Ok, so my team was in regenals and ranked 6th of 41 teams, So we were hopful. Our first elimination match was against the lowest ranked alliance and was in the bag. But SG3 came into play. We pushed a tower under the opposing alliance platform at 1:00 in the match and did not get it out. BUT a opposing robot was also pushing the same tower under, so we both broke the rule. The ref said that we pushed the tower under. Was that a wrong call and if so why? We were the offecive robot and should have got the benifit of the doubt. Please tell me if you know.
An alliance can put a mogo under their own platform without violating any rules.
<SG3>.d says
Placing a Mobile Goal on or under the opposing Alliance’s Platform, at any point during the Match is considered a minor violation of this rule that, at a minimum, will result in a warning.
i. If the placement is accidental, and immediately rectified (i.e. the Mobile Goal is immediately removed), then this violation will be considered a warning.
ii. If the placement is intentional and / or not immediately rectified, as judged by the Head Referee, then it will be considered a violation.
iii. Repeated, strategic, and / or egregious warnings may also escalate to a violation, at the Head Referee’s discretion.
This means that you were the only ones that violated <SG3>, your opponents did nothing wrong.
<SG3>.b says
For the purposes of this rule, <G13> supersedes rule <G14>. Any Robot which is contacting its own Platform, provided that no other rules are being violated, will automatically receive the “benefit of the doubt”. Therefore, any contact with this Robot will be considered a violation, regardless of intent.
This means that in this situation the offensive robot does not necessarily get the benefit of the doubt, it is instead given to the robot contacting their own platform. It appears that the referee interpreted the rules correctly and made the right call.
3 Likes
it’s a very difficult situation to interpret because the referee needs to decide who is at fault for the goal ending up under the platform. is it determined by who they think did most of the pushing, is it whoever touched the goal last, the gdc is pretty vague on this point.
Sg3 is a pretty terrible rule, and I’m sorry your season was ended because of an edge case rule.
8 Likes
As stated by Xenon, it is very grey. Do you have a video of the match?
3 Likes
we are the red team that starts at the far end of the field. We are not the claw bot.
Thanks for the help!
This would be a violation, as no attempt to remove the goal was made.
5 Likes
It’s really hard to say for sure who was at fault because there is only that one angle, but it looks like that would be a violation.
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.