In Roebling Div. Semi 2-3, WHERE did that 27 points of penalty come from?

roebling
#1

I can’t understand how did that 27 penalty points add up as I reviewed the whole match (2019 Roebling division Semi 2-3), and the blue alliance said that the referees wouldn’t let them call a review.

Can anyone explain where did that 27 come from???

And can anyone explain why the referees did NOT make a review, not even considering doing so?

Added link for the game from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6l8FEXMlGE&feature=youtu.be

About the “leading theory”: in the game rule, there need to be a 5-second countdown after the first violation of the rule G10, which means that there must be something continuously hanging outside the frame perimeter. However, even the shaky intake cannot make up for 8 times of non-interrupted 5-second counting that it is out of the frame perimeter.

Quote from the manual about rule G10:

On defense, rein it in. No part of a ROBOT, except its BUMPERS, may be outside its FRAME PERIMETER if its BUMPERS are completely beyond its opponent’s CARGO SHIP LINE.
Violation: FOUL, plus an additional FOUL for every five (5) seconds in which the situation is not corrected. If G9 is also being violated, additional FOUL escalates to TECH FOUL.

By this point, I believe that there is something instead of violating rule G10 that caused the 27 penalty points, which I cannot figure out.

Seems like there are some ambiguities with regard to the rule G10 in the manual? Based on my experience (as my team had once violated rule G10), there should be a countdown when the robot’s part is outside the perimeter after you have retracted (or corrected) your extending part.

The foul at T-minus 90s seems to be controversial as well, which is defined in rule G5. However, since the hatch panel is misplaced and blocking the road, the knock-off of it could be deemed as INCIDENTAL.

Quote from the manual about rule G5:

Don’t mess with opponents’ scored GAME PIECES. A ROBOT may not remove a GAME PIECEfrom an opponents’ ROCKET/CARGO SHIP. GAME PIECES which become dislodged because of incidental contact with the ROCKET/CARGO SHIP are not considered a violation of this rule.
Violation: FOUL per GAME PIECE de-scored and opponents are awarded one (1) Ranking Point if neither of their ROCKETS are completed at T-minus 0s.

But still, how did the referees summed up 9 times of fouls (3 points each)?

By now, the most direct way is to invite the referees and the head referee in that game to answer this question, or make the scorings and reasons transparent.

9 Likes
Where did that 27 points of penalty come from
Are all teams treated equally? and Roebling SF 2-3
Are all teams treated equally? and Roebling SF 2-3
#2

Same Question. It seemed like no foul was counted during the match but all after the match. So I don’t know at which point the blue alliance had so many fouls. I didn’t see any fouls after reviewing the whole match, too. PLEASE CALL REVIEW AND GIVE THE BLUE ALLIANCE A REASONABLE ANSWER.

2 Likes
#3

I saw one only after 1771 knocked off the misplaced hatch panel, and nothing else. LITERALLY, NOTHING ELSE.

#4

From memory (I’ve watched a bunch of matches today) - some things I remembered, not sure if they all count as fouls but stood out.

  1. Beginning of the match a red hatch panel was knocked off the rocket by the blue defensive bot.
  2. Hatch panel knocked off of 148 soon after.
  3. Ref at the bottom of the screen waved a red flag around the time the blue bot went into the red hab zone - not sure why thou.

Is that 27? I just watched it again and can’t see where they got 27.

#5

I don’t think it can penalty 27 points…it’s amazing!!! I need a equitable explain

#6

Watching the match, the only thing I notice is a shaky intake on 1771. Every time they make a big hit it look like their intake reaches outside of their frame perimeter. Otherwise, that’s all I saw excluding the hatch de-score.

1 Like
#7

I only saw

  1. 1771 knocked off opposite’s panel.
  2. 1771 crossed opposite’s hub line.

For 1771’s shaky intake, why they don’t get penalty on previous matches? I don’t think 1771’s intake caused the high penalty.

#8

Maybe this is the thing why the alliance 6 be penaltied 27 points???

#9

After losing a match to the alliance anyone on the red side could have noticed the intake, thus bringing it to the attention of the refs. I’m not saying that’s what happened but that’s what i could see happening.

1 Like
#10

From the look of it, 1771’s intake is right against their perimeter. So, whenever 1771’s intake tilted forward after acceleration or a hit, there was a violation. Those add up.

#11

I looked only on the red side of the field and I only see the one, ONE time a ref or head ref points and waves a flag on the red side of the field.

Every other hand gesture is for pinning and all of the pin counts end in a safe gesture.

I only saw one penalty hand gesture on the red side of the field so that means that the eight other blue fouls and two other red fouls happened on the blue side.

After watching the blue side, which you can’t see the lower blue ref at all, I didn’t see any fouls called on the blue side.

10 of 11 fouls that you can’t see from the replay.

2 Likes
#12

If outside the frame on other side is indeed what the call was, then refs need to be better trained for consistency.

In QF1 match 2 of UNCA, the refs missed about 39 foul points (counted them multiple times from the video, but you could argue for as low as 30 or as high as 45 for missed foul points, as only 3 were given) for intake out on our side should have been called on 2640. Their students are great people, and I know for sure that they did not intend for the intake to be coming out, but the intake of theirs being wiggly and popping out made them essentially shut down an entire side of the field against the offense of us and 3680 because we were scared of getting tangled with floppy boi intake.
The difference in score was 78 to 62, meaning the 30 something foul points would have given us the win. Had 2640 not been on our side, we would have only had 8-10 more points, and definitely would have lost because those points wouldn’t have made up the difference.

1 Like
#13

If someone can find those penalty points, please let me know.

On behalf of 1771, none of us know. Talking to the refs led nowhere. The explanations given make no sense. The referee who was calling continuous penalties (lower left corner), she would never talk to the students. One of the refs blew one of our students off when he was in the question box

The entire Roebling ref crew was calling inconsistently the entire event, regarding pinning and crossing the center line.

If it was a frame perimeter violation regarding the intake, we should have been penalized in half of our matches in the PCH district.

Our team is inspired.

38 Likes
#14
  1. Unquestionably a foul for 3 points. At T-minus 90s, 90 seconds left in game
  2. According to my review, at T-minus 51s, they TOUCHED the hab zone line with their bumper. This is the ONLY time they were over the hab line, and there is no no sign of violating rule G13.

Definitely true. NO SIGN OF CONSISTENCY if that is the case (the shaky intake caused the fouls) and there is a 5-second count down according to rule G10 in the manual after the first time of violation.

1 Like
#15
  1. That can be a foul unquestionably.
  2. I don’t think that can be a foul and I cannot find the rule that says it’s a foul.
  3. I was also confused by that. Seems like a indication of ending a count down without any violations.

No sign of 27.

#16

Hi 1771,

As a viewer, I have carefully reviewed this game. There are some details that may be considered having caused some violations of rules.

  1. At T-minus 90s, your robot knocked off a misplaced hatch panel placed by 148 on the level 1 of the rocket.
  2. At T-minus 70s, your robot made 148 lose the hatch panel they were grabbing. (No sign of violation in the manual.)
  3. At T-minus 51s, your robot’s bumper crossed the opponent’s HAB line. (No sign of violation in the manual)
  4. At T-minus 28s, your robot hit the opponent’s rocket.
  5. The shaky intake that was NOT considered a foul in earlier matches.

Please consider these details, and I am still confused by not only the figure 27 but also the ATTITUDE of some referees.

Best,
Your supporter

#17

Hi Carlos,

We agree that some of those are penalties. However touching the rocket during ELIMINATIONS does not incur a foul.

We are still dumbfounded as to how 9 penalties were incurred. We think that there were probably 3, so 9 points.

Thank you for reviewing the match and confirming what we believed.

4 Likes
#18

As people have already said it was probably the issue with reaching outside of the frame perimeter. Just because it wasn’t called at other events or during other times doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be called now.

#19

Yup.

Not reffing, but you won’t believe how many teams claim “The inspectors didn’t say anything about it at our last event.” Either they didn’t catch it or you didn’t listen to them.

edit: Also, the counting for being outside your perimeter is similar to pinning.

1 Like
#20

Fouls are worth:

3 and 10…

3*9 =27 so 9 fouls would be the only way to do that

27-10 = 17 not divisible by 3 or 10
27-20= 7 not divisible by 3 or 10

So it had to be entered as (9) 3pt fouls. That match on Blue violations.

In elims there is no ranking points so its a FOUL per game piece or 3pts

Now there are “non obvious in video” fouls… Two game piece, human fouls like hands in , two robots cross into defense, playing defense outside frame perimeter and transitive with game piece fouls.

Any of these could have been added to get to nine fouls and some accrue every 5 seconds.

I assume 9 were racked up by the blue defender as most likely source

I could not see (9) 3 point fouls “from the video” I also was not there. The case is though it had to be 9 fouls that’s the only way to enter 27…as any 10 pts Tech Foul does not work. My personal guess from the video footage is the shaky intake swinging outside defender frame perimeter and was likely identified/highlighted earlier and called in this match plus others unseen in video.

For future defenders…duck tape it to make it obvious and impossible to violate it.

What also concerns me is why Blue does not know exactly what was called… there is a question box to discuss with the Head Referee and seems like a critical deciding factor in a tiebreaker…why was this not asked there and then? Inquiring minds want to know that answer.

If they simply asked for video review… the answer will always be NO as stated in the manual. The better question: What was each of the 9 fouls for? That would have solved it then. The only person who should be explaining to students penalties after a match is the head ref themselves and “if needed” they will call in specific refs on the side to verify the foul reasons (likely done prior to score posting) . Every foul will have a visual story behind it otherwise it does not exist.

The tie was 2 fouls away and win 3 fouls away, “explain it fully” to Blue would be the bare minimum mitigation directly after the match was played. Not to be solved here.

3 Likes