2 tetras were capped at an angle and both were counted as scoring after a long discussion
Who was ruled as the owner of the goal? I saw that part of the match on the webcast, but didnt see the final score.
This would be a great you make the call (YMTC) topic .
LOL ya, we were like…so…which is on top? In my opinion, it would be red’s since there are more red apexes higher than blue, but I was just making up that rule so that’s how I would judge it. By the way, do you know what happened with team 706 when everything froze during the finals? I heard they didn’t have a radio signal to their robot.
As I understand…both teams got credited with owning the goal.
Red owned the goal because the tetra was higher.
Very interesting cap, it was weird… they just came together at the same time, backed away, and voila.
Something very similar to this happened at UCF… I beleive spam did it and neither of them counted (I’m guessing they were both beyond 6" at UCF).
From my understanding of the rules, the top two tetras would not be scored and blue would own the goal. Neither of the tetras are seated properly. We noticed this the day after kickoff while we were playing around with a few tetras and deemed that they wouldn’t be scored.
But all apexes were 6 inches from each other I believe, which should qualify both for being capped.
Well while i was watching the webcast I saw them measuring distances which became the last regular stacked blue one to the odd blue one and then the blue one to the red one. All of those measurements must have been 6" or less im assuming.
ahh got beat to it.
But tetras arranged in such a fashion can not be seated properly.
The rule about being stacked properly just deals with the distance between apexes, not really which way the stack has started to grow.
I agree with tkwetzel 100%. The answer lies in what it means to be seated properly. The rules say that a tetra is stacked when all four apexes are within 6" of the supporting structure.
Obviously, a stack starts with the goal. So, start there and for each tetra ask whether each apex is within 6" of its predecessor.
1 BLUE - Yes
2 RED - Yes
3 RED - Yes
4 BLUE- Yes
5 BLUE- No (The chain is broken)
6 RED- Moot
Any attempt to justify 5 or 6 because they are each 6" from “something” would involve circular reasoning. To say that 5 counts because it is within 6" of 6 pre-supposes that 6 counts. That’s begging the question.
Going by which is the highest…they are seated right. The 2nd blue is 6 inches from the 1st Blue. The Red one, being higher, is on top of the stack, meaning it only needs to be 6 inches from the 2nd Blue, which it is. Now I don’t know about the owernship call, but I would say it belongs to Red since their tetra is physically higher.
Just to let eveyone know, we placed the blue tetra in that match. It was a very exciting end to the match.
The ruling was that both tetras counted and that red owned the goal. I thought that this was the proper ruling. It didn’t matter though - our alliance would have won no matter what the ruling was.
How did you decide that 5 was more then 6 inches away from 4? I can’t say unequivocally that from that picture I know for sure what 6 inches is. And, that picture is certainly better then a view from the stands.
Your logic is correct, but we don’t have the information needed to make the determination.
Ignore my “opinion” on the distance between the upper apex on BLUE 5 and BLUE 4. The picture clearly shows that the supporting structure at that apex is RED 6. Can we not agree that a valid supporting structure must first be part of the stack? The upper apex of RED 6 is clearly more than 6" away from anything but BLUE 5. BLUE 5 is valid if RED 6 is valid if BLUE 5 is valid is circular.
Actually, he was the head ref, so he would know better ;).
BTW, thanks and congrats to the referees, we had some disagreements on the finals rounds but your job was really well done!
this is true…and i believe it made the ref’s decision a little easier to just count them both — give red the goal and move on. however, a rule does need to be made because this row could have been a lot more crucial to the match
as soon as it happened i turned to Bob Hammond (FRC director) and said “Did you guys ever see that happening” all Bob could say was “wow…we sure didn’t. i don’t know about that. i’m just glad i’m not a ref”
he was a ref…not the head ref
Rick Buessing was head ref at MWR
Thanks for the promotion, but actually I was one of the grunts. That does not make me “right”. It was a very unusual situation. I enjoy the debate.
BTW 383, you are a class act! Looking forward to your return to the U.S.A