2010 Pittsburgh Regional

[Cory]

Originally Posted by 2641Captain

For what it is worth when I was driving I did go to block the tower so team 1114 could not hang as I had done in a previous match. The trouble is 1114 had bumped me into the tower during end game. The head referee had told me that bumping into the tower did not give me the penalty but it was the fact that I stayed there after I was free to escape for more that 5 seconds. I have video from our media person who has the clearest shot that clearly shows 3 seconds after making contact with the tower that my wheels where in full reverse. The G34 and G35 rules clearly state that it I obviously and intentionally touched the tower that I should receive a penalty. The whole conflict resulted from team 1114 bumping into me. Mrs. Perrotto told me that it was up to her and she did not have to give me a penalty, but she somehow thought that team 1114 bumping into me and then me not realizing I was on the tower until 3 seconds later was all my fault. That to me is not obvious intentional contact.

The video from Ustream posted on here CLEARLY shows that you initiated contact with the tower. You were touching the tower before 1114 was even within 3 feet of you. Your robot was in contact with the tower for a good 10 seconds before you began to push back against 1114.

[johnr]

I believe we were called for posessing two balls at kettering,due to a wide roller. Sometime after that match the team proved to the head ref that the robot could only posess one ball at a time by putting a piece of paper under the ball and driving around practice field. The paper stayed under the ball and the ball stayed with the robot. This was done on a flat carpet, but i thought the question of this continues contact over those pesky half inch bumps and even up scoring ramp was answered in a q&a. Now if a robot just backs up and applies brakes and the ball comes up off the carpet, that sounds like a penalty.

[A_Reed]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Finally, I do think the video situation points out something else - drivers have to be careful in avoiding kicking the ball out of bounds, as intentional attempts to do so are penalizable offenses. 1114's kick was angled well away from the long axis of the field - there could be no expectation of scoring a goal at that moment, and if I'm not mistaken, the ball shot into the crowd, a definite safety concern. Accidental or otherwise, refs would be prudent to watch out for and enforce <G19> more stringently the rest of the way.

It should either be called more regularly or taken away by having field reset put the ball back in the same zone from which it came if the intent was defensive removal of the ball to prevent another team from scoring. I think this became a more available strategy as teams gathered that the ball would be placed in mid-field if the ball left the field borders.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by MPblankie

You could clearly see a loss of contact with the floor in many matches. However they shoot so effectively that is is hard to see. That particular move sort or proved it to me. Our team (and some others I hear) brought it up to the refs, but nothing was done about it. Hopefully it will be caught for future regionals.

I would like to thank all the teams who so "graciously" pointed out our perceived ball lifting to the refs and inspectors. It's too bad that these teams did not approach us directly, as we could have demonstrated our system to them and showed them how we keep the ball on the ground; as we did to all the teams who the common courtesy to talk to us directly.

Our entire roller system is sprung towards the ground, which keeps the ball in contact with the ground during normal gameplay, including quick forward/reverse motions. Multiple inspectors and referees at the event scrutinized our robot both on the field and in the pit and saw no violations. (Despite the supposed "clear loss of contact" described by others who never bothered to take a close look...)

In cases where we are being pushed and our robot lifts off ground by more than 3/4", the ball does come off ground as seen in the video. But, this is not a penalty since the contact was initiated by another team.

I could go on a rant about all those who felt the need to call us cheaters and even go so far to ask for our removal from the competition, but it's really not worth my time. Thankfully, these negative attitudes from a small minority were overwhelmed by the great displays and actions of the large majority of Pittsburgh Regional participants.

[2641Captain]

After looking at the UStream video and seeing what you guys are seeing it really is a much harder call to make than I thought. I will not longer contest Mrs. Perrotto's call about the red card. I had no right to pester her like I did. I will agree that there are things in life that are not fair and we have to deal with them. I would instead like to apologize and say that I would like to see different rules for future events that don't put so much pressure on the referees and their discretion.

[Dan 1038]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

if I'm not mistaken, the ball shot into the crowd, a definite safety concern.

Hey Travis,

Yes, the ball shot in to the crowd - it actually nailed me in the gut while I was shooting Simbotic's drive team - so I never saw it coming! On a good note, soccer balls don't pack much of a punch... Pic to follow...

[martin417]

Originally Posted by PhilBot

...If so, isn't that a clear case of ball posession (Carrying), and not an accidental one... their mechanism would tend to appear to firmly hold onto that ball (dual roller system maybe).

Clearly it's effective.... but doesn't <G44> outlaw this sort of mechanism...

I am continually amazed at the differing interpretation of rules that appear crystal clear (not all the rules this year meet that criteria, but the ball handling rule does) There is nothing in the rules that prohibit "firmly holding onto the ball". The rule only prohibits lifting the ball from floor contact while "firmly holding onto" it. Our vacuum gripper was fully capable of holding the ball off the floor if the bot was lifted up. In fact, we received a penalty for doing so. somehow, when we were trying to acquire against the hump, the ball got lodged in between the vacuum cups and our bumper. It was clear that we were carrying, and we got a penalty for it. We still don't know how it happened, and we couldn't reproduce it in the pits.

At any rate, since an opposing bot cannot cause you to get a penalty, and you only carried because an opposing bot lifted you up or forced you be lifted up, no penalty.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by PhilBot

Clearly it's effective.... but doesn't <G44> outlaw this sort of mechanism...

(I mean, if it's permitted, I want one!)

It's the same way vacuums are allowed. As long as the ball touches the floor, it's not carrying, even if in extraordinary circumstances it could be.

[rick.oliver]

Thanks to the Pittsburgh RPC and all of the volunteers who made it a great event. 1038 really appreciated all of the hospitality.

Congratulations to all of the award winners and thanks to all of the teams for making the competition so much fun.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

2641 had every right to attempt the block, but they violated G35 to do it, and thus, the red card.

You are 100% correct, my language did not clearly communicate my point effectively. Your explanation is right on.

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Finally, I do think the video situation points out something else - drivers have to be careful in avoiding kicking the ball out of bounds, as intentional attempts to do so are penalizable offenses. 1114's kick was angled well away from the long axis of the field - there could be no expectation of scoring a goal at that moment, and if I'm not mistaken, the ball shot into the crowd, a definite safety concern. Accidental or otherwise, refs would be prudent to watch out for and enforce <G19> more stringently the rest of the way.

Assuming you are talking about the kick at 56:16 in the video I believe this is another case of the opposing alliance not being able to force you into a penalty. 1114 and 2809 were fighting back and forth and 1114 managed to get pointing straight down the field, 2809 hits their corner and spins them towards the side of the field right as they fire off the kick.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by jgannon

... back-talk the head ref loudly enough for everyone in the stands to hear.

And everyone at home on the webcast.

Its always been interesting to me how the loudest arguer is usually the one who's incorrect.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I would like to thank all the teams who so "graciously" pointed out our perceived ball lifting to the refs and inspectors. It's too bad that these teams did not approach us directly, as we could have demonstrated our system to them and showed them how we keep the ball on the ground; as we did to all the teams who the common courtesy to talk to us directly.

Our entire roller system is sprung towards the ground, which keeps the ball in contact with the ground during normal gameplay, including quick forward/reverse motions. Multiple inspectors and referees at the event scrutinized our robot both on the field and in the pit and saw no violations. (Despite the supposed "clear loss of contact" described by others who never bothered to take a close look...)

In cases where we are being pushed and our robot lifts off ground by more than 3/4", the ball does come off ground as seen in the video. But, this is not a penalty since the contact was initiated by another team.

I could go on a rant about all those who felt the need to call us cheaters and even go so far to ask for our removal from the competition, but it's really not worth my time. Thankfully, these negative attitudes from a small minority were overwhelmed by the great displays and actions of the large majority of Pittsburgh Regional participants.

Karthik,

In order to make the best determination I can of the legality of your ball handling mechanism, I'm going to require exhaustive photos of the finished robot and full engineering drawings. I can PM you an address to provide these to.

[Dan 1038]

Originally Posted by Madison

In order to make the best determination I can of the legality of your ball handling mechanism, I'm going to require exhaustive photos of the finished robot and full engineering drawings.

Can we get a copy too???? For purely, um, evaluative purposes... Feel free to send your practice bot in place of the photos...

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by 2641Captain

... I would like to see different rules for future events that don't put so much pressure on the referees and their discretion.

So you prefer the version of <G46> in Week 1, prior to Team Update 16? That one rule alone generated hundreds of penalties in Week 1 events, because the referees had no discretion.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Assuming you are talking about the kick at 56:16 in the video

I am.

I believe this is another case of the opposing alliance not being able to force you into a penalty. 1114 and 2809 were fighting back and forth and 1114 managed to get pointing straight down the field, 2809 hits their corner and spins them towards the side of the field right as they fire off the kick.

2809 may have altered the shot angle, but that had nothing to do with the actual decision to release the ball under duress. It is the shooter's responsibility to verify the ball will launch in a safe direction when firing. Let's call it the "Dick Cheney Rule". If that outcome is in question, then don't shoot the ball. I would like referees to consider <G19> and <S01> whenever such a skewed shot result occurs.

I'm just glad Dan's camera/head (I'm not sure which one he values more ) wasn't hit.