Most Penalty Points in a Match

Thread to post matches and match video of absurd amounts of penalty points and find the match with the most penalty points. Here is my submissions of Semis 2 Match 3 at Guilford county this year. 72 penalty points. anyone know of a match with more penalty points?

1 Like

99 at Los Angeles Regional.

3 Likes

You had to bring that one up…

Don’t forget the penalty climb included in that match.

What happened? All the penalties are off screen.

Well…
What happened and what actually got called is a toss up. I’m sure there were more points to be counted. It seems 4999 crossed into opponent side with extension beyond frame perimeter, then drove into an opponent and pinned them INSIDE the hab zone, and then disabled. Just about as bad as it gets.

@EricH Eric, correct me if I’m wrong.

4 Likes

Nailed it. Could have also added attaching to the field but 9 techs is bad enough.

And with the pin adding contact in the last 30s, total pain is 108 free points and an extended-pinning red card.

3 Likes

Going more into the match, all times are in approximate MATCH time remaining:
100s: 4999 crosses into the Blue side of the field while outside their perimeter. Reaction within 2 seconds from the nearest zebra ref, and the red near zebra. NOTE: About 5-10s before this, you can see 4999 sticking to the carpet a little bit.
95s: Far blue zebra starts counting, signalling techs after the first one. Both near and far were actually counting at this point, but you can’t see the near ref.
10s: The score suddenly starts climbing as penalties are added in.
0s: Match ends.
After that, the score pops up showing the update from the climbs (+18 points).

The game announcer commentary is worth listening too, as well.

1 Like

That match really must have hurt that ref’s arm huh Eric

2 Likes

Quiet, you. :wink:

2 Likes

Idk what you’re talking about it’s just an observation it’s not like I would know or anything

3 Likes

Yup. Our robot had issues all competition while connecting to the FMS and this was the pinnacle. At one point in this match our drivers lost all control of the robot and the motors went full-speed to the opposite side of the field and there was nothing we could do about it. Then we velcro’d hooked ourselves to the floor.

1 Like

Ouch. That’s like… I didn’t even know that WAS a failure mode anymore! Did you guys ever figure out what went wrong?

(Oh, and if you can, get Terry to post the video from his phone… if he hasn’t already deleted it from memory. I would want to delete that if I were him.)

As a curiosity based on not being able to see it, I’m curious what all happened here.

At 100s remaining, it looks like it crossed and went directly in for the pin. At this point, we get the following actions:

  • Foul for crossing the line while extended
  • Foul for contact inside the hab zone
  • Momentary count started for extended while on defense quickly cancelled to start a pin count
  • Pin count to 5 - foul
  • Pin counts to 5 going forward until game end - tech foul for each

Were there additional fouls beyond that? If no, that brings up an interesting debate. Should a climb have been awarded? Looking at G13, I’d argue no.

G13. Opponents in their HAB ZONE are off-limits. A ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOT if that opponent ROBOT’S BUMPERS are fully in their HAB ZONE.
Violation: FOUL. If this violation occurs during the last 30 seconds of the MATCH, the contacted opponent ROBOT, and all partner ROBOTS it’s fully supporting, are considered to have CLIMBED to LEVEL 3 at the end of the MATCH.

As there isn’t anything about what happens after the contact is made, it wouldn’t appear there’s a penalty beyond the initial contact. As the contact was made at ~95s remaining, the violation occurred long before the 30s point. As strange as it seems, it looks like this would only get the 3 point foul. (of course, the rest of the interaction gets a lot more fun as well).

What was the counter-argument? I’m curious now.

In order to answer that question, we’re going to have to go to a different event, and a different but similar rule, and note the 100% critical word, CONSISTENCY. The rule in question for OCR Q31 is G16, which ALSO doesn’t have a start time, or an end time. Take a look at the match.

Watch the video first

With just under a minute left in the match, one of the Blue teams falls into the Red Rocket on their own accord and is stuck there for the rest of the match. You’ll notice also the final score does not match TBA in that match–there was some discussion about the meaning of “incidental in this case” and “well, if the robot STARTS contact before 20 seconds, does that negate the penalty?” This was escalated up the Referee food chain as high as possible. The TBA-posted score is, in fact, correct–the penalty was assessed after much discussion.

In an unrelated note, I really want to forget that match.

Given that previous event, there is precedent that–I’ll put it this way–an action starting before a penalty time and continuing into that penalty time is still subject to the penalty. I can’t say that that’s an official rule, because it isn’t–it’s an interpretation–and one that’s been checked at high levels.

What you brought up was, as I seem to recall, discussed. However, you’ll also note that there isn’t anything saying “initiate contact in the last 30 seconds”. It’s “Contact”. 4999 never broke contact with their opponent. Therefore, they were contacting their opponent, and the violation carried into the last 30s of the match. ONE violation–but it was a long violation.

Those two rules are distinctly different, though.

G16 only applies to the last 20s. Is there contact in the last 20 seconds? Sure. So, it’d logically apply. If they started contact at 100s remaining, there’s no foul yet. There isn’t an infraction until 20s remains in a qualification match. You’re correct, there’s no mention of when the contact has to start only that there is contact in the last 20s.

With G13, the infraction exists throughout the duration of the match. When the foul occurred, it wasn’t the final 30s. You can make an argument the foul was occurring the entire time. Though, I’d lean against that. Given the very distinct difference between the two rules, it’s not an issue of consistency. We are looking at when the infraction occurred rather than when the contact occurred. With G13, the infraction can occur at 100s remaining. It appears your argument is “the infraction occurs the entire time there is contact independent of when we wave the flag.” I could buy that argument. Though, I’m not sure that’s how I’d read that with the first ~10-20 times I read the rule. I’d still likely err on the side of “the flag being waved signals the infraction occurs,” for consistency’s sake.

Side note: I like both arguments. I’m not sure which would sway me forced to make that call.

Yeah. There was some discussion. I don’t recall the details. And I can see where you’re coming from on “when the foul happened”–that’s the entirety of how the call can be made as far as “do we give the climb or not”.

Of course, for this one I happen to be one of the people making the call… And it’s still the most-penalized match of the year without that call. (I will say that two fouls aren’t on there–we had mercy on both “attaching to the carpet” instances, and let the team off with a warning).

The other argument you can make here is the “spirit of the rule”, BTW. That involves mind-reading the GDC, but the logic would go something like this: The GDC doesn’t want interference with loading up or HAB climbing–essentially, interfering with loading is one complete Bay, and interfering with HAB climbing while in the zone is one L3 Climb (and 1 RP if anybody else makes it onto the HAB). In this case, there was interfering with loading (the initial contact/pin), AND interfering with climbing (contact continued past the 30s mark while in the zone), so applying both penalties does make sense if you look at it that way. Unfortunately, the GDC very rarely elaborates on “the spirit of the rule” or what they’re aiming to prevent with it, so that’s kind of a stretch.

I’d agree with that spirit of the rule.

For my own frustration’s sake, was the pinned robot able to escape or was this one of those instance where they weren’t really making an attempt but that doesn’t weigh into the pinning rule at all?

I’m not worried about trying to find another match that has more penalties by negating any calls. I’m just interested in “this is an odd quirk I hadn’t seen. I wonder what the correct way to call it is” given the nightmare corner case.

Honestly, I wasn’t worrying about that. I’m pretty sure they weren’t able to escape, but I had other robots to watch. @shivshah might have seen something, or @terbos might have video from another angle. Full-speed non-stopping motors isn’t easy to get out of.

How would I know its not like I was on the field or anything calling that match. @EricH @JeffB

In all seriousness from what I remember that robot could not even move it was a full speed collision and I believe that they lost comms after that collision both robots