YMTC: Descoring Tetras???

[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.