Rosie stuffs Thrust

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by EricH

Daniel, I specifically called out the "egregious behavior". If a bully continually stuffed you into a locker, despite warnings from school administration, that's egregious behavior. If Rosie had, in subsequent matches, stuffed 1501 into the goal again, that would be egregious behavior if the refs had said something to them about not doing that. That would warrant a yellow card. It's almost the same as if a robot has a nasty habit of flying off the bump and landing on an opponent on the other side "unintentionally".

So you believe that because 1501 designed their robot in such a way that it will get trapped if it goes into a legal part of the field, that it is "egregious behavior" to push them there? Maybe we should all design our robots to get trapped if we get pushed up against the side rails of the field .

Originally Posted by EricH

I thought that I'd made it quite clear that <G37-c-ii> did not apply because the robot is righting itself. Apparently, some people have a hard time understanding what I write.

You were perfectly clear, and I was agreeing with you. I was adding that <G32> may have been enforced instead. I'm not always disagreeing with you

Originally Posted by EricH

Again, the penalty or red card would depend on what exactly happened. The fact that there wasn't either with the refs watching is disappointing, or it indicates that 1501 initiated the contact (at which point, there should have been a penalty anyway under the rule that prohibits robots from interacting with balls or other robots while righting themselves or a partner, just going the other way).

I stated that it would have to be a very loose interpretation of <G36>. It's one that would be so loose that any ref with that interpretation would probably be overruled by the Head Ref on the spot the first time it happened. Also, if a robot caused another robot to tangle with the field, then that might be grounds for calling it, assuming that it was done routinely (intent to entangle).

Again agreed. I would be very disappointed if it were interpreted that way considering the opening sentence of <G36>.

I'd actually like to know what rule the ref was referring to when he told Rosie that they would be red carded if they did it again. It might give more insight as to his thought process (maybe something I'm not grasping here)

Originally Posted by EricH

Again, penalty or red card possible for the contact with a tipped robot, no penalty for the goal-stuffing unless it was done repeatedly.

Agreed on the red card for contact with a tipped robot.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the goal stuffing.