I have been getting a bunch of mixed comments on youtube but I wanted to know what you guys think about the play?
The play can be seen shortly after the 30 second mark.
Please do not post any negative comments. (It is ok to say that it was an illegal move but do not post something that would be offensive in any way.) The move was an accident and as bad as the people in red cheering look they are very excited because we got the negator in their FULL 30 and won the match.
Goodness, those people on youtube were over commenting a mile wide. I can tell you it was obvious to me that you were cheering because the negator went in. Obviously some people dont realize that you wouldve lost anyway if the negator hadnt gone in. I agree with Joshua.
when I first watched it I thought you guys were cheering over the tipped bot but after watching it again I saw the negator nice match I don’t if it would be illegal but because the manual says the ref can make a decision based on judgement I think they would’ve had a valid case with you guys cheering which made it look intentional I don’t want to be mean or anything just watch when your cheering after something like that even if the negator just went in for your team
I understand where you are coming from. I drive the arm and I actually though that we were going to get DQ’ed at first but we ended up winning the match due to our defense and our alliance getting that negator in their goal. I do realize that the cheering happens at the same time as both moves and we do give those guys crap about it but we all were truly excited that we won that match.
I would say its play that could have resulted in a DQ if the refs were really strict (that’s not a shot at any refs), but it’s not outright illegal play. Also the fact that you started this thread in order to make sure it wasn’t illegal tells me that you didn’t do it intentionally.
I would say the “tallness” of gateway is responsible for this sort of thing. Robots carrying heavy loads at 30-40 inches above the ground mean that accidents are more likely to happen. If this were an elevation robot scoring in a 9 inch goal, nobody would be questioning your defense. It’s just the height requirements of the game and something teams should design for (that’s not to say the team that got tipped didn’t).
All in all, I would say that you guys didn’t do anything wrong, but could certainly be more careful in the future so that even strict refs can’t DQ you for your defensive play.
I am the one who actually drives the chassis. I was by no means trying to intentionally tip them. I went to get them away from the 30" and I should have just blocked them but I wanted them as far away as possible. Our alliance (569) was cheering because of the negator. I along with my co-pilot (dpbailey) were stunned when this happened but we were not too worried about the DQ.
Seems like a very 50-50 kind of play. Looking at the manual, other than the obvious tipping/entanglement rule, it is worthy to point out that offensive robots are generally favored in this type of occurrence.
To me it seems like while the tip wasn’t intentional and the team was playing honest defense, the result of the action could very easily have merited a DQ in the eyes of another referee. Since these types of situations are so few and far between, referees often aren’t prepared to deal with the situation, especially at local tournaments, so teams can usually get away with all sorts of things.
In my eyes, although we were preventing them from scoring, we were actually play offense because in doing this move it allowed our partner to negate their score in that goal and thus giving us the win.
I do feel that it will be more scrutinized at worlds and I would not be surprised if (hypothetical situation) this same game happened at worlds and my alliance got DQ’ed as a result.
And yes I agree with you SweetMochi, a lot of referees that we come across at local tournaments are volunteers that just barely learned the rules that morning, thus making them less inclined to know the game and what to do/call at a time like that.
I usually ref at New Zealand scrimmages, and this is what i think:
-The robot that dies the tipping is not trying to score or interact with the goal in anyway, other than defensively
-You are allowed to push other robots, but the way in which they were doing so was high up on the other robot
-From the rules: “Some incidental tipping, Entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, Entanglement, or damage is ruled to be intentional or egregious, the offending team may be disqualified from that Match”
-I would say that this was “egregious” and would DQ the offending team. Remember that the tipping does not have to be intentional
But please remember that refs at competitions do not have the ability to watch a replay, or may not be completely focused on the two relevant robots.
For teams that get tipped: Having a top heavy robot is really not a good idea. Just because you fall over whilst in contact with an opposing robot does not mean that they will get disqualified, especially if your robot is prone to tipping anyway.
For teams that may get in trouble for tipping: There is no good reason to push the other robot whilst defending a goal; you can sit in their way without pushing them, or, even better, raise your arm to protect the goal without having to interact directly with the other robot.
Finally, even if the ref makes a mistake, they are usually (always?) volunteers; please be nice to them! It makes it much more rewarding to help run the competitions if the teams thank you at the end of the day
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! What you have stated above makes sense and I actually would not have been surprised if we got DQ’ed that match. Aside from that we will make efforts to avoid this situation in the future.
I won’t comment on the legality of the tipping - TooMuchStrategy has done a pretty good job of that and I agree with him that this looks unintentional but probably counts as egregrious.
What I will mention is with regard to the pinning that also occurs. At 2:14 the tipping team pushes the tipped robot into a 20" goal. It looks to me like for the second or so during which the tipping robot is in contact with the tipped one and the tipped one is in contact with the goal the tipped robot’ movement was inhibited. This would mean the action was a pin.
(The relevant question is not whether it could move sideways or fowards - if you can still move in at least one direction you are not being pinned. The question is whether its movement backwards was inhibited. I think the answer is probably yes).
This pin means the tipping robot must move two feet away from the tipped robot within 5 seconds. By 2:19 they have done this - or at least they have moved two feet away from where they were when they performed the pin. The reason the robots are still in contact at this point is because the tipped team has followed them. I would estimate that the pin is broken at about 2:17 or 2:18. So the pushing and pinning that occurs in this video before the tipping is, as far as I can tell, perfectly legal and should probably not be used to inform the egregriousness of the tipping.
The point here is that the event that leads to the tipping is another pin. The tipping robot was pretty clearly inhibiting the movement of the tipped robot in the second or so before it tipped over. Because this pin occured less than 5 seconds after the previous pin was broken (2:19) it was illegal.
I think a DQ for pinning is probably more clear-cut from looking at the video than a DQ for tipping, but I think both would be justified.
It looks like it was simply a fight to double/negate the 30" goal, and it looks like there was no intentional tipping. The only tipping rule in the rules is <G11>, but that targets robots aimed solely at tipping over other robots. My ruling is that it was perfectly legal.
I would like to apologize for my teams reaction on the youtube page. Furthermore, i would also just like to quote this section of <G11>
“VEX Gateway is intended to be an offensive game. Teams who partake in solely defensive strategies will
undergo extra scrutiny in regards to <G11>. In the case where referees are forced to make a judgment
call on interaction between a defensive and offensive Robot, the referees will err on the side of the
Your team was playing defensively…
It makes no real difference to us seeing as all of our bots have qualified for worlds, we hope to see you there.
I’ve seen cases of entanglement and tipping much more extreme than this. Once a defensive robot accidentally tipped a robot we compete with. This robot was so heavy and dense that it was damaged in the fall.
The most intense match involving tipping and entanglement that I’ve seen is this one. It’s really quite funny (yes, I know that they load match loads in the isolation zone and that’s illegal, but the refs didn’t know).
It’s also illegal for the red inter team to touch their robot at 1:14. So three of the four teams should have been DQed here, including the iso matchloading.
It’s hard to tell from the video whether the entanglement and tipping merits a DQ, because you can’t see the parts of the robots that are being entangled. If either of the entangled robots had a structure on their robot that was an entanglement risk, then they can be DQed. The red team who gets their intake stuck performs a defensive maneuver at 1:32 and if this is the point at which the two robots become entangled then red can potentially be DQed because of the <G11> rule that favours offensive strategies. If neither of those apply though then I think the entanglement has to be treated as no one’s fault because none of the play outside of the defensive push by red linked above would satisfy the “eregrious” entanglement required for a <G11> DQ.
Also, I don’t think I’ve seen a match where all four robots had either fallen over or been trapped under other robots at the end :D.