YMTC: Descoring Tetras???

[Andy Baker]

This looks like a ramming situation to me. Looking at <G25> "ramming another ROBOT at high speed" would constitute "inappropriate robot interaction" and the referee's decision could result in a DQ of REDABOT.

15 ft/sec is pretty fast for FIRST robots. That is top speed, all out.

<G25> leaves everything up to the referee's discretion, and their call is final.

If I were the ref (and in this YMTC, that is what the thread is about), it would be a DQ. At this point of the competition, there most likely would be similar situations of ramming in previous matches. I, as a ref, would call those the same way, even if it is qualification match #1. The aim of a ref is to be fair and consistent. If they don't call ramming during the early matches, then they should not call it during the latter matches. Ramming, tipping and similar moves need to be called early and consistently. Precedents need to be set so that it is obvious that a situation like this, even if it is in the finals, would be a penalizing move.

In my opinion, a warning would not be appropriate, as long as this was called consistently throughout the weekend's competition.

DQ to Redabot. The tetra de-scoring by Blueabot is moot, as Redabot's team has 0 points due to the DQ.

Andy B.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Another great YMTC.

What makes this one interesting, in my opinion, is that Bluateam is attempting to score. In past year's games, if a team was attempting to position itself to score, it was fair game for more contact. Whether that means a full blast ramming really depends on the specifics of the situation. I'd say, if the whole crowd gasped, it probably means that red might have overdone it with the collision. The threshold is probably around 60 - 65 percent.

If, on the other hand, ramming wasn't a factor, and I've never seen it called, I'd say that the two scored tetras that were dislodged by the vigorous defense should count, and the final should be 118 - 118.

Here's a question - would a referee seriously DQ a team for a single instance of rough play in the final world championship match? Do we really want the world champion decided by a referee's call?

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

Here's a question - would a referee seriously DQ a team for a single instance of rough play in the final world championship match? Do we really want the world champion decided by a referee's call?

Do we really want the rules called and enforced as they are written?

I don't know about "we", but "I" certainly do.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by JVN

Do we really want the rules called and enforced as they are written?

I don't know about "we", but "I" certainly do.

John, your such a radical. Why have rules if you can't break them. Isn't that what it's all about.


Seriously I'm on the same page of the rules as you.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

Do we really want the world champion decided by a referee's call?

No, it would not be decided by the referee's call. It would be decided by the action of redabot, and then penalized properly by the referee. If the referee does a good job of consistently calling this infraction throughout the competition, they he/she will be massively booed if the call was not made in this situation.

It would not be the ref's fault that redabot rammed blueabot at full speed. Just because it is the final match does not mean that the gloves come off and the game changes. Let's not make this like the NBA where rules are not enforced for certain players or at certain times.

Andy B.

... a guy who has made a tough call or two.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

This looks like a ramming situation to me. Looking at <G25> "ramming another ROBOT at high speed" would constitute "inappropriate robot interaction" and the referee's decision could result in a DQ of REDABOT.

15 ft/sec is pretty fast for FIRST robots. That is top speed, all out.

<G25> leaves everything up to the referee's discretion, and their call is final.

If I were the ref (and in this YMTC, that is what the thread is about), it would be a DQ. At this point of the competition, there most likely would be similar situations of ramming in previous matches. I, as a ref, would call those the same way, even if it is qualification match #1. The aim of a ref is to be fair and consistent. If they don't call ramming during the early matches, then they should not call it during the latter matches. Ramming, tipping and similar moves need to be called early and consistently. Precedents need to be set so that it is obvious that a situation like this, even if it is in the finals, would be a penalizing move.

In my opinion, a warning would not be appropriate, as long as this was called consistently throughout the weekend's competition.

DQ to Redabot. The tetra de-scoring by Blueabot is moot, as Redabot's team has 0 points due to the DQ.

Andy B.

Good call Andy, but I don't think you went far enough. Yes, under <G25> a violation has occurred - ramming - and the referee MAY disqualify Redabot. But in addition, Redabot - not Blueabot - has violated <G18> by removing two stacked tetras from the center goal.

"Huh?" you say, "but Blueabot was holding the tetras." That is correct. However, Redabot caused the removal of the scored tetras from the goal, not Blueabot. Under the conditions given in the problem, Redabot "hits Blueabot so hard that tetras start tumbling" and thus just uses Blueabot as an intermediate device to affect the removal of the tetras. Using the logic laid out in Example 4 and Example 5 of the expanded verion of <G15> in Update #4, it is clear that the penalty goes to the team/alliance that causes an infraction, even if they use an intermediate device (such as a tetra or another robot) to implement the infraction. So, penalty to Redabot, Blueabot gets six points for the two removed tetras and owns the goal for the rest of the game.

Bottom line: I would hit them with <G18> and <G25>. Blueabot wins.

-dave

[DougHogg]

Well sorry to diverge from the initial question but that brings up another question for me. If Red is trying to score a tetra and Blue rams Red to prevent Red from scoring (but not at "high speed") and somehow causes Red to swing its tetra up and knock a tetra off the goal, should Blue be penalized?

Personally I would assign that to an accidental result (unless it appeared that Blue was trying for that result in which case I would penalize Blue). In other words, I think that the referee would have to make a judgement call.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by DougHogg

Well sorry to diverge from the initial question but that brings up another question for me. If Red is trying to score a tetra and Blue rams Red to prevent Red from scoring (but not at "high speed") and somehow causes Red to swing its tetra up and knock a tetra off the goal, should Blue be penalized?

Personally I would assign that to an accidental result (unless it appeared that Blue was trying for that result in which case I would penalize Blue). In other words, I think that the referee would have to make a judgement call.

Then I would say that <G15> that Dave pointed out would apply. Penalty goes to Blue.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Excerpt from Rule <G25>

Examples of normal game play interaction include:

• Pushing low on another ROBOT.
• Blocking or pushing on a TETRA that is in possession of an opposing ROBOT.
• Establishing ROBOT position to block access to a GOAL by an opposing ROBOT.
• Using an arm or gripper to prevent an opposing ROBOT from placing a TETRA on a GOAL.

I agree - in the example that Doug mentioned, the defensive robot was still "ramming" its opponent, and the proper penalties should be levied as Dave specified earlier in this thread. However, "pushing" or "pinning" with your base or arm is perfectly legal. If a defensive robot uses such maneuvers to prevent an offensive robot from stacking its tetra, and during this contact, the offensive robot's arm knocks the defensive alliance's stacked tetra off the top of the goal, I think the offensive alliance should receive the penalty, and the defensive alliance should receive control over the goal for the rest of the match. Also, if the offensive alliance is attempting to pile more tetras onto a goal they already own, and in the course of the same defensive struggle outlined above, the offensive alliance knocks their own stacked tetra off their goal, I think they should lose 3 points, and the defensive alliance should not be penalized. Either way, a job well done, defensive alliance! Why should the defensive team be penalized for the failure of their opponents to hold their ground during a legal defensive maneuver?

I expect the group of 2005 FIRST referees will possess the usual level of good and fair judgement in determining what actions constitute malicious contact and what is good old-fashioned aggravating, stifling defense.

[DarMagi]

Ramming at high speeds is against the rules, even though the bluabot was about to score doesn't make it open to bend the rules as given the oppritunity. As for not knowing the rules, that doesn't work as our team in a rookie year got DQ'd for not knowing the rules in the stack attack challenge for pinning another robot, we did not familarize ourselves with the rules, thus costing our entire alliance the match. I say clearly that red is vialating the rules here and should be DQ'd. Much like what happened to us in that team, we did not recieve a warning, or even informed that we were DQ'd is was in the announcement for the end of the match that let us know we were in vialation and cost us the match, thankfully though it was only at the Robot Rodeo and not at actual competition, anyways, red vialted the rules and should b DQ'd vote for the blue side from me.