2012 Queen City FRC Regional

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by bduddy

If the defending robot was pushed into the bridge, there is no foul unless they touched a robot touching the bridge (and that would be a 3-point foul because it was not intentional).

Nope. Read G28.

Robots may not touch an opponent Robot in contact with its Key, Alley, or Bridge.
Violation: Foul; Technical-Foul for purposeful, consequential contact.


This rule applied at all times, no matter who initiates the contact, see

And G28 is relevant to G25.

Again, as i said earlier:

[G25]
Robots may not contact or otherwise interfere with the opposing Alliance Bridge.
Violation: Technical-Foul. If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced with the maximum number of Robots possible for that Match.

Another tech foul here at least. I would consider 829 attempting to get on the bridge an act of balancing. And if you don't, it still doesn't matter, because 1038 made contact with a different red robot on the bridge. Because of that, this applies: "If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced with the maximum number of Robots possible for that Match."

Conclusion: It doesn't matter if 829 was in the act of balancing, because 1038 made contact with another red robot that without question, was trying to balance. Still should be a triple balance.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Duke461

Nope. Read G28.


And G28 is relevant to G25.

Again, as i said earlier:


Another tech foul here at least. I would consider 829 attempting to get on the bridge an act of balancing. And if you don't, it still doesn't matter, because 1038 made contact with a different red robot on the bridge. Because of that, this applies: "If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced with the maximum number of Robots possible for that Match."

Conclusion: It doesn't matter if 829 was in the act of balancing, because 1038 made contact with another red robot that without question, was trying to balance. Still should be a triple balance.

I would point you to [G44], which I already posted above. And the [G28] penalty should be a foul, not a technical foul; if 1038 was pushed into the bridge robot, it cannot be "purposeful" contact, and thus should be a foul.

[Deetman]

Originally Posted by Duke461

Nope. Read G28.


And G28 is relevant to G25.

Again, as i said earlier:


Another tech foul here at least. I would consider 829 attempting to get on the bridge an act of balancing. And if you don't, it still doesn't matter, because 1038 made contact with a different red robot on the bridge. Because of that, this applies: "If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced with the maximum number of Robots possible for that Match."

Conclusion: It doesn't matter if 829 was in the act of balancing, because 1038 made contact with another red robot that without question, was trying to balance. Still should be a triple balance.

The issue is that [G28] is the only exception to [G44] and as such [G25] would not apply if the contact with the bridge came as a direct result of red robot pushing blue robot into red bridge.

EDIT: I have never really been a fan of the way [G44] is written. Since [G28] explicitly calls out applying at all times and [G25] does not I think the right call was made. I don't think by violating [G28] it is transitive to a [G25] red card the way things are written.

[Grim Tuesday]

Did...Did an inbounder just win a regional?


Wow. Those are the best eliminations I have watched all year. Fantastic job 8th alliance, it's ridiculous how good they were for an 8th seed.

[bam-bam]

Congratulations to the number 8 alliance 45-3940-781!

Beating out 48-1038-3193, the alliance that incurred the questionable 3 point penalty....

[Nuttyman54]

I believe the correct call was made, although it did happen quite fast. The tech-foul/DQ is for touching the bridge itself [G25]. This is not a "forceable" penalty. Per [G44], ONLY the [G28] penalty can be forced on an opponent. As 1038 was pushed into the bridge, it's a correct no-call. The [G28] penalty was called, when 1038 was pushed on to the bridge and contacted one of the robots already on the bridge, but this is only a 3 point penalty.

$0.02

[Grim Tuesday]

Has this call set the precedent to allow for one to park in front of a bridge where opponents are trying to triple and force them to push you up it if you want to continue?

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Has this call set the precedent to allow for one to park in front of a bridge where opponents are trying to triple and force them to push you up it if you want to continue?

I've been suggesting this strategy for a while. The counter is simply to come at the bridge from the other side (where you have a lane) and, if necessary, rack up [G28] penalties on the defender.

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by Deetman

The issue is that [G28] is the only exception to [G44] and as such [G25] would not apply if the contact with the bridge came as a direct result of red robot pushing blue robot into red bridge.

Originally Posted by bduddy

I would point you to [G44], which I already posted above. And the [G28] penalty should be a foul, not a technical foul; if 1038 was pushed into the bridge robot, it cannot be "purposeful" contact, and thus should be a foul.

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I believe the correct call was made, although it did happen quite fast. The tech-foul/DQ is for touching the bridge itself [G25]. This is not a "forceable" penalty. Per [G44], ONLY the [G28] penalty can be forced on an opponent. As 1038 was pushed into the bridge, it's a correct no-call. The [G28] penalty was called, when 1038 was pushed on to the bridge and contacted one of the robots already on the bridge, but this is only a 3 point penalty.

$0.02

It does not say ONLY, it says AN. It also says generally, which proves it to be a fallacy to assume only G28 applies. Furthermore, Because G28 is relative to G25 (contacting robots in contact with their bridge), G25 can now also be considered an exception.

-Duke

[themathgod]

Congrats to the #8 alliance. They knocked off #1 with the triple balance and never let up.

Fantastic kickoff for a new Regional.

Dean was there most of the afternoon.

[Grim Tuesday]

I have a question about FTC teams: If they're meant to be an 'in between' for FLL and FRC, why aren't they aimed at a middle school audience?

EDIT: It's related to this thread because Dean just gave out new homework for every FRC team to help start FTC teams in a speech at Queen City.

[David13]

Somebody buy that inbounder a steak dinner!

I can assure you that we will be hosting some sort of event in his honour. If you watch SF1-1 from Greater Toronto East, Luke hit two shots in the final 30 seconds of that upset too.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by David13

I can assure you that we will be hosting some sort of event in his honour. If you watch SF1-1 from Greater Toronto East, Luke hit two shots in the final 30 seconds of that upset too.

wasn't that fun?

Congratulations on your win

[George Nishimura]

I'm sorry to have missed this [blame Augusta]. Is there a video up/going up soon?

[Deetman]

Congrats to 1014 on your regional chairman's award! Well deserved and looking forward to seeing the iBook/eBook shortly.

Also want to congratulate the winning alliance of 45, 3940, 781 on their excellent performance throughout the elimination matches as well as all the other teams for some entertaining matches.