Bad Call?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by 1359th Scalawag

Entering the Finals, my team's alliance was doing great, we got both robots onto the ramp and would have won but the referees made a strange call. Part of the ramp robot we were on had an innertube under it. They decided not to give us that 60 points and we lost the match because of the rule that states "scoring robots must not be supported by any feild elements".

The intent of that rule is so that none of the robots that are lifted hang on the game structures or sit on innertubes. In this case, the supported robots were only supported by another robot but we were not given those 60 points. We lost the next match and were eliminated from the finals.

I would like imput from other teams. Was thier judgement right?

The same thing happened to us in semifinal match 1 when I was coaching... I was livid because I thought this was a misinterpretation of the rules* (and I've read the rulebook many times over) but I decided not to argue with the refs since their call is final. We actually ended up winning SF-2, so we played a third match which we also won, allowing us to continue to the finals.

The reason why I don't like this call is because it's inconsistent from match to match, from regional to regional. I wouldn't mind so much if FIRST could just standardize this rule and get it in print so the refs and the drivers know how to interpret it and can act accordingly. This way there won't be any surprises or confusion at the end of any given match.



*I see this as a misinterpretation of the rules because they say that a robot cannot be supported by the field or a field object/gamepiece. This call uses the transitive property to say that a robot supported by a robot supported by a gamepiece violates this aspect of the rules. But if you use the transitive property in the circumstance that there is no tube under the lower robot, this means that you have a robot supported by a robot supported by the field... and this would also be a rules violation. Since we know this counts for bonus points, I would assume it counts in the other scenario.

[Feisty_one]

Agree on deliberate entanglement, but what if my robot occupies the spot where the ramp needs to fall (I have not made contact). If the ramp drops on me, who is the offender? I would think the rampbot, since it initiated the contact. I certainly would not recommend this as a tactic though.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Richard

We had a similar call go against us at Boilermaker. Didn't like it, either -- but it was the right call.

Our student operator on the field asked the head ref about the call right after the match, and pointed out that had the tube been removed the robots would not have changed height. However, as the Q&A response cited above makes clear, "supported" is not interpreted by such a test -- it is implied by contact of a gamepiece under the ramp-bot, and a robot supported by a supported robot is also supported.

Something new - what if the only thing contacting a ringer is the SIDE of a leg sticking down through the center of the tube? All of the robot surfaces meant to contact the ground are contacting the ground with no ringer interference. Are the refs going to kill off 60 points in this situation?

[sovierr]

There was a situation in the Florida regional that we thought was an odd call by the head ref. If my memory serves, team 69 has a double set of ramps that were deployed. One side came down fine and the other side came down on a tube. A teammate climbed up the clean side and was awarded to 30 point bonus even though part of 69 was being supported by a ringer. Nobody said the refs' jobs were easy!

[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.

[razor95kds]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Something new - what if the only thing contacting a ringer is the SIDE of a leg sticking down through the center of the tube? All of the robot surfaces meant to contact the ground are contacting the ground with no ringer interference. Are the refs going to kill off 60 points in this situation?

thats exactly what happend at Davis. the refs should have killed only 30 but instead they killed an entire 60 when this happend. The ringers were touching sections sections of the ramp that didnt need to contact the floor to support a robot so they killed all of our points (they should have kept at least thirty b/c the other isde had no tube interfernce).