Balls In Opposing Robots

[Navid Shafa]

I've seen numerous fouls called today on teams who had an opponent's ball enter their robot. If a team has put the ball in your robot, or it accidentally enters your robot, why should you be penalized for trying to remove it?

I understand why it has been called this way, but it's painful to see this create huge point differences...

[Justin Shelley]

I agree. It is extremely saddening to me that this caused 1114 to lose. They had the best robot there and in my opinion should've won. These penalties are deciding elimination matches when the penalties received are judgement calls. Meaning it is debatable as to whether or not the penalties should've been received. In the Finals at the Arkansas regional the Blue Alliance won the first match and the next two the Red Alliance won but solely because of foul points that were questionable.

[orangemoore]

I agree. It is extremely saddening to me that this caused 1114 to lose. They had the best robot there and in my opinion should've won. These penalties are deciding elimination matches when the penalties received are judgement calls. Meaning it is debatable as to whether or not the penalties should've been received. In the Finals at the Arkansas regional the Blue Alliance won the first match and the next two the Red Alliance won but solely because of foul points that were questionable.

On the note of 1114 what were the penalties for that match. I know there was a tech. foul for the possession of an opponents ball but was there another one?

[JohnFogarty]

Sorry, but the problem was entirely avoidable by the drivers having the robot back up when they saw the ball bouncing toward them. I watched this match as it happened. The GDC made no mistake in the rules by saying you should design your robot to make sure you don't accidentally possess another team's ball. That's how it happened. There should be no changes made in the rules.

[waialua359]

We got 50 foul points twice on our alliance for 100 tech foul points. Luckily we still won! It was for the same reason. They threw it in our intake. I can't see why it's a game changer?

[orangemoore]

I find that the rule covers all of the situations of possession but I don't like the rule.

G12
An ALLIANCE may not POSSESS their opponent’s BALLS. The following criteria define POSSESSION :

“carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT or holding the BALL in or on the ROBOT),
“herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
“launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or
“trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL per instance. If extended, another TECHNICAL FOUL. If strategic, RED CARD for the ALLIANCE.


Examples of BALL interaction that are not POSSESSION are

A. “bulldozing” (inadvertently coming in contact with BALLS that happen to be in the path of the ROBOT as it moves about the FIELD) and

B. “deflecting” (a single hit to or being hit by a BALL that bounces or rolls off the ROBOT or a BALL slips through the grips of a ROBOT without arresting the BALL'S momentum).

A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered POSSESSED by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS an opponent’s BALL.


I find that is a very cold approach to the situation.

[JohnFogarty]

Since when should engineering not have a hard, defined, approach to a problem that could very easily occur.

[ErvinI]

In the Finals at the Arkansas regional the Blue Alliance won the first match and the next two the Red Alliance won but solely because of foul points that were questionable.
While I did not see the second match, the final match was likely going to be a red alliance win without the foul, since 16 was in position to pick up the ball. All they needed to do was pick up the ball and truss it for the win. The fact that the opposing alliance member herded the red ball into the blue goal clearly changed the course of the match since then the ball inbounding would take longer than the 10 or so seconds left in the match.

As for the GTRE match, was the second tech foul pinning? That was enough to seal the game for the blue alliance (who won due to strong defense in the first match). The illegal catch just meant that the game was hard to win from an earlier point in the match. While I was cheering on the red alliance (3683 is long due for a championship appearance!), the red alliance got upset by a strong 5th seed.

[JohnFogarty]

The second tech foul was indeed pinning.

[Link07]

Sorry, but the problem was entirely avoidable by the drivers having the robot back up when they saw the ball bouncing toward them. I watched this match as it happened. The GDC made no mistake in the rules by saying you should design your robot to make sure you don't accidentally possess another team's ball. That's how it happened. There should be no changes made in the rules.

+1

I completely agree with the decision on this matter. I saw this happen plenty of times both at week 1 events and this week, even in cases where the ball was not directly in the robot. It was clear possession, regardless of intent. It is unfortunate that it has happened to teams, all of which I'm sure were accidental, but it was clearly stated very early that you must design around this to make it impossible for that to happen. It's no different than a robot designed to effectively shoot the ball. Both aspects are incredibly important parts of the game.

[orangemoore]

...
As for the GTRE match, was the second tech foul pinning? That was enough to seal the game for the blue alliance (who won due to strong defense in the first match). The illegal catch just meant that the game was hard to win from an earlier point in the match. While I was cheering on the red alliance (3683 is long due for a championship appearance!), the red alliance got upset by a strong 5th seed.

I think that the match would have been close without any penalties but there is a point where you may change how you act due to how the match is going.

[EricH]

We got 50 foul points twice on our alliance for 100 tech foul points. Luckily we still won! It was for the same reason. They threw it in our intake. I can't see why it's a game changer?

If they threw it into your robot, apparently intentionally, ask the head ref why G14 was NOT called. Just sayin', a G14 called for a human loading the wrong alliance's robot will swing the final score by 100 points (takes off your T-foul and gives the opponents a T-foul).

[Navid Shafa]

If they threw it into your robot, apparently intentionally, ask the head ref why G14 was NOT called. Just sayin', a G14 called for a human loading the wrong alliance's robot will swing the final score by 100 points (takes off your T-foul and gives the opponents a T-foul).

This is exactly the kind of situation I saw at several events. I wasn't there, but it certainly looked like this to me.

[mizscience]

I agree, it's a harsh rule. BUT think about it this way: anytime the other alliance's ball is in your robot, that alliance cannot be scoring said ball. So it's harsh, but it's necessary to ensure that both alliances have as fair and equal scoring opportunities.

[mizscience]

If they threw it into your robot, apparently intentionally, ask the head ref why G14 was NOT called. Just sayin', a G14 called for a human loading the wrong alliance's robot will swing the final score by 100 points (takes off your T-foul and gives the opponents a T-foul).

This. Teams need to know the rules. If you have a question, send a pre-college member to the question box to talk to the head ref asap after a match. That's the only way something could possibly be done.

[PriyankP]

If a team has put the ball in your robot, or it accidentally enters your robot, why should you be penalized for trying to remove it?

If someone intentionally puts the ball in your robot, you DON'T get a T-foul for that. The other team gets it!

If it accidentally enters your robot, it is on you to avoid that situation. Especially when you've been warned of it in the game manual.

I feel it is a reasonable foul because otherwise teams would make no effort to avoid possessing the wrong ball! It would add ~10 seconds to the other alliance's cycle time. Think about it, without this rule, holding the other alliance's ball would actually become a part of teams' strategy!

As someone said earlier, the red robot at GTR-E should have driven backwards or just stopped going towards the ball - easily avoidable situation in my opinion.

[Navid Shafa]

If someone intentionally puts the ball in your robot, you DON'T get a T-foul for that. The other team gets it!

Agreed, this is how it should be called...

Quoting for relevance:
If I'm lined up for a catch, my ally and opponent both fire, my ally misses, but my opponent's ball ends up in my catcher, what would you call that? I don't see how in a game where catching is an objective, you can design something that doesn't catch opponent's balls on accident.

Also, Copioli said it the best (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1355463&postcount=85).

[Abhishek R]

I agree. It is extremely saddening to me that this caused 1114 to lose. They had the best robot there and in my opinion should've won. These penalties are deciding elimination matches when the penalties received are judgement calls. Meaning it is debatable as to whether or not the penalties should've been received. In the Finals at the Arkansas regional the Blue Alliance won the first match and the next two the Red Alliance won but solely because of foul points that were questionable.

Though I understand the concerns behind this rule, I want to point out the best robot is not always necessarily the winner of the regional. In the first match, a combination of the blue alliance playing solidly and executing a strategy well combined with the time it took for the red alliance to rid itself of the third autonomous ball caused them to lose the match.

[BrendanB]

I remember during the drivers meeting at UNH we were reminded of this rule and told to "Make sure your robots are designed so they can't hold an opponents ball". I heard this and I know this was out of the control of our head ref (who did a fantastic job all weekend I think UNH ended extremely fair and of the few problems that did go wrong they were remedied quick and fair) but this is coming directly from FIRST so what kind of bogus line is this? Are we all supposed to put a bunch of sensors on our robot to detect red/blue balls and close up our intakes when we get near one?

We all know the intent of the rules because if the rule didn't exist teams would just grab opponents balls and play keep away for the match but most of the calls for possessing an opponents balls are either accidental or caused by the alliance that is benefiting by getting the penalty points.

Same thing with the G40 problems of week 1 its the accidental infractions of the rule that are killing teams because the penalties for tech fouls are way too large for minor offenses!

[mwtidd]

Though I understand the concerns behind this rule, I want to point out the best robot is not always necessarily the winner of the regional. In the first match, a combination of the blue alliance playing solidly and executing a strategy well combined with the time it took for the red alliance to rid itself of the third autonomous ball caused them to lose the match.
I'll second this, and expand to say that this game was designed very well such that its not the best robots that win, but rather that the best alliance wins. Hence why there are so many "upsets"

[Wes Mantooth]

I've seen numerous fouls called today on teams who had an opponent's ball enter their robot. If a team has put the ball in your robot, or it accidentally enters your robot, why should you be penalized for trying to remove it?

I understand why it has been called this way, but it's painful to see this create huge point differences...


https://fbcdn-photos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/1962726_10152477415083243_654916066_n.jpg

[XaulZan11]

I agree. It is extremely saddening to me that this caused 1114 to lose.

If I was 1285, 4476 or 2198, it would be pretty disheartening to hear people say I won two matches because of one 50 point penalty (in a match we won by 74 points).

[rkbot]

This. Teams need to know the rules. If you have a question, send a pre-college member to the question box to talk to the head ref asap after a match. That's the only way something could possibly be done.

Our team questioned the ref multiple times during GTRE. the ref there did not give any actual answer to some of our questions. During quarterfinals the opposing team directly dumped the ball into one of our alliance members robot. Of the 5 matches we lost, 3 of them were because of the massive penalties given, or not given (many of which easily noticeable in the game play) . Why should it be a 50 point penalty when an opposing robot directly puts their ball into our alliance members and they spit it right back out to them( I understand what the rules say, so dont tell me to read the previous posts)? The penalties given at these regionals are making to big of an impact. The penalties given should correspond to how many goals a robot can score in that time, a robot holding an opposing teams ball for 2 seconds should not count for 50 points. It can make a very large impact especially when the ref will not even give you an actual answer to why he gave you, or did not give a penalty.

[orangemoore]

I have a general question to ask.

Should a team receive a penalty during a match, but the after that match the ref/head ref does not and or cannot explain what the penalty was to that team?

Basically can someone get a penalty without a reason if they were to question the decision?

[JosephC]

Should penalties be assigned for any reason, even if a ref can't or does not explain it?

I'm not sure I understand the wording to your question.

[orangemoore]

I'm not sure I understand the wording to your question.

Does that help?

[IronicDeadBird]

Does that help?

You have to remember while your drive team is in charge of communicating with 1 alliance, and playing based on input you are getting from the field. A ref needs to keep track of both alliances, human players, robots, flying objects, and all sorts of other things. It isn't much of a shocker to me that a ref doesn't know about the penalty you got that one time during that one match.
I think in the end though no penalty is truly going to be placed on any team for no reason what so ever. Just because one ref doesn't know doesn't mean someone else wont know.

[pigpenguin]

A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered POSSESSED by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS an opponent’s BALL

Can we at least agree this is a bad way to word this rule? Sure it covers all the bases but it presents an odd situation (at least they way I am reading it). How do you design a bot that can intentially hold your ball but not your opponents?

[mwtidd]

On this note also, I would say be careful about calling for a dead ball twice in a match. As we saw at UNH this weekend, this can be grounds for a replay. The ball getting lodged in another team results in a 100 point penalty, however, you must wait for the head ref to suspend the cycle.

If an ALLIANCE’S BALL becomes stuck in an opposing ALLIANCE’S ROBOT, the Head Referee will signal an extended infraction of G12 (the assumption is that the ALLIANCE has already been penalized for the initial G12 infraction). At this point, the Head Referee will suspend the current CYCLE and re-illuminate the PEDESTAL, beginning another CYCLE for that ALLIANCE. If the stuck BALL is freed, that ball will be considered FIELD debris.

I would advise all teams not to call for a dead ball in this situation. In our third semifinal match we got the blue alliances ball stuck in our robot in this semifinal match (In what may be the best unintentional catch thus far).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcMtOky7rTo&list=UUjEb1dmLilMsJyhDvk57J7Q#t=170

You will see at 3:11 that the blue alliance on the right side of the screen holds up the dead ball sign. Then the match proceeds and one of their teammates gets the ball lodged in them. You can see at 3:56 that a second dead ball is called for.

Even though the second dead ball replacement is never put into play it was deemed that just calling for it was grounds for a replay of this semi final match. Luckily, this did not affect the outcome of this semifinal series, but under other circumstances it certainly could have.

[BigJ]

Can we at least agree this is a bad way to word this rule? Sure it covers all the bases but it presents an odd situation (at least they way I am reading it). How do you design a bot that can intentially hold your ball but not your opponents?

Require your bot to actuate to collect or catch a ball (put a collector out, spin your roller claw, open a pneumatic, etc) -- then, if you possess a ball, it was because your drivers actuated the machanism.

[pigpenguin]

Require your bot to actuate to collect or catch a ball (put a collector out, spin your roller claw, open a pneumatic, etc) -- then, if you possess a ball, it was because your drivers actuated the machanism.

This design allows you to both intentionality possess your ball and your opponents ball not only yours.

[MrTechCenter]

We had a similar situation yesterday at CVR. Our alliance's ball got stuck in the opposing alliance's robot and the opposing robot died on the field. In this instance, who is supposed to hold up the dead ball card? How is our alliance supposed to know if the opposing robot is dead or is going to try to spit the ball back out?

[BigJ]

This design allows you to both intentionality possess your ball and your opponents ball not only yours.

I misunderstood. Yes, saying "impossible to intentionally possess your opponents ball" is silly.

[drwisley]

This. Teams need to know the rules. If you have a question, send a pre-college member to the question box to talk to the head ref asap after a match. That's the only way something could possibly be done.

I have seen, at least a dozen, matches where the refs conferred, and locked down the result before the student in the question box was even approached. I asked some of these students a few times for feedback and responses from the refs were very similar...too late can't do anything now. The question box may help future matches, but nothing for the current ones.

[rkbot]

You have to remember while your drive team is in charge of communicating with 1 alliance, and playing based on input you are getting from the field. A ref needs to keep track of both alliances, human players, robots, flying objects, and all sorts of other things. It isn't much of a shocker to me that a ref doesn't know about the penalty you got that one time during that one match.
I think in the end though no penalty is truly going to be placed on any team for no reason what so ever. Just because one ref doesn't know doesn't mean someone else wont know.


It does not matter what another person knows because the head ref is in charge

[FrankJ]

We had a similar situation yesterday at CVR. Our alliance's ball got stuck in the opposing alliance's robot and the opposing robot died on the field. In this instance, who is supposed to hold up the dead ball card? How is our alliance supposed to know if the opposing robot is dead or is going to try to spit the ball back out?

That is two technical fouls & the Referee will declare the ball dead. No need to use your dead ball card.

[Karthik]

I agree. It is extremely saddening to me that this caused 1114 to lose. They had the best robot there and in my opinion should've won.

Thanks for the kind words, but we lost for a multitude of reasons, one of which was because our alliance violated rules that were clearly spelled out in the Game Manual. I've posted this already in another thread, but didn't want this comment to unchecked. No one should take anything away from the victory by the 4476/1285/2198 alliance, they deserved it entirely. I know we're not dwelling on penalties, rather brainstorming ways to improve our performance in future events.

I don't mean to single you out, Justin, but in general I dislike this trend on Chief of people diminishing the victories of others. Our team has been on both sides of this coin, and it's never fun. There absolutely needs to be discussion on the merits of various game rules and penalties, but we also need to be able to do it without marginalizing the efforts of the affected teams on both side of the result.

[GBK]

The rules are the rules. They are written in a very specific way and meant to be called in a very specific way. We are going to see times where the ref's make judgment calls and not everyone is going to agree with the outcome. We had a match yesterday that our opponent ended up with our ball for a short time and got rid of it as quickly as they could and did not get called on it. Had the call been made the way the rules stated, we would have won the match. However the way the call was made was consistent with how it was made all weekend. This game like any other game and for that matter Life itself has a certain element of luck. Lady luck was not on our side this time.

[MrTechCenter]

That is two technical fouls & the Referee will declare the ball dead. No need to use your dead ball card.

We were given 100 points for the two technicals but the ref told us that they were waiting for a dead ball card before re-lighting the pedestal. Their mistake, I guess.

[robochick862]

My two cents is that the game was designed for catching these balls and human player loading. So many teams have hopper like collector systems. My team was in a match where the opposing ball landed in our partners robot and they had technical difficulties prevented them from ejectong the ball. We got penalties for possessing and prolonged possessing. It just felt a bit unfair. They were doing everything they could to get rid of it. It's not like they were trying to continue playing with their ball. I think the whole "intentional" possessing is a hard call. Just like having your collector driven into and getting penalties for inside the frame perimeter.

Just my two cents. :/

[IronicDeadBird]

G12
An ALLIANCE may not POSSESS their opponent’s BALLS. The following criteria define POSSESSION :

“carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT or holding the BALL in or on the ROBOT),
“herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
“launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or
“trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL per instance. If extended, another TECHNICAL FOUL. If strategic, RED CARD for the ALLIANCE.


Examples of BALL interaction that are not POSSESSION are

A. “bulldozing” (inadvertently coming in contact with BALLS that happen to be in the path of the ROBOT as it moves about the FIELD) and

B. “deflecting” (a single hit to or being hit by a BALL that bounces or rolls off the ROBOT or a BALL slips through the grips of a ROBOT without arresting the BALL'S momentum).

A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered POSSESSED by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS an opponent’s BALL.

G14
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

Tl:DR
Punishing for accidents because your design should account for that.

[FrankJ]

We were given 100 points for the two technicals but the ref told us that they were waiting for a dead ball card before re-lighting the pedestal. Their mistake, I guess.

From Match Logistics 3.1.2
If an ALLIANCE’S BALL becomes stuck in an opposing ALLIANCE’S ROBOT, the Head Referee will signal an extended infraction of G12 (the assumption is that the ALLIANCE has already been penalized for the initial G12 infraction). At this point, the Head Referee will suspend the current CYCLE and re-illuminate the PEDESTAL, beginning another CYCLE for that ALLIANCE. If the stuck BALL is freed, that ball will be considered FIELD debris.

Refs need to read the manual too. :)
Please remember Referees are all volunteers doing a difficult job. I mean no disrespect to them.


The rule is the same for intentional or intentional procession.

[IronicDeadBird]

It does not matter what another person knows because the head ref is in charge

If it was only based on the head ref's decision they wouldn't provide multiple refs to keep track of the entire field.

[Caleb Sykes]

If I was 1285, 4476 or 2198, it would be pretty disheartening to hear people say I won two matches because of one 50 point penalty (in a match we won by 74 points).

This.

[Caleb Sykes]

Can we at least agree this is a bad way to word this rule? Sure it covers all the bases but it presents an odd situation (at least they way I am reading it). How do you design a bot that can intentially hold your ball but not your opponents?

I stand by my original statement (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124417&highlight=typo) that this is a typo that was never addressed. If it is not a typo, it is certainly a very silly blue box "clarification". I'd be willing to bet that there are no teams out there that designed their robot such that they cannot intentionally possess the opposing alliance's ball.