Match Judging Examples

This post is provided to provide examples of the judging criteria in action. The matches are meant to illustrate a wide range of judging situations that are frequently encountered at events.

Weta Vs. Grande Tambor

Judge #1
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- While Grande Tambor was able to break a tooth near the end of the match, Weta had done substantial damage to the armor of Grande Tambor over the course of the match. The overall seriousness of the damage was minimal in both cases.

Control(6): 4-2 Weta- Weta was able to repeatedly flip Grande Tambor limiting the effectiveness of the drum as it had to be frequently stopped to allow it to spin in the drivers desired direction.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Weta- While neither robot was regularly on the retreat Weta was the aggressor more frequently than Grande Tambor but not by a substantial margin

Final Score: Weta 10, Grande Tambor 7

Judge #2
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- I originally gave this a 5-1 for Grande Tambor but then found that Weta’s weapon was not disabled at the end, only turned off to prevent unnecessary self-inflicted damage from the broken tooth. In that case, both robots scored “significant” damage (armor of GT and tooth of Weta).

Control(6): 4-2 Weta- Weta had all the control points until near the end when Grande Tambor got in some good flips and took away some of Weta’s advantage.

Aggression(5): 4-1 Weta- Grande Tambor spent much of the match retreating without immediately coming back to attack. Weta was nearly always advancing.

Final Score: Weta 11, Grande Tambor 6

Judge #3
Damage(6): 3-3 tie- most of the damage Weta caused was to the ablative UHMW hoop of Tambor and the inconsistent functionality of Tambor’s weapon was not directly a result of Weta. Damage to Weta was caused from going weapon to weapon with Tambor.

Control(6): 4-2 Weta- Weta was controlling the flow of the fight until it broke a weapon tooth. After that Tambor was.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Weta- Weta spent most of the fight on the offensive and initiated most contact between both bots while Tambor was actively trying to avoid Weta. When Weta broke a weapon tooth, Tambor was in control but it was too late in the fight.

Final Score: Tambor 7, Weta 10


Upheaval Vs. Piston Wax

Judge #1
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- Neither robot was able to do more than cosmetic damage to the other

Control(6): 6-0 Upheaval- Upheaval spent most of the match throwing Piston Wax through the air forcing Piston Wax to use much of the stored compressed air for self-righting or unsticking itself.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Piston Wax- Piston Wax, when not reinverting itself was almost constantly on the attack. Upheaval used a mix of some aggressive tactics and defensive positioning/pivoting to ensure that the flipper was almost always aimed at its opponent. Freeing the stuck Piston Wax near the end of the match brought the aggression score closer as Upheaval actively ensured the continuation of the match.

Final Score: Upheaval 11, Piston Wax 6

Judge #2
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- Only “cosmetic” damage to both

Control(6): 6-0 Upheaval- Same notes as Judge #1

Aggression(5): 4-1 Upheaval- “Significant dominance of attacks” was achieved by Upheaval. Though Piston Wax’s driver may have wanted to be aggressive, the robot was too squirrely to ever aim properly and most of its attacks were targeted at the floor. Freeing a stuck bot didn’t gain any points for the deed; but it did allow for more points to be scored after. Note: Freeing an opponent can sometimes be a bad decision!

Final Score: Upheaval 13, Piston Wax 4

Judge #3
Damage(6): 3-3 split – cosmetic damage. yes Piston Wax got stuck in Upheaval but it didn’t hit anything important

Control(6): 6-0 same notes as judge #1

Aggression(5): 3-2 Piston Wax- While (almost) completely unsuccessful at attacking Piston Wax tried. Upheavals game is go to the center of the arena and pivot to face the attacker. While in this case, it is an effective stratagery, it is not aggressive. Once Pistion Wax started to run out of gas, Upheaval went on the offensive and started to chase down Piston Wax and twice, freed it from being stuck.

Final Score: Upheaval 12, Piston Wax 5


Pitter Patter Vs. The Magnificent Poncho

Judge #1
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- Neither robot was able to do any discernable damage to the other

Control(6): 4-2 The Magnificent Poncho- Both robots were operating without weapons in this match, so with both relying on their drive systems to attack the other the frequency with which The Magnificent Poncho was able to lift up and push around its opponent tilted the control score in its favor. In almost all incidents of contact The Magnificent Poncho was able to come out on top, but not by a significant margin, only delivering Pitter Patter to the wall a few times in many attempted pushes.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Pitter Patter- Whenever Pitter Patter was able to move it was attempting to attack The Magnificent Poncho. The Magnificent Poncho, while frequently aggressive also obviously retreated several times during the match.

Final Score: The Magnificent Poncho 9, Pitter Patter 8

Judge #2
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- No damage

Control(6): 3-3 Split- Magnificent Poncho got underneath Pitter Patter most of the time but wasn’t able to push Pitter Patter anywhere effectively. When Pitter Patter got underneath Magnificent Poncho, it was able to push well but only for a moment because MP would quickly drive off each time. Neither robot was the clearly in control of the match.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Pitter Patter- Pitter Patter was slow enough to be able to always face the opponent while advancing. Magnificent Poncho, while perhaps attempting full-speed slams, would often miss completely and drive circles around the arena instead of attacking.

Final Score: The Magnificent Poncho 8, Pitter Patter 9

Judge #3
Damage(6): 3-3 split- no damage

Control(6): 3-3 split – both bots got under and pushed each other around the arena. Pitter Patter high centered and almost flipped Poncho. Poncho pinned Pitter Patter twice.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Pitter Patter- It kept moving towards Poncho. Poncho actively avoided Pitter Patter a couple times.

Final Score: The Magnificent Poncho 8, Pitter Patter 9


Nyx Vs. Magneato

Judge #1
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- Neither robot was able to damage the other in a discernible manner.

Control(6): 5-1 Nyx- Nyx was able to frequently flip or lift Magneato preventing it from effectively using its flipping arm for the majority of the fight. Magneato was able to get in several flips, however they were of limited effectiveness.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Nyx- Nyx was constantly on the attack during the match. Magneato was regularly attempting to attack Nyx, however at several points it retreated to spin up the flywheel that powers the flipping weapon.

Final Score: Nyx 11, Magneato 6

Judge #2
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- No damage.

Control(6): 5-1 Nyx- Same notes as Judge #1.

Aggression(5): 4-1 Nyx- No additional comments.

Final Score: Nyx 12, Magneato 5

Judge #3
Damage(6): 3-3 split- no damage

Control(6): 5-1 Nyx- nothing to add

Aggression(5): 4-1 Nyx- The way Magneato’s weapon worked (flywheel powered flipper) put it at a disadvantage against an invertible pushybot like Nyx because Magneato’s weapon takes time to get up to speed so if it misses, it takes time to spool up to a usable speed. Nyx took advantage of that throughout the match by causing Magneato to miss a flip and invert itself and then pushing it around before it could right itself.

Final Score: Nyx 12, Magneato 5


The Collective Vs. Mondo Bizarro

Judge #1
Damage(6): 4-2 Mondo Bizarro- One of the three members of The Collective appears to have suffered drive system damage during the match.

Control(6): 4-2 The Collective- The Collective spent the full three minutes swarming Mondo Bizarro, scooping it up and slamming it into the wall multiple times. The Collective kept Mondo Bizarro from being able to focus on any one member of the multi-bot and in doing so prevented Mondo Bizarro from doing much damage to any of them over the course of the fight.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Mondo Bizarro- Mondo Bizarro appeared to always be attempting to chase one of the members of The Collective down. The Collective kept the aggression up well enough but would occasionally retreat to regroup and ready themselves for the next attack.

Final Score: Mondo Bizarro 9, The Collective 8

Judge #2
Damage(6): 4-2 Mondo Bizarro- The “X” bot from The Collective lost mobility (which is only “minor” since the other 2 parts stayed fully functional) with no other damage throughout the match.

Control(6): 3-3 Split- The Collective was able to get underneath Mondo Bizarro a few times while Mondo Bizarro was able to knock or flip away bots from The Collective several times.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Mondo Bizarro- With three robots, The Collective should have been able to be always on the attack, but they were often all spinning in place or driving elsewhere. Mondo Bizarro was always on the chase.

Final Score: The Collective 7, Mondo Bizarro 10

Judge #3
Damage(6): 4-2 Mondo Bizarro- The left rear wheel of the “X” part of The Collective locked up

Control(6):3-3 The Collective got under Mondo Bizarro and pushed it around a couple times. Mondo Bizarro punted pieces of The Collective a couple times. It was fairly even.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Mondo Bizarro – At times parts of The Collective looked lost and kinda wandering around the arena. Only one part of The Collective was actively attacking Mondo Bizarro. Mondo Bizarro was almost always chasing down part of The Collective.

Final Score: The Collective 7, Mondo Bizarro 10


Trilobite Vs. Thunder Child

Judge #1
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- Neither robot was able to damage the other in a discernible manner.

Control(6): 5-1 Trilobite- Most of the time, when these two bots met in the arena the outcome was Trilobite pushing Thunder Child around. Thunder Child was able to get in a few good shoves but it spent most of the match on the receiving end of Trilobites wedge.

Aggression(5):3-2 Trilobite- Both bots were able to stay aggressive for most of the fight. This score would be a split decision if the metrics allowed for it, but Trilobite gets the slight nod as it initiated contact more often than Thunder Child.

Final Score: Trilobite 11, Thunder Child 6

Judge #2
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- No damage.

Control(6): 5-1 Trilobite- Same as Judge #1.

Aggression(5):3-2 Trilobite- Same as Judge #1.

Final Score: Trilobite 11, Thunder Child 6

Judge #3
Damage(6): 3-3 split – no damage

Control(6): 5-1 Trilobite- Trilobite had the lower wedge

Aggression(5): 3-2 Trilobite- Same as Judge #1

Final Score: Trilobite 11, Thunder Child 6


 Knuckle Buster Vs. Power of Metal Sportsman Edition

Judge #1
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- At best, Power of Metal was able to do very minor cosmetic damage to Knuckle Buster and there was no sign that it had any effect on performance.

Control(6): 5-1 Knuckle Buster- Knuckle Buster was able to repeatedly flip Power of Metal and was able to regularly prop it up on the arena walls as well. Power of Metal was able to lift Knuckle Buster a few times with its thresher but it only briefly delayed the use of Knuckle Busters flipping arm.

Aggression(5): 4-1 Knuckle Buster- While Knuckle Buster was regularly on the attack there were several points in the fight where Power of Metal alternated between spinning in place and retreating.

Final Score: Knuckle Buster 12, Power of Metal 5

Judge #2
Damage(6): 3-3 Split- Only Cosmetic to Knuckle Buster

Control(6): 5-1 Knuckle Buster- Same as Judge #1.

Aggression(5): 4-1 Knuckle Buster- Same as Judge #1.

Final Score: Knuckle Buster 12, Power of Metal 5

Judge #3
Damage(6): 3-3 split- no damage

Control(6): 5-1 Knuckle Buster- same as judge #1

Aggression(5): 4-1 Knuckle Buster – see judge #1

Final Score: Knuckle Buster 12, Power of Metal 5


Anonymous Vs. Steelheart

Judge #1
Damage(6): 5-1 Anonymous- While visually appearing to be significant damage, the loss of the aluminum wedge and deformation of the two plastic members it was mounted to had minimal impact on Steelhearts ability to continuously attack Anonymous.

Control(6): 4-2 Steelheart- Steelheart was able to keep on top of Anonymous throughout the fight keeping it from reaching full speed for a significant portion of the match and occasionally bouncing it off of the arena walls.

Aggression(5): 4-1 Steelheart- Even with the wedge gone, Steelheart was always on the attack. Anonymous often either sat in place or moved away in an attempt to allow their shell to reach full speed during the fight.

Final Score: Steelheart 9, Anonymous 8

Judge #2
Damage(6): 5-1 Anonymous- Steelheart’s front wedge was torn off and mounts warped/bent, also wheel armor was damaged, but no damage was ever done to the drive or internals of Steelheart so the damage is “Minor”. Anonymous did not appear to suffer any damage beyond a slight slowing of the shell.

Control(6): 4-2 Anonymous- Steelheart’s attacks gained him Aggression points but they were mostly unsuccessful at pushing Anonymous into the wall or slowing the weapon. Anonymous kept the weapon going and repelled Steelheart’s rushes.

Aggression(5): 4-1 Steelheart- Anonymous was often pointing the wrong direction or waiting for Steelheart to make the move. Steelheart dominated Aggression for the most part, but Anonymous was able to make pointed attacks a few times.

Final Score: Steelheart 7, Anonymous 10

Judge #3
Damage(6): 5-1 Anonymous- Steelheart lost its wedge, got bent and lost a wheelguard. Anonymous suffered no visible damage but started to slow down by the end of the fight.

Control(6): 4-2 Steelheart- Steelheart kept attempting to push Anonymous but was not successful at stopping it from spinning. Anonymous was able to stay spinning the whole match.

Aggression(5): 4-1 Steelheart- Steelheart kept on the offensive regardless of how many parts were removed from it by Anonymous. Anonymous only moved when it had to get away from the wall or escape from Steelheart.

Final Score: Steelheart 9, Anonymous 8


 Spanky Vs. Such and Such and The Other One

Judge #1
Damage(6): 5-1 Spanky- Spanky was able to disable the grabbing arm on Such and Such in addition to dealing a substantial amount of cosmetic damage to both halves of the multi-bot.

Control(6): 3-3 Split- There was no clear dominance in control during the match. Both Spanky and Such and Such and The Other One were in control for portions of the match but not for significantly longer than the other.

Aggression(5): 4-1 Such and Such and The Other One- Such and Such and The Other One were the initiators of a vast majority of the contact during the match. Spanky tended to be somewhat more passive, allowing the opposition to drive into the saw blade instead of actively delivering it to them.

Final Score: Spanky 9, Such and Such and The Other One- 8

Judge #2
Damage(6): 6-0 Spanky- Such and Such’s arm was disabled and nothing else above Cosmetic was done.

Control(6): 3-3 Split- No obvious control by either side.

Aggression(5): 4-1 Such and Such and The Other One- Spanky was often not moving at all. SaSatOO kept on the offensive and were often attacking Spanky from both sides.

Final Score: Spanky 10, Such and Such and The Other One- 7

Judge #3
Damage(6): 6-0 Spanky- Spanky broke Such and Such’s graber. The Other One’s hammer did nothing.

Control(6): 3-3 split – both were largely ineffective at controlling the fight in any way.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Such and Such and The Other One- Such and Such and The Other One wins on aggression because both of them were trying to attack Spanky. Spanky did more positioning to point its weapon at Such and Such and The Other One than driving towards them

Final Score: Such and Such and The Other One 6, Spanky 11


Revenge of Dr Super Brain Vs. Belligerent Battler 1.1

Judge #1
Damage(6): 4-2 Revenge of Dr. Super Brain- Revenge of Dr. Super Brain was able to break one of the support bars used to aid in holding the weapon system together on Belligerent Battler 1.1.

Control(6):5-1 Revenge of Dr. Super Brain- Revenge of Dr. Super Brain spent the majority of the fight either lifting, flipping, or grabbing Belligerent Battler 1.1 which prevented it from effectively being able to use its weapon for most of the fight.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Revenge of Dr. Super Brain- While closely matched on aggression, Revenge of Dr. Super Brain was more often than not the robot that initiated contact.

Final Score: Revenge of Dr. Super Brain 12, Belligerent Battler 1.1 5

Judge #2
Damage(6): 4-2 Revenge of Dr. Super Brain- Damage to the support strap did not appear to hamper the weapon’s effectiveness (Cosmetic), but it was the only damage that was dealt in the match.

Control(6):6-0 Revenge of Dr. Super Brain- There wasn’t a single case of Belligerent Battler 1.1 controlling the match.

Aggression(5): 4-1 Revenge of Dr. Super Brain- Repeatedly being flipped upside down caused Belligerent Battler 1.1 to have trouble advancing on Revenge of Dr. Super Brain more than a couple times.

Final Score: Revenge of Dr. Super Brain 14, Belligerent Battler 1.1 3

Judge #3
Damage(6): 4-2 Revenge of Dr. Super Brain- It broke something off the weapon rails of Belligerent Battler 1.1

Control(6): 6-0 Revenge of Dr. Super Brain- Revenge of Dr. Super Brain pushed and flipped Belligerent Battler 1.1 around the arena for 3 minutes.

Aggression(5): 3-2 Revenge of Dr. Super Brain- Revenge of Dr. Super Brain was always moving towards Belligerent Battler 1.1, except for when it had to release it from being pinned. Belligerent Battler 1.1 tried to keep its weapon pointed at Revenge of Dr. Super Brain.

Final Score: Belligerent Battler 1.1 4, Revenge of Dr. Super Brain 13

2 thoughts on “Match Judging Examples

  1. Hi, we’re hosting a spring STE(A)M festival in March. We would like to add robotic combat as part of the activities. Do you mind (or is there a procedure/process) for using your guides in running our tournament? If so, can we list our event details on your site and refer to SPARC for more information?

    We’ve rented out a 10,000 seat stadium to host an FRC district event and the ice rink next store for a Maker Faire. We’ve been reaching out to local and regional combat robotics enthusiasts to let them know we have a big stage for them to fight on…

    Any help would be appreciated!

    Thanks,

    Frank Braski
    Founder, STE(A)M:uL8!

    1. There’s no special process needed to use the SPARC documents, just make sure to clearly show any alterations you make to the basic documents so anyone who’s using them knows what’s different. Once you’ve got the event information sorted feel free to reply here with it or send an email to info@sparc.tools and we’ll get it added to our calendar. If there’s a specific website or registration page you want linked along with it be sure to include it.

Leave a Reply to SPARC Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>