G27 Standard

I hope for the Championship, there is a clear standard for G27. During the WI Regional, the G27 rule was updated, and any high speed ramming was called.

During Midwest Regional, only damaging high speed ramming or “inhibition”, was called.

The problem with damage is: It is really hard for the Ref’s to see damage real-time. Unless a piece comes flying off, or gets severely distorted, how can you tell?

I hope they update G27 to be a clear standard. If damage is the criteria, then teams should be allowed to show damage after the game.

Also, what is the purpose of “inhibition”? If Red prevents Blue from taking a shot, or picking up a ball, why is that not good defense? What is the difference if Red does it full speed, or 1/2 speed? These bots can get up to full speed in one or two bot lengths.

Ditto on G28 - Contact inside the frame perimeter. I think this is more of a problem. There is a lot of contact inside the frame perimeter. But, it is really hard to see damage, such as cutting pneumatic tubing. I think almost any contact inside the frame perimeter should be called. The only exception being if the other bot initiated the contact.

What would you call the contact that happens around 0:35-0:45 here in the red alliance zone? As a driver, I was confused as to why a foul was not called. It would not have changed the outcome of the match, I would just like to know what others would think. Blue robot was caught in red’s shooter, as a result of passing by after intaking the ball.

Conversely, I’ve been confused by the calls made in the St Joe Finals 1-1. Here I believe a penalty was called on 27 of possession of the opponent’s ball. That would not have changed the outcome of the match, had it not been called. However, a technical was called here on blue for intrusion into the opponent’s perimeter, and I can’t figure out how the ref came to that conclusion.

These calls were made in week 5, after most or all of the rule changes had been made.

While these calls leave me frustrated and uncomfortable, I’d like to hear another opinion because I can’t figure out what the ref was thinking.

G28 - contact inside the frame perimeter, requires either: Deliberate, or damaging contact. Red 862 did not deliberately contact Blue 3175. Blue 3175 was driving by when it became entrapped. It does not appear that Blue 3175 was damaged. Had Blue 3175 suffered damage (let’s say the pole became detached), then there would be a Technical on Red 862 (that is the risk Red takes for having an extended element).

Had Blue 17 merely deflected the ball, and it stayed in the field, then I think it was not possession. However, when the ball left the field, it could have been considered Launching, and not Deflecting.

However, a technical was called here on blue for intrusion into the opponent’s perimeter, and I can’t figure out how the ref came to that conclusion.

I don’t see it either. But, the Ref had a much different angle, and could have seen something. I’m guessing the contact was with the red bot between the blue bot and the Ref, as opposed to the red bot that is closer to the camera.

This call will be like so many others this year and will never get better. Another from St. Joe was in Q47 on us at 2:06 as seen in the video here
Our “wings” are fully within our perimeter unless they are outside of it by the full 16" of extension we gave them.

But, a judgement call is a judgement call. The problem is when a judgement call can take away from students levels of inspiration. Some students expressed that it is hard to have faith in something when a call isn’t made on something as black and white as a g28, and also when they are left as grey as a g27.

Edit to add: I think that St. Joe was the first time I saw the game played how it was intended to be played. Rough but not excessive. It was made up of some fast offense, some harsh defense, and mostly clean play sprinkled in between. I don’t want to derail this thread away from the OP’s point. The only thing to take from my post in regards to that is that this will always be an area decided by the ref on that field, and I don’t see how you can put a solid standard to it. Unless we all have impact measuring gauges on our robots, or refs are given radar guns to measure speed prior to impact. Either way, those are more things for a ref to pay attention to, and they have enough on their plates as is.

I think you are correct that a G28 foul should of been called due to damaging contact inside your frame. I do not believe a G27 is warranted since this does not look like a strategy to do deliberate damage.

Were you given a foul for a G24 and an extended G24 technical foul for continually being outside the 20" perimeter?

This is the same situation that happened in Waterloo.

Very unfortunate. It seems that at every event there has been calls that are missed as well as not consistently called. Let alone the FMS

There were similar issues at our event in HI. We left the field with our 1/8" thick 2x3 pickup system bent and all the welds broken.

I think the small warning in the manual for designing your robot systems robustly should of been bolded and in multiple blue boxes…

A rough game this year is an understatement.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that just the ref counting down for the two red bots 1502 and 3620 pinning 27?

I believe the technical was actually called here (notice the ref in the bottom left). I can’t quite figure out why it was called though, considering how many things robots were getting away with at St. Joe. The way he looked inside 2337 makes me think he saw some kind of damage not visible to the camera, but then again, I don’t really know.

I really wish things had gone differently and that our win had not been because of fouls. It was great playing with and against you guys and hopefully we’ll see you again next year for a “rematch”.

Yep, that’s the “tomahawk” used to signal a pin count. Definitely NOT a foul or T-foul call.

I believe the technical was actually called here (notice the ref in the bottom left).

That’s not a technical call, though. Just a regular foul call. Not sure on what, though.

Signals all refs use: “Tomahawk” used to count down a pin, wave red/blue flag for a foul, if Technical foul, follow the foul call by crossing arms in an “X”. Pointing at the violator is often used as well. (Some refs will also point at a loose dead ball; most will give a “safe” signal after a pin clears though I didn’t see one in the first video.)

Deflecting versus launching isn’t related to in-vs-out of the field. Launching is to a “desired” location, but if the refs thought this location was desired, a G11 would be up. Launching for its part, though, also requires a mechanism in motion relative to the robot. I don’t see this in the video, and if this is so, the action cannot meet the definition of launched. If it was indeed a G12 instead of a G11 (I don’t see “intentionally” in the video, but I wasn’t there), then it wasn’t G12c. I suspect there are some ref crews out there that would call it G12b.

Actually, G27 does not require strategy–it can include strategy and/or game play. If the damaging game play was determined to include “actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment, tipping, or entanglement”, G27 is warranted regardless of strategic intent.

My guess is that it was not called because none of the Ref’s saw it. It looks like you had 5 refs. 4 Refs are watching the ball, and the collision happened away from the ball.

I hope at St. Louis, there are 9 refs for each match. Two at each pad, and the Head Ref. The 4 pad refs watch the ball, and the other 4 refs watch their area away from the ball.

No foul for us, we went to the wall and parked it as soon as that happened and didn’t interact with the ball or other robots at all. I asked if we should disable, and was told it wasn’t necessary. The refs were very good about not penalizing for something way outside of your control.

I always felt like it looked like the head ref was looking straight at it and one other ref as well, but that might just be me.

That seems like an awful lot of refs to be watching the field. I think maybe one or two more at most would be useful. But whatever way it goes, hopefully the rest of this season works as it should and teams gain everything they can out of the experience that this year provides.

We did 8+1 refs at NYC elims. 4 for possessions (2 each per alliance) and 4 four fouls (mostly by half-field) plus the HR. I wish there were refs to do it that way everywhere. It’s the first time in 3 events that every potential call/non-call we discussed had at least 2 sets of eyes on it, except for a few HP questions. 8+1 is the right number for this game. We ran 8 total in quals, which was also pretty solid.

I’m curious how you guys would have called this sequence of events in Semi’s 2-2 at the OSU district. I’m starting it right before the g28 foul occurs in the lower lefthand corner. It was called on blue 3712 as time expired.

Typically, in past games high speed ramming was defined by the refs as acceleration through one or more zones resulting in a direct impact and damage to another robot. This year it seems to be assigned to veteran teams who happen to touch another robot. It got so bad that in Calgary I started telling our drivers not to move if they didn’t have the ball.

My favorite one was in Calgary we were called for high speed ramming causing damage when we clipped the corner of one of our **alliance partners **and the transparent cover on our pneumatic gauge popped off :confused: The ref was oblivious to the fact that the collision involved our teammates and in no way made any sense that it would have been intentional or strategic as none of the robots were in possession of any balls. He refused to acknowledge the gauge cover which we showed him was from our machine. Furthermore, at no time during the match did I see a penalty flag go up and yet at the end of it we were assigned 3 G40s to the human player in the driver’s station and one G27 for a total of 200 foul points.

http://watchfirstnow.com/archives/91020304

In North Bay we were rammed by a rookie machine against the driver’s station while trying to collect a ball. The hit mangled our intake mechanism so badly you can see it in the video. The offending robot had ridden up on top of our bumper and when we cycled the intake mechanism and tried to reposition to collect our ball they tipped over. You can see no call was made by the ref in that quadrant nor the head ref at the time. At the end of the match though, we were assigned a technical for tipping and no call was made against the other team for ramming despite them having accelerated from the truss. We had to bend our intake back into shape and repair 12 cracked welds.

http://watchfirstnow.com/archives/90614841 - @0:40

Someone please correct me if I am wrong to think these incidents were egregiously poor calls.

I saw the flag go up on that one, my guess is the tipping call was because after being under their bumpers your driver paused and then accelerated toward them tipping them over. I get your argument on the ramming, but I will never get how those calls are made.

Ah, I see the head ref wave the flag 10 seconds after the tip, I suppose that was the call. My argument is; when you’ve been rammed up against the driver’s station with a robot on top of you, which way would one drive to avoid tipping them?

That is a phenomenal question, and also one of the many reasons I have chosen to never be a referee.

G28 - contact inside the frame perimeter, requires either deliberate or damaging contact. It did not look deliberate to me. Blue 3712 was almost motionless, and the Red Robot was approaching blue.

If damage to Red occurred, then I would have called G28. If there was no damage to red, then then I would not have called G28.

In North Bay we were rammed by a rookie machine against the driver’s station while trying to collect a ball. The hit mangled our intake mechanism so badly you can see it in the video. The offending robot had ridden up on top of our bumper and when we cycled the intake mechanism and tried to reposition to collect our ball they tipped over. You can see no call was made by the ref in that quadrant nor the head ref at the time. At the end of the match though, we were assigned a technical for tipping and no call was made against the other team for ramming despite them having accelerated from the truss. We had to bend our intake back into shape and repair 12 cracked welds.

http://watchfirstnow.com/archives/90614841 - @0:40

Red was a candidate for G27 - High Speed ramming. So, if damaged occurred, then it should have been called on them. Not only did they come at the Blue Bot from a distance, but the collision caused Red Bot to rock, and thus end up riding up on Blue’s bumper.

I would not have called Blue for G28 Tipping. Red caused themselves to ride up on Blue’s bumper and violate Blue’s frame perimeter. Blue seemed to be playing the ball (and moving in the only direction it could), and not a “strategy” to tip Red.