Bad Call?

[1359th Scalawag]

Can I please get a link directly to the Q&A about this?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by 1359th Scalawag

Can I please get a link directly to the Q&A about this?

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=5292

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by 1359th Scalawag

Can I please get a link directly to the Q&A about this?

This is the best I can do for you:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1522

If you see the thread that Joe linked, there's a lot of discussion as to what "SUPPORTED" means, because it isn't defined in the manual. I'm pretty sure that nobody wants to carry on that particular debate any more. Personally, I don't agree with what the GDC is calling "SUPPORTED", but all I can ever ask for is that the rules are enforced consistently, regardless of how ridiculous the rule is. Tubes that are touching the underside of lifting robots have negated all lifts at every event I have attended or watched, and I applaud the refs for being consistent.

[roborat]

We were on the other side of a ruling like this in palmetto. During our semi final match, the opponent had two robots lifted and was ruled that the bottom robot was touching a field element and did not give the 60 points and then we came back for our second match and found out that the ruling had been reversed and we were now the losing team. They stated the reason was that the lifting robot could touch a field element but the two robots on the ramp were not touching anything so they adjusted the score and we lost that match.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by roborat

We were on the other side of a ruling like this in palmetto. During our semi final match, the opponent had two robots lifted and was ruled that the bottom robot was touching a field element and did not give the 60 points and then we came back for our second match and found out that the ruling had been reversed and we were now the losing team. They stated the reason was that the lifting robot could touch a field element but the two robots on the ramp were not touching anything so they adjusted the score and we lost that match.

I watched that match on the webcast, and it was because the arm of the lifting bot was touching the player station wall. The lifting bot was not supported by the wall, and niether of the two liftees were touching the wall.

[roborat]

we were just told that the lifiing bot was touching a tube. And we were not told that until we went to the floor for match two and the announcer said that it was 1-0 red when we thought it was 1-0 blue when we left the floor after seeing the score on the screen. It did not matter, they were a very good alliance with the arms and the ramps together.

[razor95kds]

This call was very tough for the refs and i can fully explain the situation. The ramp bot deploys one very big ramp with two sides that are connected with one piece of fabric. the ramp delopys and makes a very big ramp simialr to the aim high ramp. one side of the ramp deployed on top of two innertubes. The platform of the ramp did not rest on any tubes and the only tube under the ramp was stuck on a support leg that was in the middle of the tube so the tube could not be removed. the other tube was under the ramp leader up to the platform an was hold up the ramp, but not the platform that held the robot. Other the other side of the ramp, the other robot got up and there were no tubes under it.

The refs call was that the tubes under the ramp supported the ramp which was connected to the platform which was connected to the other half of the ramp and platform by a piece of fabric so the other robot also did not count.

My only dislike with the call was that the second robot was not counted even though their ramp had no innertubes near it. that was a terrible call, but the one 12 inch bonus wouldn't have won the match anyways.

[Feisty_one]

We were the victims of the rule at Peachtree and the beneficiary yesterday at Palmetto. After the call at Peachtree, we discussed the interpretation and realized that the approach that First has taken is the only way to consistently enforce the rule. The GDC certainly does not want to make the referees determine whether or not a game piece provides assistance to a ramp, so the mere presence of a tube under the ramp is grounds to disallow points.

I am surprised that the placement of a tube under a ramp bot (before deployment) is not used as a tactic to at least hinder some of the really good ramps, such as 1319.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Feisty_one

I am surprised that the placement of a tube under a ramp bot (before deployment) is not used as a tactic to at least hinder some of the really good ramps, such as 1319.

I'm more surprised that taking a 10 point penalty (being in the opposing teams home zone at the end) and stuffing a tube under the ramp bot (thus negating a 60 point lift) hasn't become a tactic.

[Chris Fultz]

it is becoming a strategy, and was used several times at Long Island - knowking the tubes down tubes along the back wall or placing one near a ramp bot to make it tougher for a ramp bot to deploy or for some robots to climb.

[Feisty_one]

This is true. Even if you take the full 30 point penalty for remaing in the box the entire period, that's 30 points saved over a sure ramp score.

Has anyone actually backed their robot up to a ramp to keep it from dropping? Would that be considered contact above the bumper zone if the ramp hits your robot?

That would be a pretty extreme measure, but who knows?

[akeisic]

I agree with the calls that have been made. While we may disagree with the rules interpretation, it does make it alot easier for the refs to make the call - and they have been consistant in making the call. In talking to some refs, I also learned that a robot on top of a deflated tube ontop of a unsupported ramp is also cause to disallow the bonus. So ramp bots make sure you're ramps are unsupported and ramping bots make sure you're not running over any tubes.

[akeisic]

[quote=Feisty_one;609164]
Has anyone actually backed their robot up to a ramp to keep it from dropping? Would that be considered contact above the bumper zone if the ramp hits your robot?
QUOTE]

The refs could DQ the robot that back up to the ramp. Rule G38 prevents the intentional entanglement of opposing robots. It's the blocking robot's intention to become entangled with the ramp bot.

While I see scatterring tubes in your opponents home zone as a viable strategy, I hope no one delibrately interfers with robots deploying ramps during the end game.

[Ericgehrken]

The same thing happened to 195,558,1124 at UTC in the semi-finals when 195 was touching a tube while supported by 558's ramp. This is just a rule that has to be followed. Luckily it was the first semi-final and we won the last two to move on.

[Otaku]

I'd have to agree with the refs. If a rampbot is touching a tube (or rather, if a tube is under the bot or it's ramp, touching either the bot or it's ramp), then I say that's grounds for losing bonus points. Plus, from what it sounds like, this is a consistient call at Regionals, so I see no use complaining.