G43 loophole

[martin417]

G43 seems to have a loophole.

If you are in contact with a defense, but your bumpers are not breaking the plane of the outer works (for instance, you have grabbed the top of the drawbridge and are pulling it down by backing away from the outer works), are you still protected? The way the rules are now written I don't think so.

That means that once a robot begins opening the category C defenses, as soon as its bumper clears the plane of the outer works, you can ram them away from the defense.

I expect that to be rectified in a team update.

[AndyBare]

G43: ROBOTS on the same half of the FIELD as their ALLIANCE TOWER may not interfere with opponent ROBOTS attempting to traverse OUTER WORKS (regardless of direction). A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS.

So by this, we know that "A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS."

But the rule, however, also states that "You may not interfere with opponent ROBOTS attempting to traverse. It doesn't say they have to be traversing. If they're in contact with a defense, I think it will be obvious that they're "attempting to traverse" the outer-works.

Hope maybe that this clarifies the issues with how the rule is worded?

[martin417]

I understand the wording, including the "attempting to traverse". Also, I believe the intent of the rule is to not allow such defense. However, the way "traversing" is defined is very specific.:

ROBOTS on the same half of the FIELD as their ALLIANCE TOWER may not interfere with opponent ROBOTS attempting to traverse OUTER WORKS (regardless of direction). A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS.

So, conversely, if no part of the robot's bumpers are within the opponent's outer works (also clearly defined in the rules) then they are not traversing, and therefore not protected.

[Pongox]

True, but as AndyBare said, the robot does not have to be traversing the defense, only attempting to traverse.

[nick4130]

Wow this is Intresting

[martin417]

True, but as AndyBare said, the robot does not have to be traversing the defense, only attempting to traverse.

Please read the definition of traversing (highlighted in red above)

[AndyBare]

Please read the definition of traversing (highlighted in red above)

But all you need to do is attempt to traverse. He understands that.

[Monochron]

But all you need to do is attempt to traverse. He understands that.

How you define "attempting" could be very different than he does though. Does the lead up to a traverse fall under "attempting"? What about when you fail a traverse? When does the "attempt" end?

[Tymethy]

G43 seems to have a loophole.

If you are in contact with a defense, but your bumpers are not breaking the plane of the outer works (for instance, you have grabbed the top of the drawbridge and are pulling it down by backing away from the outer works), are you still protected? The way the rules are now written I don't think so.

That means that once a robot begins opening the category C defenses, as soon as its bumper clears the plane of the outer works, you can ram them away from the defense.

I expect that to be rectified in a team update.

They should be protected under 3.1.3 where it goes more into detail what crossing is it states:

"A DEFENSE is CROSSED by a ROBOT when that ROBOT

■ starts free of contact with the DEFENSE and completely in the NEUTRAL ZONE"

So the robot is also in the process of crossing if it is not "free of contact with the DEFENSE" so the robot is then protected.

[rich2202]

Note: If you have an extension that is holding the door open, and that extension is in the Outerworks, then the robot is in the outerworks.

Note2: The door does extend into the neutral zone, so there could be a time when the robot is full outside of Outerworks, yet still in contact with the defense.

Maybe a Q&A requesting a clarification that robot is "in the outerworks" or "in contact with the defense".

[cmwilson13]

How you define "attempting" could be very different than he does though. Does the lead up to a traverse fall under "attempting"? What about when you fail a traverse? When does the "attempt" end?

They define traversing in the rule and according to that definition contact alone is not traversing. Only breaking the plane of the outer works is defined as traversing. Here is the pertinent line

A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS.

If you backup to pull down the bridge you are no longer breaking the plane of the outer works

[AndyBare]

They define traversing in the rule and according to that definition contact alone is not traversing. Only breaking the plane of the outer works is defined as traversing. Here is the pertinent line

A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS.

If you backup to pull down the bridge you are no longer breaking the plane of the outer works

But would you agree that pulling a gate down in an attempt to traverse the outer works is "attempting to traverse"? That's the key.

[cmwilson13]

No. They defined traversing and contact is not listed anywhere

[martin417]

Since there is no definition in the rules for "attempting to traverse", then "attempting" has no meaning withing the rules.

So, how does a ref decide if a robot is "attempting"? Is moving towards the defense attempting? It could be, because The robot is attempting to get to the outer works. There is no way the GDC will allow such an ambiguous definition to stand. Expect a team update where they include "contacting any part of the defense" to the definition of "traversing".

[AndyBare]

Expect a team update where they include "contacting any part of the defense" to the definition of "traversing".

Bingo

[cmwilson13]

I very much hope so.

[martin417]

Note: If you have an extension that is holding the door open, and that extension is in the Outerworks, then the robot is in the outerworks.

Note2: The door does extend into the neutral zone, so there could be a time when the robot is full outside of Outerworks, yet still in contact with the defense.

Maybe a Q&A requesting a clarification that robot is "in the outerworks" or "in contact with the defense".

Read the definition again, carefully. The definition explicitly says a robot is traversing if "any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS."

An extension is not a bumper.

[AndyBare]

Read the definition again, carefully. The definition explicitly says a robot is traversing if "any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS."

An extension is not a bumper.

Name the robot "Its bumpers." I've solved it!

[GeeTwo]

My understanding: Once the robot bumpers enter the outer works, the traversal attempt has begun. As you pull the door down and back out of the outer works, because the traversal is defined such that you start not in contact with the defense, the traversal attempt continues.

Still need a GDC confirmation.

[DKolberg]

I would think that when you pull down the drawbridge, the part you run over is still part of the outerworks and therefore you can not hit someone.

[rich2202]

I would think that when you pull down the drawbridge, the part you run over is still part of the outerworks and therefore you can not hit someone.

Nope. The part of the drawbridge does not extend Outer Works into the Neutral Zone.

[GaryVoshol]

My understanding: Once the robot bumpers enter the outer works, the traversal attempt has begun. As you pull the door down and back out of the outer works, because the traversal is defined such that you start not in contact with the defense, the traversal attempt continues.

Still need a GDC confirmation.

A good reasonable interpretation - can you confirm with Q&A when it opens? Because reasonable or not, until the GDC says you're right, you're not right.

(I'm just a lowly head ref not on a team so I don't have Q&A asking rights.)