I don’t speak Hebrew so I wasn’t able to understand the explanation that I’m sure was given a the time on the live stream. 6049 on the red alliance seemed to have died in close proximity to blue’s loading bay zone. A blue bot caused red a few tech fouls by hitting 6049 while trying to grab PC’s from the loading zone and then left. Another blue robot came over and pushed 6049 into the blue loading zone fully and then repeatedly touched 6049 and backed up. The ref watching the ordeal raised the blue flag and signaled tech fouls every time the blue robot touched 6049 and ended up racking what looked like over 100 penalty points for blue.
The match then ends, with blue looking to have a huge margin of victory, the refs talk for a few minutes, and the final score is…314-179 red alliance? with 111 foul points for red and only 75 for blue? Can anyone tell me what the explanation was? And not just quote the rules you think are invoked here, actually tell me what the emcee explanation was. Thanks!
Basically, the explanation they gave is that some of the fouls were legitimate but others were not part of normal gameplay wand were just trying to draw foul points. That’s a C8 violation and a tech foul for each time it’s repeated. The alliance also got a yellow card for it (not that it mattered much since they were eliminated)
I fully support this interpretation of the rule, but this contradicts how head refs at events I’ve attended have enforced this rule over multiple seasons. Hopefully this is the new standard, as there’s nothing worse than losing a match because your immobile robot was pushed into a protected zone and then intentionally hit every cycle when you had no ability to remedy the situation.
So I can see giving them a yellow card for pushing them in, but in my opinion, once they are completely blocking the loading zone, blue alliance is doing standard gameplay. They were trying to get to their loading bay and should have been given the penalty points. (it did look sort of outside standard gameplay because of the repetitive nature of their actions, but where do we draw the line if the opposing robot is completely blocking a zone?)
That’s the other thing that worries me. I did this as a driver in 2012 and racked up a ton of points for our alliance with no cards whatsoever. Seems inconsistent with historical rule interpretations.
This also worries me A LOT. I guess you have to make sure to ask this specific question in the drivers meeting so you are aware of how this will be interpreted.
in all seriousness they where outmatched you take away the 111 points they still lose by over 25, not condoning the action by any means but considering the circumstance could have been worth the attempt in hopes the ruling goes your way, considering its win or go home for them.
I totally agree. Red probably would have won the next match handily even if blue won this one. My point is more for future matches, especially ones involving my team. I wanted to know what the judgment was here and give myself a better idea of how it will be judged in other events.
The team in question (no need to call them out) had pushed 6049 into their loading station after they died outside of it, and then repeatedly rammed them into the alliance wall. If they had been attempting to push 6049 out of the loading zone, there may have been an argument, but that’s not what happened.
The team in question was clearly watching the refs through all this, and backed off as soon as the head ref ran over the tell the quadrant ref to stop calling fouls on red. I don’t necessarily blame the blue alliance here, considering they were trying to steal a win against two Einstein-caliber robots and needed to try something, but it’s as cut-and-dry a C8 penalty as you’ll find.
That’s why I agree that a yellow card should have been, and was assessed to blue, and after rereading C8, I also agree that the team sitting there hitting them after they pushed 6049 in should not have gotten any penalty points awarded to them. I guess my question is, now that 6049 is entirely blocking the loading bay, if another team came over later to try to get PC’s and hit 6049, would they not get points either? That seems within normal game play to me, but the reason 6049 is there is because of a C8 action. Does that just block off all PC’s from blue now?
If you pushed them in while they were immobilized then its now your problem. Odds are you’ll be able to push them out if need be, but thats my opinion on it.
That’s a totally valid interpretation to me and I would be happy if that’s the ruling…as long as its consistent at all events. Like Chris_is_me said, that is not historically how things are called, I’m just making sure I understand that the historical precedent is now gone.
I wish that there was some progression of signals to let teams know that they are about to violate C8.
In this interaction I’d give red a tech foul (cross arms and wave red flag) for being pushed into the loading zone. How could blue know that the red robot wasn’t playing positional defense?
I’d also give red a second tech foul (cross arms and wave red flag) after the blue robot hits the red robot sitting in the loading zone.
On the third contact, if the red robot hadn’t moved because who would want to rack up G10 fouls or even a G22, I would have the refs wave off (wave hands like calling off a pin) to show that no foul was given because red couldn’t avoid the foul.
On the fourth contact I’d give blue a foul for C8 (Foul, wave blue flag) to show that they are trying to force a foul on red. It’s not repeated and isn’t escalated to tech foul yet. This also gives blue a chance to change their behavior.
Any more contact by blue other than trying to push red clear of the loading zone would result in a escalation of C8 and be a tech foul on blue with a crossed arms and wave blue flag as an indicator.
This is easy to do in hindsight after reviewing the match video. Trying to do this in real time is the challenge.
It’s something that the refs have to be somewhat prepared for before hand, and honestly asking that question in the drivers meeting is probably the best way to remind them of this situation and prepare them for it.
