Entering the Finals, my team’s alliance was doing great, we got both robots onto the ramp and would have won but the referees made a strange call. Part of the ramp robot we were on had an innertube under it. They decided not to give us that 60 points and we lost the match because of the rule that states “scoring robots must not be supported by any feild elements”.
The intent of that rule is so that none of the robots that are lifted hang on the game structures or sit on innertubes. In this case, the supported robots were only supported by another robot but we were not given those 60 points. We lost the next match and were eliminated from the finals.
I would like imput from other teams. Was thier judgement right?
The Game Design Committee as clarified in updates the Q/A forum does not agree with your interpretation of the intent of the rule. As you can see from that thread, there are many people who don’t like the interpretation.
We had a similar call go against us at Boilermaker. Didn’t like it, either – but it was the right call.
Our student operator on the field asked the head ref about the call right after the match, and pointed out that had the tube been removed the robots would not have changed height. However, as the Q&A response cited above makes clear, “supported” is not interpreted by such a test – it is implied by contact of a gamepiece under the ramp-bot, and a robot supported by a supported robot is also supported. :ahh:
i remember that. There was one match that a robot on the opposing aliance had a tube stuck over it (one of ours) and they got on a ramp and they didn’t call it possesion and they got the full points.
If you see the thread that Joe linked, there’s a lot of discussion as to what “SUPPORTED” means, because it isn’t defined in the manual. I’m pretty sure that nobody wants to carry on that particular debate any more. Personally, I don’t agree with what the GDC is calling “SUPPORTED”, but all I can ever ask for is that the rules are enforced consistently, regardless of how ridiculous the rule is. Tubes that are touching the underside of lifting robots have negated all lifts at every event I have attended or watched, and I applaud the refs for being consistent.
We were on the other side of a ruling like this in palmetto. During our semi final match, the opponent had two robots lifted and was ruled that the bottom robot was touching a field element and did not give the 60 points and then we came back for our second match and found out that the ruling had been reversed and we were now the losing team. They stated the reason was that the lifting robot could touch a field element but the two robots on the ramp were not touching anything so they adjusted the score and we lost that match.
I watched that match on the webcast, and it was because the arm of the lifting bot was touching the player station wall. The lifting bot was not supported by the wall, and niether of the two liftees were touching the wall.
we were just told that the lifiing bot was touching a tube. And we were not told that until we went to the floor for match two and the announcer said that it was 1-0 red when we thought it was 1-0 blue when we left the floor after seeing the score on the screen. It did not matter, they were a very good alliance with the arms and the ramps together.
This call was very tough for the refs and i can fully explain the situation. The ramp bot deploys one very big ramp with two sides that are connected with one piece of fabric. the ramp delopys and makes a very big ramp simialr to the aim high ramp. one side of the ramp deployed on top of two innertubes. The platform of the ramp did not rest on any tubes and the only tube under the ramp was stuck on a support leg that was in the middle of the tube so the tube could not be removed. the other tube was under the ramp leader up to the platform an was hold up the ramp, but not the platform that held the robot. Other the other side of the ramp, the other robot got up and there were no tubes under it.
The refs call was that the tubes under the ramp supported the ramp which was connected to the platform which was connected to the other half of the ramp and platform by a piece of fabric so the other robot also did not count.
My only dislike with the call was that the second robot was not counted even though their ramp had no innertubes near it. that was a terrible call, but the one 12 inch bonus wouldn’t have won the match anyways.
We were the victims of the rule at Peachtree and the beneficiary yesterday at Palmetto. After the call at Peachtree, we discussed the interpretation and realized that the approach that First has taken is the only way to consistently enforce the rule. The GDC certainly does not want to make the referees determine whether or not a game piece provides assistance to a ramp, so the mere presence of a tube under the ramp is grounds to disallow points.
I am surprised that the placement of a tube under a ramp bot (before deployment) is not used as a tactic to at least hinder some of the really good ramps, such as 1319.
I’m more surprised that taking a 10 point penalty (being in the opposing teams home zone at the end) and stuffing a tube under the ramp bot (thus negating a 60 point lift) hasn’t become a tactic.
it is becoming a strategy, and was used several times at Long Island - knowking the tubes down tubes along the back wall or placing one near a ramp bot to make it tougher for a ramp bot to deploy or for some robots to climb.
