|
Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kulisb
While the entire FIRST crew did an awesome job at the Championship Competition, many people have mentioned that consistency in calling penalties was a big problem. I have to agree on that one. You should really check out this match (#74 in Galileo) for one of the strangest calls I have ever seen.
http://soap.circuitrunners.com/2005/...eo/gal_074.wmv
Keep an eye on team 126 (the closest robot on the blue alliance.......the one capping multiple tetras at once). They stay on their side of the field for just about the whole match. With somthing like 11 or 12 seconds left in the match, a robot on the far red side of the field can be seen being tipped over. With time running out, 126 attempts to run the field and cap in a red home row goal, passing the downed robot with about 2 seconds left in the match. While there was about 6 seconds in between the robot tipping, and 126 being on even the same SIDE of the field as them, they are somehow hit with a ten point penalty and disqualified in the match for being responsible for the tipping.
What do you guys think? I understand how calls should not be arguable. But, in a case like this, should calls be able to be changed or reviewed? This year, a simple mistake like this in one match costs any team a LOT! Thanks for your input!
Congrats to all teams on another successful FIRST season! 
|
It may not have been team 126 but it was still a team on the blue alliance that tipped that robot, unless my eyes were playing tricks on me. So they should have got the DQ for the alliance but not because of team 126.
__________________
my FIRST acomplishments: 2003:GLR Chairmans winner, MWR Finalist, Archimedes Division winner, National Champion (w/ 111 and 469) 2004:MWR Finalist 2005:GLR Chairmans winner, MWR Finalist, MWR Innovation in Controls award 2006:hmmm wow, umm we got picked 4th overall at Nats by 121
my FIRST resume: 65 (2003-2006)
|