Is it just me or are refs going absolutely wild and not addressing intent when handing out penalties for intakes contacting bumpers like candy?
Am I going crazy here or do the majority of these seem pretty absurd when no damage is intended or even caused. I think we need a rule revision here to account for intent, otherwise future weeks are going to be a nightmare.
wdym intakes contacting bumpers?
I’m not sure how else to phrase this…
Can you cite the rule at least?
Do you mean when an intake contacts another robot inside its frame parameter? If so, I agree.
G204 Stay out of other ROBOTS. A ROBOT may not use a COMPONENT outside its FRAME
PERIMETER (except its BUMPERS) to initiate contact with an opponent ROBOT inside the vertical projection of that opponent ROBOT’S FRAME PERIMETER. Contact with an opponent in an opening of their BUMPERS is an exception to this rule.
Violation: FOUL.
[Blue Box] For the purposes of G204, “initiate contact” requires movement towards an
opponent ROBOT. In a collision, it’s possible for both ROBOTS to initiate contact.
So initiating contact inside the frame perimeter should get flagged. Contact on the BUMPER should not.
I’ve seen many instances (on video) that don’t even appear to breach the perimeter.
I think the “initiate” part of this was getting overlooked some this weekend.
I played defense with my intake out for NLR playoffs. I never got a foul, and i don’t know if I ever hit inside a robot with it, although it is likley
These calls were insanely common at our event.
Assuming these calls continue, my gameplan going into our next event will be to tell our alliance members to go out of their way to get hit inside the frame perimeter by any team trying to intake a ball. I don’t want to do that, so I hope these calls are clarified for next week!
The way these were being called in Texas, it’s a defensive strategy to ram an opposing bot with a non-articulating intake drawing a foul on them for violating your frame perimeter. That doesn’t seem right. They really need to address the intent.
Lots of flags in Indiana for contact this weekend. One of the refs even called extended intake to extended intake contact as a penalty. It’s overall pretty annoying when your intake gets sideswiped and you get the penalty.
These penalties were very common at our event too. Just having the intakes out and bumping into another robot always warranted a foul.
edit: PNW btw
I definitely noticed it at GSD. I understand the refs were just doing their job following the rules as written, so like no hate to them. My issue is 100% with the rule and not the enforcement, as it feels fairly egregious, especially if its unintentional AND non-damaging.
Extension outside +Inside bumper + contact inside + initiate moving into opponenet= foul
Add damage= tech foul+Yellow card
Gaps omitted in no bumper is breached
Imo reading rules
Quick summary of Average Foul Points per Match at two-day events that were finished yesterday is shown below. My impression at Calvin was that fouls were not very common. Clean matches most of the time.
Does the style of play vary greatly from one area to another? The only trend I noticed was defense becoming more vigorous in Playoffs, which I think is the case every year, everywhere. Maybe New England more than most. 
\edit: Added Kokomo, which just finished. NE need not feel lonely, defense steps up in Indiana Playoffs, too. Something, something, high school basketball.
We were at Detroit. A lot of box bots and Robonauts’ Everybot, probably combined almost 80% of the field (visual guess not data driven). Honestly I think the judges were good about calling fouls on intent and recognizing the level of play.
This rule needs to change OR the definition of initiate needs to be clarified.
A defensive robot is the initiating robot, full stop. Any interpretation to the contrary is absurd.
We got called on this many times at Port Hueneme. We are lucky to have a quick retracting intake but others are not so lucky. This does nothing for the game. Let’s get it fixed.
Best,
-Mike
I am in no way attempting to call out the port hueneme referee team but instead using this event as an example. I spent most of this weekend watching you guys(1678) while still bouncing around almost every event, and I feel like I saw the most aggressive interpretation of this rule at port hueneme. I agree the rule needs to change but am wondering if drive teams/spectators at other events saw this rule being as big of an issue?
I didnt even know it was an issue, and I was playing defense lots this weekend.
Edit: WITH my intake out