What we learned from week 1

[EricDrost]

We need a better process by which we can all stay civil, but game changing mistakes can be corrected. We all understand that referees can and do make mistakes. Those mistakes can and should be corrected so that those who play by the rules don't lose to those that break them, by accident or otherwise.

Maybe in elims, the final score (including penalties) should be confirmed with the captain of each alliance before the field is reset?

[Siri]

Siri,

We had a long discussion about this at varying points on Friday night and Saturday morning. From what we could find, there is no rule that specifically disallows this, and the reason that we were given was that 'Stacking Discs could cause field damage'... Some point after that, there was mention of disc stacking being legal, or being clarified to be legal, but I don't remember if we were ever given a conclusive answer...

All of that being said, should you need to stack discs on top of either the low goal or the slot covers at your next event, I'd say to do it until you're told not to - at which point ask them to cite the rule that disallows it.This is about what we got as well, Dustin. The field damage argument seemed an odd one, but I never heard even a rumor of a reversal. I wish FIRST had a standardized mechanism for announcing reversals/clarifications at events. (I've seen everything from pit-to-pit ref visits, in-queue statements, coaches' meetings, to pit announcements...) We'll see if the Q&A turns up anything useful. Otherwise it's a question of asking forgiveness vs permission. Given the importance of it though, I hope they standardize.


In other news, the GDC has answered the G29 clarification Q&A (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/563/is-the-intent-to-only-penalize-applicable-contact-of-an-extended-element-in-an-opponents-frame-perimeter-does-it-apply-equally-to-contact-by-an-opponents-main-robot-i-e-its-own-frame-perimeter-b).
A: As [G29] states, the intent is to penalize "deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside its FRAME PERIMETER."
Looks like they're sticking by it--G29 applies any time a robot damages or deliberately contacts a robot inside it's perimeter (correct conjunction is "or"; extended elements not required). High-bumpered bots, be careful in your pushing matches!

[Greg Needel]

Saw another interesting strategy where the defensive bot sat in the opponents protected feeding zone, and the loading bot couldn't get to the zone to draw the penalty, much less load discs.


The refs were calling this wrong until saturday when we asked about it. While you can't get a regular G30 because the other team is not in contact with the carpet, you can get a Technical Foul under G30 because of the intent of the action. (while I disagree with this interpretation of the rules, thats how they were calling it at Hub City after we specifically asked if we could block like that)



Just noticed 2848 is going to be in Oklahoma too. Our scores were higher playing together than playing against each other. Hope to see you on our side next time we meet. :)

Oh yeah, the team will be there.....with a few mods already in progress. We hope to be on your side of the field also.

[Nuttyman54]

The refs were calling this wrong until saturday when we asked about it. While you can't get a regular G30 because the other team is not in contact with the carpet, you can get a Technical Foul under G30 because of the intent of the action. (while I disagree with this interpretation of the rules, thats how they were calling it at Hub City after we specifically asked if we could block like that)

I don't see how G30 can possibly be interpreted to give a foul if the team is not in contact with their feeder station carpet. Simply put, I think the refs called this wrong if they are giving fouls only for blocking teams' access to their own feeder station.

Regardless of who initiates the contact, a ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOT

A. contacting its PYRAMID or
B. touching the carpet in its LOADING ZONE.


Violation: FOUL. If purposeful or consequential, TECHNICAL FOUL. If an opponent's CLIMB is affected, each affected opponent ROBOT will be granted credit for a Level 3 CLIMB at the end of the MATCH.

Intent is only in play if the rule is violated, and the ONLY way to violate the rule is if they are in contact with their loading zone or pyramid. If Blueabot gets to Redabot's loading zone first and prevents Redabot from contacting the loading zone carpet, G30 simply does not apply, because neither of the conditions can be violated, intent or not.

TLDR: If neither of the rule conditions apply, you cannot receive a foul for violating those conditions.

[notmattlythgoe]

I don't see how G30 can possibly be interpreted to give a foul if the team is not in contact with their feeder station carpet. Simply put, I think the refs called this wrong if they are giving fouls only for blocking teams' access to their own feeder station.



Intent is only in play if the rule is violated, and the ONLY way to violate the rule is if they are in contact with their loading zone or pyramid. If Blueabot gets to Redabot's loading zone first and prevents Redabot from contacting the loading zone carpet, G30 simply does not apply, because neither of the conditions can be violated, intent or not.

TLDR: If neither of the rule conditions apply, you cannot receive a foul for violating those conditions.

The violation comes with teams working together to obstruct the flow of a game. AKA sitting in the opposing alliances safe zone in front of their feeder station.

[Nuttyman54]

The violation comes with teams working together to obstruct the flow of a game. AKA sitting in the opposing alliances safe zone in front of their feeder station.

This is an iffy call, and it's a G25 penalty. Greg said specifically that they were assessing technical fouls under G30 for the situation he described, which is what I think is wrong.

G25 cannot apply unless the alliance is working together to do this (eg. both feeder stations are blocked by opposing robots). G25 applies only to the actions of multiple robots (plural), so a single robot preventing access to the feeder station should not be penalized under G25.

[Clinton Bolinger]

See the following Q&A:

https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/491/is-it-in-violation-of-g25-for-an-alliance-to-restrict-block-access-to-one-or-two-of-the-opposition-feeder-stations

Q. Is it in violation of G25 for an alliance to restrict/block access to one or two of the opposition feeder stations?
2013-02-14 by FRC1884

A. We rely on the judgement of our Referees to make this decision in each MATCH. Generally, blocking access to a FEEDER STATION is not considered a violation of [G25]. Blocking access to all FEEDER STATIONS would be considered a violation of [G25].

-Clinton-

[Alpha Beta]

The violation comes with teams working together to obstruct the flow of a game. AKA sitting in the opposing alliances safe zone in front of their feeder station.

That would be a G-25, but has no bearing if it is not multiple robots working together. Would also have no bearing if the field wasn't blockaded. Their is an alternate location to get discs from.

G25
ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. This rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-ROBOT interaction.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

Edit: Beaten to it.

[notmattlythgoe]

Touche.

[Nuttyman54]

I found the Q&A I was looking for to support my original statement, FWIW:


Q.If part of our robot is in contact with the carpet on our side, but has part of the robot in contact
with the opponents carpet, and comes in contact with another opponent robot in autonomous,
would a technical foul be assessed? If so, would the foul be assessed to both teams who make the
contact?
A.If the ROBOT has not violated [G19], no penalty will be assessed.

This is in regards to G19, but it general supports an official ruling that if the terms of the rule have not been violated, no penalty can be assessed.

[bcharbonneau]

A ref at the Hub City Regional told our team that G30 did not apply unless you were climbing. Hopefully this will be discussed.

[Racer26]

A ref at the Hub City Regional told our team that G30 did not apply unless you were climbing. Hopefully this will be discussed.

Then that ref was objectively wrong.

[Dr Theta]

After having watched a fair bit of footage from week 1 I would not be surprised if we saw the "Scorched Earth" Alliance selection strategy in one of the championship divisions this year. There is a sufficient level of competence within the overall field this year (and with the added addition of the Wild Card I can only assume that the depth of the championship field will be that much better), that when coupled with the large divisions at the Championship it will not be surprising to see favorites within a division looking up at a couple other teams with a better draw.

I also believe that alliance selection strategy will be crucial to success at any event this year. I would not be surprised to see a 6 7 or 8 seed win in many events depending on the relative drop off in the field. Dominant robots can still control regionals ala 1986 and 610, but at events with a solid but not dominant top tier upsets may be more prevalent.

[Alpha Beta]

After having watched a fair bit of footage from week 1 I would not be surprised if we saw the "Scorched Earth" Alliance selection strategy in one of the championship divisions this year. There is a sufficient level of competence within the overall field this year (and with the added addition of the Wild Card I can only assume that the depth of the championship field will be that much better), that when coupled with the large divisions at the Championship it will not be surprising to see favorites within a division looking up at a couple other teams with a better draw.

I also believe that alliance selection strategy will be crucial to success at any event this year. I would not be surprised to see a 6 7 or 8 seed win in many events depending on the relative drop off in the field. Dominant robots can still control regionals ala 1986 and 610, but at events with a solid but not dominant top tier upsets may be more prevalent.

By "Scorched Earth" do you mean a less desirable #1 seed picking other captains with their first pick, expecting them to say no, and preventing them from then choosing each other?

[Dr Theta]

By "Scorched Earth" do you mean a less desirable #1 seed picking other captains with their first pick, expecting them to say no, and preventing them from then choosing each other?

That is correct similar to Newton in 2006. (No offense intended to the number one seed of that division, it was a smart strategy but according to the stats they may not have even been top 16)