[All edits are minor grammatical corrections]
Hello, another SG3 post. A new topic This years rules have more grey area than a fresh box of anti-static tiles was created about grey zone in interpretation, this post is about the harshness of SG3, that topic just sparked my drive to finish this post. Anyway,
I’m writing this post in conjunction with and on behalf of a group of Colorado teams, consider it a community post.
A few weeks ago (Oct 23), Colorado had its first tournament of the season. We had a great time, socializing, rookies enjoyed themselves, it was just fun. Of course there’s a caveat, “Chaos”, “What the heck”, and “regular vex: controlled chaos — today: just plain pure chaos” are real quotes from competitors during and after the tournament.
Disclaimer- All calls by the head ref were correct and executed calmly, none of this is saying he was being unfair. This is also not against any of the teams indirectly mentioned. This is about SG3.
Other disclaimer: (I’m writing this after completing the whole post, it was written and thought in a confused and flustered manner, because that’s simply where we are even after these weeks)
Here’s what we think is wrong: SG3, along with other issues regarding it. Some about transitive, some about the plain old platform. This tournament was full of penalties, but also missed penalties. While the platform was being watched, hoarding calls were missed, outrageous platform penalties were called, and we realized how flawed SG3 is from new tournament perspectives.
Basic transitive
What the heck? A tall goal tilted over touching the perimeter invalidates everything else on the platform? If you can remove this goal from the platform, should nothing change, don’t you think the rest should count? We definitely think even the slightest change in “platform angle” can invalidate, but if it’s proven that the object has no effect then it shouldn’t hurt the rest. After all, the rules of vex have always been match effecting and gameplay effecting, but the side of a mobile goal post gently touching the platform, not effecting anything, costs major score to the alliance.
What the refs can see
Mentioned earlier in this post, calls were missed for various reasons. Sometimes hoarding was missed because the platforms were being watched, sometimes a platform contact was missed because the touch was either so minuscule, and more. Alliance mogo rings, what all 4 bots are doing in those final 30 seconds. At best 4 bots are being watched (2 in close proximity to each other being watched by 1 ref, 2 other bots being watched by other 2 refs). But in reality, it’s easy for the refs to all be looking at one bot. The head ref has to see it all, the platforms are on opposite sides of the field, something about that just doesn’t add up.
So, it’s been generally covered in this post what transitive is, and what the refs can see. Now for the grand point.
Did that really happen?
Did I just get penalized for touching the “platform” while still in the neutral zone? Did the offensive robot get penalized for nothing? Was that actually missed?
We just want the readers of this to understand it from our eyes.
-A robot pushing an opponent that’s carrying a goal into the opponent’s platform (platform to goal to robot to robot transitive), the pushing robot backs away the moment they realize they made contact and is penalized.
-Teams trying to take their own alliance goals get penalized.
-A finals match with a missed penalty.
-A robot with no intention to balance, sits against the platform touching two other goals. A robot goes to take a goal and is penalized even though there was not an ounce of intention to balance from the other alliance. The crazy part about this match is that the penalized robot was in the neutral zone when it made contact, that’s how far out the transitive touch reached, and not just a corner of a wheel, most of the robot was in the neutral zone.
-An opponent pushed into a violation. (More on that at the end).
-The red note indicates that it’s not feasible for a head referee to track the exact movement of every object, so why is it being called like this?? We had people coming to us after the tournament saying they saw team A touch the opponents platform but it wasn’t called. These are people from the bleachers, and around the field. We penalize a goal touching a robot touching a goal touching a robot, but if a direct touch is just barely missed by the ref, there’s nothing.
-Maybe it should be considered that the robot defending goals in their zone are the defensive bots and the teams trying to make a 40 point swing are the offensive robots. Make a case for the other alliance’s goals, make a case for the neutral goals, but we firmly believe an alliance trying to reclaim their own alliance goals should always be the offensive team. An alliance trying to take any goals should be offensive, any goal steal edges the score in their favor. Hasn’t it been mentioned that a robot carrying goals should expect heavy contact from opponents? This competition is filled with so so so much grey area, why can’t this be part of that then? An alliance attempting to balance goals or robots on the platform is to be protected, but in all other cases it’s a free field. Which robot actually deserves the benefit of the doubt.
-Another thing, drivers can’t see that side of the field. Especially when in most cases, they will never see the gap between their robot and the platform because I don’t know, the robot’s in the way? They can’t see the contact until the motion changes, or the platform jiggles. Grey area, perhaps backing off after that can pass. Make the accident the unspoken warning, the second infraction comes punishment.
-Should a robot in the neutral zone be penalized for transitively touching the platform? We don’t think so. Not to mention an offensive robot trying to take goals. May as well build a wall of goals through the field if this is how it’s going to be.
Maybe we wouldn’t rely on what the ref sees so much if something was different. What was seen at this tournament left jaws dropped and hands scratching heads.
If this is all too much to read, I hope you at least read this last part.
I write this from me, not a community post.
In quarter finals I was against two rookie teams. One was tasked with managing points on their side, the other was tasked with defending us. This was definitely defense because they had no means to drag goals, and had a very clear driving style of getting in between me and the scoring elements. During the last 30 seconds, they kept pushing, wedging the robot in front of me and not letting me proceed. I loved this, a real battle to the end testing our alliance’s skills under live pressure, not imaginary stress. And let me tell you, this was some of the best defensive driving I’ve ever seen from a rookie, 4 wheels and some bars putting it all out on the field facing elimination, there was nothing better than driving against that. I digress. I pushed to grab a goal behind them, during that I also pushed them, I pushed them right into our platform. I want it to be heard clearly,
I pushed this team into my own platform.
They never intended to prevent the balance (as we weren’t trying to), they had every ounce of strength on the field, and because I pushed them into our platform they got disqualified. G14 is superseded according to SG3, nothing prevented forcing that penalty. They did nothing wrong. How is this okay? That can’t be okay. Hear it once more,
I pushed this team into my own platform. I made this team violate a rule. This team was disqualified for nothing they did, but because of me.
For a game that’s so proud of heavy and hectic autonomous battles in the neutral zone, it sure is scared of determination.