Bad Call?

[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!

[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).