Best Way to Get Points

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by feliks_rosenber

You can grab the ball and have it in possession while making laps.
You don't have to hurdle it although of course hurdling gives more points.

Yes you can do your lap with it in your possession, but look at <G10> in my previous post ... you will need to release it and not be touching it as it crosses the finish line or it won't count.

[jerry w]

where are you getting all the track balls?
there might be one on the field after hybrid mode. your opponent wont give you a second one. so three hurdling bots on one alliance are all trying to hurdle one ball.
if the opponent is driving three race cars around the track, they outscore you by almost 3 to one.
which of 3 teams gets the honor to hurdle the ball?

jerry w

[LionMane250]

i dont know what your mock-up team is strategy is but, ours is based on a defensive strategy. we herd the trackballs and play defense, nothing more

[Tom Line]

Reading through these posts got me to thinking. If a team were playing simply to "win", knocking over an opponent trying to hurdle would be well worth the 10 point penalty that it would incur.

I'm wondering if perhaps they shouldn't increase the penalty for this infraction. Knock one of their hurdlers over, even unintentionally, and you odds of winning increase astronomically, even with a measly 10 point pen.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Reading through these posts got me to thinking. If a team were playing simply to "win", knocking over an opponent trying to hurdle would be well worth the 10 point penalty that it would incur.

I'm wondering if perhaps they shouldn't increase the penalty for this infraction. Knock one of their hurdlers over, even unintentionally, and you odds of winning increase astronomically, even with a measly 10 point pen.

Intentionally knocking over a robot will almost assuredly result in disqualification.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

This means that you will need to release the ball before the finish line and then re aquire it after the finish line. I doubt, very much, with all the traffic and such that that will be an easy task

If your robot's traveling at 10 ft/s -- a reasonable number, I think -- you need only release the ball for .5 seconds. That's not so bad.

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by EricH

Hurdling robots have protection unless there is no clear lane. Admittedly they can get incidental contact still.

I wonder if we will see penalties this year for contact while a bot is hurdling and there still an open lane?

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by nukemknight

I wonder if we will see penalties this year for contact while a bot is hurdling and there still an open lane?

I love your signature nukemknight. Last year in the end-of-year invitational we were up against a poorly balanced robot. They were defending us and when they went from backwards to forwards quickly their front end would lift off the ground 6-8 inches.

They did this to us several times - the end result was our bot was disabled by the end of the match - radio receiver shatter, air system destroyed, electrical board guarding broken off. And no pen given.

Please note afterwards they apologized and showed gracious professionalism in the extreme - they offered to help work on the robot, etc etc. But I enjoy the battlebot comment.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Intentionally knocking over a robot will almost assuredly result in disqualification.

Not last year...I can think of one case on Curie where a robot got a 10-pointer and a "fix the robot" warning. That said, the ref certification course should solve the inconsistency issue, so that won't happen again.

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

I love your signature nukemknight. Last year in the end-of-year invitational we were up against a poorly balanced robot. They were defending us and when they went from backwards to forwards quickly their front end would lift off the ground 6-8 inches.

They did this to us several times - the end result was our bot was disabled by the end of the match - radio receiver shatter, air system destroyed, electrical board guarding broken off. And no pen given.

I'm not sure exactly what stemmed the rule change after the first weekend of regionals in 2005, but I have a feeling that it was the intentional tipping that happened at VCU in the tournament. 616 was tipped by 539 in the semi-finals, then 539 also tipped 401 (I think) in the finals. There was nothing that could be done about it at the time because there was no such penalty.

Originally Posted by EricH

Not last year...I can think of one case on Curie where a robot got a 10-pointer and a "fix the robot" warning. That said, the ref certification course should solve the inconsistency issue, so that won't happen again.

That cert course is what I have been looking for since I joined FIRST in 2004. If this course for the refs doesn't fix the problem, what other options does FIRST have to ensure fairness?

[SSMike]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Intentionally knocking over a robot will almost assuredly result in disqualification.

Not only that, it would cause the robot to partially obstruct the lane and could cause a lot of substantial robot to that robot. Plus its not the best show of GP.

Originally Posted by nukemknight

That cert course is what I have been looking for since I joined FIRST in 2004. If this course for the refs doesn't fix the problem, what other options does FIRST have to ensure fairness?

People have complained forever about the calls that refs have made and will always do so any time there is a competition for anything. I umpire baseball and can understand the position of refs. I believe this statement sums competition up perfectly: You can please half the people 100% of the time but never 100% of the people 100% of the time. Someone's always going to be unhappy with a call. I think that the certification test will help standardize calls and make them as good as possible. Honestly, I think that the refs in my years in FIRST have done a very good job. Also, remember they are only human.