|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
The robot was trying to score the square, at the very edge of the scoring pegs and therefore was right next to the human player. The robot turned and the tube ended up between the thrower and the middle of the field, where he was aiming.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world & things do happen.
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Quote:
John Vriezen Team 2530 "Inconceivable" Mentor, Drive Coach, Inspector |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Using a thrown tube as a defensive object to interfere with the opponent attempting to score is allowed within the rules, as is using a robot as a defensive object, within limits. Is it a good strategy? that is debatable. Is it ungracious? I don't think so. As I have stated, this is a competition, you are supposed to COMPETE. If is allowed in the rules, it is OK to do, and therefore cannot be ungracious.
In my opinion, it is dangerous (at Peachtree, on two occasions, teams received red cards for trying this strategy and de-scoring tubes). It was attempted several times on our team, and we just welcomed the tubes and scored them (except the one that deflated after a particularly hard throw at our bot). Here is a video of a HP trying it. Watch at about 38 seconds in. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Quote:
|
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
I'm doubting that entanglement reasoning. That should only apply to a robot and robot actions. The point there is to keep robots from getting entangled with each other. I know it doesn't apply this year, but in 2007 it was perfectly legal to throw tubes on robots with the expectation they'd get caught. The gdc expected teams to design robots that weren't vulnerable to this.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|