2014 Greater Toronto East Regional

[Bochek]

Originally Posted by Steve W

They had possession. T foul

But it could be argued that the other alliance caused them to take the foul.

[Tem1514 Mentor]

Wow Blue just played F1 with only two bots

I wonder why they didn't call for a backup bot

[Bochek]

Originally Posted by Tem1514 Mentor

Wow Blue just played F1 with only two bots

I wonder why they didn't call for a backup bot

1241 spent the match fixing their robot.

[Racer26]

Because ASSISTs are only related to unique ROBOT/ZONE pairs of POSSESSION.

To use QF1-2 as an example, HP inbounds to 4718 in the blue ZONE. 4718 passes to 3683 in the blue ZONE. 3683 drives to white ZONE, then throws over the TRUSS to the HP. HP passes back to 1114 in the red ZONE, who scores it. 4718/BLUE, 3683/WHITE, 1114/RED. 3 ASSISTs.

[Duncan Macdonald]

It's really hard to replace the second overall pick.

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by Bochek

But it could be argued that the other alliance caused them to take the foul.

https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/...rt-to-immediat

This q&a addresses the direct question. It does leave the exact situation open to interpretation to the referees, but it does let you know what the GDCs line of thinking is on this situation.

Crazy matches. Crazy tournament.

Not surprised that members of both 4476 and 1285 were at GTRW and took some of the strategic play back east with them.

[Gaurav27]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

Crazy matches. Crazy tournament.

Not surprised that members of both 4476 and 1285 were at GTRW and took some of the strategic play back east with them.

We definitely used strategies both employed and learned from the Greater Toronto West Regional.

Crazy to say the least. I've never seen an eliminations bracket like this, with such extreme circumstances. The penalty values make every match a swing match. Thus, making it heavily reliant on alliance synergy and strategies!

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by Gaurav27

The penalty values make every match a swing match.

I agree with this above, but ...

Originally Posted by Gaurav27

Thus, making it heavily reliant on alliance synergy and strategies!

This makes no sense.


To me, it's more like this: "The penalty values make every match a swing match. Thus, making it heavily reliant on referees implementation and interpretation of the rules."

C'mon guys. 50 pt penalty for inconsequential ball in another teams robot. I understand what the rule says, but think it is stupid. A rule like this should make it so the refs can determine if it was inconsequential to the score or not. Anyone watching this particular situation in SF1-2 could see what happened and the ball was immediately ejected from the robot. It was ejected much faster than even field reset can give the ball back to the human player.

These rules and point values are out of whack. Seriously out of whack. My comments after week 1 still stand.

Crazy game? That's one way of saying it.

[Link07]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

I agree with this above, but ...


This makes no sense.


To me, it's more like this: "The penalty values make every match a swing match. Thus, making it heavily reliant on referees implementation and interpretation of the rules."

C'mon guys. 50 pt penalty for inconsequential ball in another teams robot. I understand what the rule says, but think it is stupid. A rule like this should make it so the refs can determine if it was inconsequential to the score or not. Anyone watching this particular situation in SF1-2 could see what happened and the ball was immediately ejected from the robot. It was ejected much faster than even field reset can give the ball back to the human player.

These rules and point values are out of whack. Seriously out of whack. My comments after week 1 still stand.

Crazy game? That's one way of saying it.

I take an opposite view point. It's as important to be able to score as it is to be smart and avoid these types of penalties. I believe any ref at any event would have likely called that possession (which in this case I don't think is very open to interpretation), so it would have been in the best interest of the team to avoid it. Saying that they couldn't is like saying they couldn't effectively do another task like scoring. The penalties in this game put a big emphasis on playing cleanly and designing your robot to play cleanly. Have there been inconsistencies with the refs? Sure, but that happens every year. Bottom line, it was the right call in the way the rules have been written for a game that placed heavy importance on playing cleanly from the very beginning. Some may not like that the game is designed this way, but it's the reality.

[Anupam Goli]

i know this isn't a YMTC thread, but since we're bringing the point of possesion up...

If I'm lined up for a catch, my ally and opponent both fire, my ally misses, but my opponent's ball ends up in my catcher, what would you call that? I don't see how in a game where catching is an objective, you can design something that doesn't catch opponent's balls on accident.

[mman1506]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

I don't see how in a game where catching is an objective, you can design something that doesn't catch opponent's balls on accident.

254, 1114, our robot and probably quite a few more have mechanisms in place to prevent catching the ball unless they are in their "catching position".

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by mman1506

254, 1114, our robot and probably quite a few more have mechanisms in place to prevent catching the ball unless they are in their "catching position".

He said the bot was lined up for a catch. I'm not sure what 254 and 1114 have that prevents catching the ball, do they distinguish between the color of the ball and then close the catcher to stop possession of the ball before it enters the bot? I doubt any teams have anything like that, it's unnecessary. I think you interpreted his question in the wrong manner.

[mman1506]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

I'm not sure what 254 and 1114 have that prevents catching the ball, do they distinguish between the color of the ball and then close the catcher to stop possession of the ball before it enters the bot?

The driver should be trained to do that. Not incurring fouls is an important part of the game.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Link07

I take an opposite view point. It's as important to be able to score as it is to be smart and avoid these types of penalties. I believe any ref at any event would have likely called that possession (which in this case I don't think is very open to interpretation), so it would have been in the best interest of the team to avoid it. Saying that they couldn't is like saying they couldn't effectively do another task like scoring. The penalties in this game put a big emphasis on playing cleanly and designing your robot to play cleanly. Have there been inconsistencies with the refs? Sure, but that happens every year. Bottom line, it was the right call in the way the rules have been written for a game that placed heavy importance on playing cleanly from the very beginning. Some may not like that the game is designed this way, but it's the reality.

Have you been on the receiving end of some of these penalties? We've been forced into taking penalties that you literally had no choice about. Getting pushed into an opponents goal, pushed out of bounds, or had a another robot ram your collector while you are motionless, smash it, and YOU receive the 50 point foul for incursion into their bumper region.

The GDC worked on it some, but the penalty points are out of whack, and the refs are still overworked. That said, I suspect this is the game we're playing for the rest of the year. We're in the process of modifying our robot accordingly.

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Have you been on the receiving end of some of these penalties? We've been forced into taking penalties that you literally had no choice about. Getting pushed into an opponents goal, pushed out of bounds, or had a another robot ram your collector while you are motionless, smash it, and YOU receive the 50 point foul for incursion into their bumper region.

The GDC worked on it some, but the penalty points are out of whack, and the refs are still overworked. That said, I suspect this is the game we're playing for the rest of the year. We're in the process of modifying our robot accordingly.

Yes, our human player once took a 50 point penalty catching a poorly thrown ball from the Field Reset Crew. His hand extended for a short period past the yellow tape.

We've had our intake out to pick up a ball, and been slammed into from the side, and had the intake swipe an opponent's robot inside the frame perimeter as a result. Again a 50 pt penalty.

I'm being 100% honest in saying that both the situations above are very different than what happened in SF1-2. 4718 had the entire half of the field themselves when the opposing ball landed. No other robots pushed them or forced them to go towards the ball. The ball landed feet away from them, and they chose to drive towards it. I've told my drive crew not to play defense on the opposing ball, only the opposing robots - that's how the rules are written due to these tech fouls. We asked the Q&A quoted earlier in this thread to clarify too. "Accidentally" catching a ball was a risk just not worth taking.

I find it hard to say that 4718 was forced into taking this penalty.

My opinion is that they made a mistake driving towards the ball, that ended up being a very costly one.

10/10 times my strategy guys would've said the better move would've been to drive towards the robot expected to pick up the ball and score it, to seal them off from the ball.

I agree there are some "forced" penalties in this game that I have seen, that are less than fair...

...but this is NOT one of them.