman and Battlefield High School. You know why? Because not one shot was taken from the Outer works.
God Bless Mentor Mac

[Boltman]

In Central Valley I never saw it called ..so don't expect protection

There were at least 5 decent-world class OW shooters in CV

[IronicDeadBird]

I feel like the only way to actually fully be protected under G43 you need to be doing that Fadeaway shot as you start moving into the outerworks and take the shot.

If you are moving to cross the outerworks the refs are looking for the G43.
If you are standing still and aiming I think refs are more looking to see if your shot follows all the rules.

I'm not saying shooting from the outerworks does not have you covered with G43, I'm just saying that depending upon how a ref is looking at your robot determines what rules they are applying to it at the time. The traversal part of the rule makes me read it as you need to be moving, I'd be interested in seeing how many refs agree with that.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Donut

Shooting from the Batter is not a protected area, G43 only applies to the Outer Works (multiple teams were confused about this at AZ North this week).



We watched for this whenever defense was being played in the Courtyard this weekend. Remember that G43 requires Bumpers be within the Outer Works for a foul to be called for interference. If the Bumpers were not clearly within the side Shields of the Outer Works then it was a no call. After seeing where many teams stopped to take their shots this weekend I would advise that you make it as obvious as possible you are within the Outer Works; on some of the shots the team probably thought they were protected by G43 when their Bumpers were actually too far forward. The drive team is looking from across the field (even if using a camera on a pole) so your viewing angle may make your position appear different than the sideline referee's view.

I think G43 is more likely to be missed in the Neutral Zone. With Outer Works to be watched on both sides and robots flying across the defenses at high speeds contact there can easily be missed if it's not for an extended time.

Out of curiosity (mostly because I saw it happen a few times to us) how would a team shooting, getting hit, and plowed (i.e. other bot remains in contact) into the outer works likely be called?

-S

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by backdrive

At CVR the refs almost never called fouls, although this might be because teams often crossed defenses, went into the courtyard a bit, then came back on to a defense to shoot. I'm a bit confused on whether or not hitting an opposing bot that does this constitutes a penalty or not.

We found that rule was enforced quite well. We made a distinct effort to get into the OW to make it clear to the ref. I rarely saw other teams actually shooting from the OW--they were often off the OW which makes a hit legal.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Boltman

In Central Valley I never saw it called ..so don't expect protection

There were at least 5 decent-world class OW shooters in CV

In our first 2 QFs, we accumulated 25 pts in G43 fouls while we were shooting. It's one of the reasons why opposing alliances gave up blocking us the rest of elims.

I was watching pretty closely, and few if any other teams (including 254) were shooting from the actual OW position--they were often close, but didn't pull all the way back into contact when they shot. I saw fouls called when it did happen. In qualifying we were often off the OW when we got hit--I don't remember a time when a foul was missed on us for that reason.

If you can give me some example matches where bots were in the OW and fouls were being missed, I'd be interested to see my recollection is off.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

In our first 2 QFs, we accumulated 25 pts in G43 fouls while we were shooting. It's one of the reasons why opposing alliances gave up blocking us the rest of elims.

I was watching pretty closely, and few if any other teams (including 254) were shooting from the actual OW position--they were often close, but didn't pull all the way back into contact when they shot. I saw fouls called when it did happen. In qualifying we were often off the OW when we got hit--I don't remember a time when a foul was missed on us for that reason.

If you can give me some example matches where bots were in the OW and fouls were being missed, I'd be interested to see my recollection is off.

Perhaps I was not paying close enough attention ..it seems it was more against 1323 and 5817 from my recollection you and 254 did not to seem to be as bothered perhaps due to the earlier calls I missed.

[anishde]

At the NYC Regional we lost our fifth match on what I believe was a G43 (it may have been another foul), but as it seemed one team on our alliance rammed a red alliance robot into the outer works while attempting to defend against the shooter.