pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident

[xzvrw2]

Chris is right. They were both scored and red owned the goal because their tetra was the highest. In my opinion if it would have effected the match they would not have scored ether one and blue would own the goal. But since it did not matter the refs decided to score both.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by xzvrw2

Chris is right. They were both scored and red owned the goal because their tetra was the highest. In my opinion if it would have effected the match they would not have scored ether one and blue would own the goal. But since it did not matter the refs decided to score both.

Well, with that kind of statement, we would need to know why the call was made the way it was called, and if this is how all future instances will be called.
We can't just say - well since it doesn't impact the outcome of the match, we'll just give them both the points. The rule (if there is one specifically dealing with this case) needs to remain constant, regardless of how it affects the outcome of the match. Personally seeing and looking at that, I guess I'd say that both should count and the higher one should own the goal. It was an interesting suspense, seeing the tetras come together over the goal, and then being placed down on the goal simultaneously.
Seems to me like there was a hypothetical case brought up early in the season about this here on CD. I don't recall details.. Maybe there will be another update dealing with this case since now we've seen it physically happen.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Obviously, a stack starts with the goal. So, start there and for each tetra ask whether each apex is within 6" of its predecessor.
1 BLUE - Yes
2 RED - Yes
3 RED - Yes
4 BLUE- Yes
5 BLUE- No (The chain is broken)
6 RED- Moot

How did you decide that 5 was more then 6 inches away from 4? I can't say unequivocally that from that picture I know for sure what 6 inches is. And, that picture is certainly better then a view from the stands.

Your logic is correct, but we don't have the information needed to make the determination.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

How did you decide that 5 was more then 6 inches away from 4? I can't say unequivocally that from that picture I know for sure what 6 inches is. And, that picture is certainly better then a view from the stands.

Your logic is correct, but we don't have the information needed to make the determination.

Ignore my "opinion" on the distance between the upper apex on BLUE 5 and BLUE 4. The picture clearly shows that the supporting structure at that apex is RED 6. Can we not agree that a valid supporting structure must first be part of the stack? The upper apex of RED 6 is clearly more than 6" away from anything but BLUE 5. BLUE 5 is valid if RED 6 is valid if BLUE 5 is valid is circular.

[Manoel]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

How did you decide that 5 was more then 6 inches away from 4? I can't say unequivocally that from that picture I know for sure what 6 inches is. And, that picture is certainly better then a view from the stands.

Your logic is correct, but we don't have the information needed to make the determination.

Actually, he was the head ref, so he would know better .
BTW, thanks and congrats to the referees, we had some disagreements on the finals rounds but your job was really well done!

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by Manoel

Actually, he was the head ref,

he was a ref...not the head ref

Rick Buessing was head ref at MWR

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Manoel

Actually, he was the head ref, so he would know better .
BTW, thanks and congrats to the referees, we had some disagreements on the finals rounds but your job was really well done!

Thanks for the promotion, but actually I was one of the grunts. That does not make me "right". It was a very unusual situation. I enjoy the debate.

BTW 383, you are a class act! Looking forward to your return to the U.S.A

[Manoel]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Thanks for the promotion, but actually I was one of the grunts. That does not make me "right". It was a very unusual situation. I enjoy the debate.

BTW 383, you are a class act! Looking forward to your return to the U.S.A

Yes, I stand corrected. I will not, however, correct my statement about the great job the entire ref team did.
So, just out of curiosity, according to your interpretation (not the head ref's, apparently ), on that second final match (the one that had to be replayed) none of the three red tetras on the center row goal (I believe it was the one right in front of you) would have counted? I am pretty sure two of them wouldn't count, but one of them (the one that had all of its apexes within 6 inches from the goal BUT was supported by a tetra that wasn't in the goal) got me thinking.

Also, thanks a lot for the compliment! We really enjoyed playing this regional and it was surely the most exciting event I ever attended!

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

LOL ya, we were like...so...which is on top? In my opinion, it would be red's since there are more red apexes higher than blue, but I was just making up that rule so that's how I would judge it. By the way, do you know what happened with team 706 when everything froze during the finals? I heard they didn't have a radio signal to their robot.

This is why we need to bring back the old skool tie breakers of yester year !!! In the good old days this that rule is basically how it would have been settled. Now we are in era of a kinder gentler FIRST so both teams get credit and everyone is happy and we've all copertitionated.

Justin

[Kevin Kolodziej]

This is what I see in the picture:

The top SEATED blue tetra is supporting both the blue and red tetra above it (right side of the tetra). The supported blue tetra appears to be preventing the red tetra from seating correctly. Based on my reffing experience last week, if the apex of the top blue tetra is within 6" of the top SEATED blue tetra, then it would count, and the red one would then also count and own the goal (assuming that it is within 6" if the blue tetra preventing it from seating correctly).

[65_Xero_Huskie]

This was during our match, this was a very wierd call, from the looks of it, the red( opponents) went through our tetra, so that was descoring it, but the refs called it as both counting, we were very wierded out, but we still won the match , good job to 71, 111, and 537 4 the win, ( that tecnicallyity was very dissapointing, we thought we woulda won the match where 537 was DQed and didnt happen

[Alan Anderson]

The early discussion here on Chief Delphi had a lot of persuasive arguments for counting it one way or another. I was finally convinced by the ones saying that the blue one in this case is stacked correctly, but the red one is not and should not count.

I'm still convinced that's the correct interpretation, and the judges' awarding the goal in this case to red was a mistake. Before the decision was announced, I had already figured that it would make no difference in who won the match, so I wasn't going to get upset about it whatever they decided. I was excited about the situation actually happening in a real match, though.

[Ken Patton]

In this match, the red opponent (269 I think?) was going to stack and we stuck our tetra into theirs as they were trying to score. So we had a sideways stack of two that got placed onto the stack of 4.

A tough job for the refs for sure....

Ken

[Jack Jones]

OK – So you’re not impressed by the rules of logic. Then here’s an even better reason not to count either nested tetra:

Suppose that Redateam (1213) has an epiphany brought about by the ruling at MWR and what would have been the ruling at WMR, had the nesting occurred. (Refs voted == Democracy in action)

They slightly modify the end of their arm so that their human player can easily nest a second tetra. Redateam is real fast and can cap their end row and one side with a nested pair each – for a total of ten tetras on five goals with two rows. Redateam is so fast that they can get home along with their partners.

Check out this picture of what happened when BlueAlliance tried to cap those Red goals:





Assuming that the rest of the RedAlliance didn’t even bother to move out of their end-zone, Red score equals ((2 * 3) * 5 + 2 * 10 + 10) = 60 points! Beat that Blue!

[xzvrw2]

crazy...very crazy....you were saying something like that at OU that one day. that is crazy...so then the blue cant own the gola or score any more on it. so if you cap all of the the middle and all of your home zone with that 2 tetra nest then you win the match. is that legal?