View Full Version : YMTC: Bluabot Pushes Red Vision Tetra
You Make The Call (YMTC) is a series of situations where you are the official and make the call. Please reference specific rules when applicable. The results of YMTC are not official and are for educational purposes only.
With 15 seconds remaining in the rubber match of the Magnolia finals, Redalliance is losing by 2 points when Redabot is the 3rd Redalliance 'bot in the end zone resulting in a 10 point score and an 8 point Redalliance lead. With no hope for Bluabot to score a tetra nor for all 3 Blualliance robots to go "home", Bluabot pushes a nearby red vision tetra toward Redalliance's end zone. With time running out, Bluabot manages to push the vision tetra against Redabot with the other side of the vision tetra touching the carpet outside the end zone.
Based on the 2005 Game Rules (http://www2.usfirst.org/2005comp/Section_4-The_Game_rev_B.pdf), YOU MAKE THE CALL!
bhweezer
09-04-2005, 22:06
In a different scenario ..
The last ten seconds of a match bluabot is pushing redabot, while redabot is trying to cap a tetra. The match ends and redabots arm is still in contact with the capped red tetra. The judges would not count the red tetra and would consider it an extension of redabot.
I think the judges should count the red vision tetra as an extension of redabot. Blue alliance wins.
Redalliance gets their 10 point bonus.
The revlevant rule:
<C03> All three ROBOTS of the same alliance in their designated END ZONE at the conclusion of a match is worth 10 points to the alliance. A ROBOT is not considered in the END ZONE if it is touching the field outside the defined END ZONE border. The tapeline designating the END ZONE border is considered in the END ZONE.
The definition of a robot:
ROBOT Anything (which has passed inspection) that a team places on the field prior to the start of a match.
The team didn't put the tetra on the field, did they?
Of course...it really isn't this straight foward, is it? All this stuff about tetras being part of the robot. I'd choose to believe that it's only true regarding a human player touching the tetra. But my preferred precedent here is that of a robot starting with a tetra.
<G04> At the discretion of the alliance, one (and only one) TETRA may be in the possession of one ROBOT in each alliance at the beginning of the match. The TETRA must be completely SUPPORTED by the ROBOT, not in contact with either the floor or any field element, and the ROBOT including any MECHANISMS designed to hold the TETRA must still satisfy the volume starting constraints specified in <G01>.
And it certainly is true that the tetra itself may extend beyond the dimensions of the robot. The robot in this case doesn't include the tetra, why would it in any case?
Why, when loading a tetra of course! Touching a tetra already on the robot is a violation of <S07> for touching your robot. Notice, this is a safety rule. Touching a tetra already on the bot is a bit of a safety concern. Aside from that, though, is there any other reason?
In a different scenario ..
The last ten seconds of a match bluabot is pushing redabot, while redabot is trying to cap a tetra. The match ends and redabots arm is still in contact with the capped red tetra. The judges would not count the red tetra and would consider it an extension of redabot.
Incorrect. The tetra is not scored because it doesn't satisfy the definition of stacked.
STACKED A TETRA is STACKED when it is placed on top of a GOAL or on top of another STACKED TETRA. To be considered STACKED, the TETRA must be properly seated on the subordinate GOAL or TETRA such that all four apex connectors are within six inches of the SUPPORTING structure. Due to the GOAL and TETRA geometries, a TETRA may occasionally not completely seat on the GOAL or subordinate TETRA, and remain precariously positioned on top of the structure. Such TETRAS are not considered STACKED. A TETRA is not considered STACKED if it is touching a ROBOT of the same alliance.
Which is why robots must back away for a tetra to be scored.
Incorrect. The tetra is not scored because it doesn't satisfy the definition of stacked.
Which is why robots must back away for a tetra to be scored.
bhweezer said that the judges (refs) would not count the tetra as it is considered part of the robot. (Or did you notice that when you quoted him?)
bhweezer said that the judges (refs) would not count the tetra as it is considered part of the robot. (Or did you notice that when you quoted him?)
I was explaining why the precedent for end of game goal contact doesn't correspond to this situation.
Well, in one match at buckeye, we had every bot across the line, but one of them had brought a tetra into the end zone. From our viewpoint, it was no longer touching the tetra, it just had its manipulator inside with no contact, We didn't get the points because the judges thought it was touching. So while this situation isn't very GP, blue wins
Nate Edwards
10-04-2005, 01:18
We had a sort of related problem at Portland, the pacific northwest regional semis. We lost by 2 points 39-37 in the third match, our alliance partner pulled their 3rd alliance partner out of the endzone wiht about 1 second left and they were no longer in the endzone but still touching the robot on our alliances robot. I never got clarification on exactly what the ruling was but it was definatly a close match like the one described above.
With 15 seconds remaining in the rubber match of the Magnolia finals, Redalliance is losing by 2 points when Redabot is the 3rd Redalliance 'bot in the end zone resulting in a 10 point score and an 8 point Redalliance lead. With no hope for Bluabot to score a tetra nor for all 3 Blualliance robots to go "home", Bluabot pushes a nearby red vision tetra toward Redalliance's end zone. With time running out, Bluabot manages to push the vision tetra against Redabot with the other side of the vision tetra touching the carpet outside the end zone.
I would say they get the 10pt bonus for being in the endzone. I do not see anywhere in the rules that a tetra is considered part of their robot in this situation or in any other debatable situation like this. I would say this is a crappy way to lose the points if you were sitting there at the end and the opponent could do that to negate your bonus. As a matter of fact, hopefully this will be cleared up very soon by FIRST with an answer to the following Q/A...
ID: 1852 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Unanswered Date Posted: 4/6/2005
Q: Please identify ANY and ALL cases in which a TETRA is considered and extension of a Robot. Is it ONLY during the HP loading function, or are there other situations this applies?
And also ID1849 and 1851 which ask more specific questions. Hopefully the answer comes back as per the existing rules, that a tetra is only part of a robot in the case of the (HP) loading station (I'm pretty sure that's the only case right now).
The situation below me is an interesting one. I think if the robot would clearly be in the endzone if the tetra were removed, then it should count. However - let's say the robots arm is resting on top of a tetra outside the endzone. If they remove that tetra, the arm most likely falls down and hits the floor, therefore making it outside the endzone. Do the refs remove the tetra to see if that happens? I would say they should, as now it's not a matter of just touching a tetra outside (which should be fine), but now it's being supported in a manner where they shouldn't be considered in the zone.
Kevin Kolodziej
10-04-2005, 02:33
As has been discussed, the only time a tetra is considered part of a robot is when it is being loaded from the human player. If the robot is holding a tetra and that tetra is touching a stacked tetra (of same color), the stacked tetra still counts because the robot is not directly touching it. As long as no part of the robot is touching the carpet outside the endzone, it is in the endzone, whether or not it is touching anything outside the endzone.
Now if the blue team managed to get the tetra under the red bot so that the red bot is supported by the tetra, which is touching outside the endzone, that is a different story - one that I would say does NOT give the red alliance three bots in the endzone. I suppose one could argue that if the tetra were removed, however, that the red bot would fall into the zone and still be counted. Hmmm...that is a situation that would be a tough call (unless I am completely forgetting about something in the rules!).
Kev
The tetra is not an extntion of the robot period. Red wins.
JWhiskers
10-04-2005, 09:40
During one of our qualification matches at Detroit, the other alliance had all three of their robots behind the line. But one of them was holding a tetra that was touching outside the line. They did not get their 10 points because of that tetra.
If the rules are followed to the letter I believe that the red alliance would lose their ten points
During one of our qualification matches at Detroit, the other alliance had all three of their robots behind the line. But one of them was holding a tetra that was touching outside the line. They did not get their 10 points because of that tetra.
If the rules are followed to the letter I believe that the red alliance would lose their ten points
I like the idea that a tetra which has been loaded onto the robot is considered an extension of it, especially when the mechanism holding it would fall out of the line. That is, a tetra loaded at a loading station, or lifted intentionally off the ground, is a part of the bot as long as it remains on the bot. Would be nice.
Edit: That'd only be in terms of a any contact the bot makes, though. If the bot is controlling it, then why should it be allowed to make any contact the bot can't. Still, on this idea, you could say the tetra you're trying to score as time runs out is touching the one under it, therefore disqualifying both :/ Another reason contact after it is scored and backed away from shouldn't descore a stacked tetra.
With 15 seconds remaining in the rubber match of the Magnolia finals, Redalliance is losing by 2 points when Redabot is the 3rd Redalliance 'bot in the end zone resulting in a 10 point score and an 8 point Redalliance lead. With no hope for Bluabot to score a tetra nor for all 3 Blualliance robots to go "home", Bluabot pushes a nearby red vision tetra toward Redalliance's end zone. With time running out, Bluabot manages to push the vision tetra against Redabot with the other side of the vision tetra touching the carpet outside the end zone.
Not sure why this one .... (Lucien can fill in the rest)
With the exception of when the robot is interacting with the Human Player in the Loading Zone, a tetra loaded on a robot is not considered an extension of the robot (the one exception is for safety reasons). Having a red tetra touching the Redabot does not negate the fact that Redabot is behind the End Zone line. Redabot is legal, Redateam gets the 10 point bonus, Redalliance wins!
The one difficulty with this problem is that in order to satisfy the YMTC requirements (i.e. cite specific supporting clauses from the 2005 Rules to support your argument), we would have to find a rule that specifically says that an attached tetra is considered part of the robot (or not considered, if we want to prove the negative) at any other time. I do not believe that any such rule exists. At best, we must work within the definition of "Robot" provided in Sectino 4.2.1 of the rules, "ROBOT Anything (which has passed inspection) that a team places on the field prior to the start of a match." That definition does not include any mention of a tetra. Therefore, the game must operate under the interpretation of "robot" as not including a tetra placed on the robot. That is probably as close as we can get to making this a complete YMTC response.
During one of our qualification matches at Detroit, the other alliance had all three of their robots behind the line. But one of them was holding a tetra that was touching outside the line. They did not get their 10 points because of that tetra.
If it was actually called this way (and I was not there, so I cannot attest that this is actually what happened), then the call was incorrect.
-dave
With the exception of when the robot is interacting with the Human Player in the Loading Zone, a tetra loaded on a robot is not considered an extension of the robot (the one exception is for safety reasons).
Dave, wouldn't the same be true if a robot is holding a tetra, approaches an autoloader, and subsequently knocks the tetra off the loader before entering the zone?
many of you have said that a tetra only counts as part of your robot during human loading, but it also counts with cases of the autoloader. If a robot has a tetra in its possession and that tetra makes contact with another tetra on the autoloader, then because the held tetra is part of the robot, the robot has made contact with the autoloader tetra while not being in the auto loading zone, and should be addressed a 10 point penalty.
Dave, wouldn't the same be true if a robot is holding a tetra, approaches an autoloader, and subsequently knocks the tetra off the loader before entering the zone?
I believe that would be a penalty for loading from outside of the loading zone. The bot is responsible to control its tetra.
Jack Jones
10-04-2005, 16:43
I believe that would be a penalty for loading from outside of the loading zone. The bot is responsible to control its tetra.
I think it should be obvious to all that a tetra carried by a robot is considered to be part of that robot, except when it's not! :rolleyes:
I think it should be obvious to all that a tetra carried by a robot is considered to be part of that robot, except when it's not! :rolleyes:
:o Heheh, it sounded funny to be saying, too. But still, it's more of an "isn't part of the robot, except when it is." under the current rulings, then the only exception is loading.
I feel an appropriate way to cover it all is that a tetra loaded on a bot (either by human loading, auto loading, or pickup on the field) is considered part of the robot when determining if the bot is in contact with something (specifically a loader or the field) because the bot is in control of the tetra, and the tetra may under certain conditions may support the bot. This doesn't seem to be true, though, as accordng to Dave, a robot may rest on a tetra outside of the end line, and still earn the 10 point bonus.
I have to say the play was smart. Seeing as how the alliance member also looked ahead to determine that their alliance would be in the losing alliance, they simply used the elements that they were granted with on the field, a vision tetra, and used to to their advantage. I say it's clean and fair that they used the tetra to stop possible points, as the vision tetras were also used to stop robots from capping the goals by being pushed in front of their 'bot while the arm was in the process of hanging, so why not be able to use the vision tetra to stop the homezone bonus from being scored?
many of you have said that a tetra only counts as part of your robot during human loading, but it also counts with cases of the autoloader.
I still haven't seen the rule that says a tetra is part of the robot when at the autoloading zone, even with the definitions of "robot", etc.
I feel an appropriate way to cover it all is that a tetra loaded on a bot (either by human loading, auto loading, or pickup on the field) is considered part of the robot when determining if the bot is in contact with something (specifically a loader or the field) because the bot is in control of the tetra, and the tetra may under certain conditions may support the bot. This doesn't seem to be true, though, as accordng to Dave, a robot may rest on a tetra outside of the end line, and still earn the 10 point bonus.
I think the rules regarding this are ok as is, as long as they are called consistently. A tetra merely touching a robot in the endzone is fine. If a robot arm is supported by that tetra, and otherwise would be outside the zone, that's iffy but appears to be within the rules. Going along those lines, I suppose you'd also have to consider when a robot runs out of time trying to cap, and that tetra is touching the stack, currently that should be fine... but what happens if you remove that tetra, is it supporting the arm to keep it from touching the stack? It would take even longer to score if this had to be done, and another judgement call (unless they physically remove the tetra, which might not be possible at the time).
I think it should be the way it is now. Tetra is part of the robot in the case of HP zone. So long as the "robot" as defined, is not touching a stack or outside the endzone or the autoload tetra, it's good.
I have to say the play was smart. Seeing as how the alliance member also looked ahead to determine that their alliance would be in the losing alliance, they simply used the elements that they were granted with on the field, a vision tetra, and used to to their advantage. I say it's clean and fair that they used the tetra to stop possible points, as the vision tetras were also used to stop robots from capping the goals by being pushed in front of their 'bot while the arm was in the process of hanging, so why not be able to use the vision tetra to stop the homezone bonus from being scored?
I'd agree with you if the vision tetra were pushed into the end zone before the bot. Then, there's no question - the robot itself is not over the line, no matter what. However, the tetra isn't the robot. The tetra touching the outside shouldn't be a problem.
I think the rules regarding this are ok as is, as long as they are called consistently. A tetra merely touching a robot in the endzone is fine. If a robot arm is supported by that tetra, and otherwise would be outside the zone, that's iffy but appears to be within the rules. Going along those lines, I suppose you'd also have to consider when a robot runs out of time trying to cap, and that tetra is touching the stack, currently that should be fine... but what happens if you remove that tetra, is it supporting the arm to keep it from touching the stack? It would take even longer to score if this had to be done, and another judgement call (unless they physically remove the tetra, which might not be possible at the time).
I think it should be the way it is now. Tetra is part of the robot in the case of HP zone. So long as the "robot" as defined, is not touching a stack or outside the endzone or the autoload tetra, it's good.
I agree with you on the first part. Though the rules don't make it all explicitly obvious, as long as the call is consistantly only regarding loading zones (both, or just human, whatever is decided) it's all good.
The reason it's an issue with the autoloading zone is that you may be able to use it to pull a tetra in, or in another manner load it, without being in the loading zone. A safety hazard, for numerous reasons. The most apparent being that the attendant will not load another tetra until you leave the zone. If you never enter, how do they know when you've left? :/ Counting it as a part of the robot or not, the carried tetra hitting the autoloader tetra is a safety hazard, and should be ruled as such.
I agree with you on the first part. Though the rules don't make it all explicitly obvious, as long as the call is consistantly only regarding loading zones (both, or just human, whatever is decided) it's all good.
The reason it's an issue with the autoloading zone is that you may be able to use it to pull a tetra in, or in another manner load it, without being in the loading zone. A safety hazard, for numerous reasons. The most apparent being that the attendant will not load another tetra until you leave the zone. If you never enter, how do they know when you've left? :/ Counting it as a part of the robot or not, the carried tetra hitting the autoloader tetra is a safety hazard, and should be ruled as such.
Well - according to Q/A 1851-1852, you can be touching a stacked tetra with a tetra, and it will still count, as it should. You can be touching a tetra that is outside the endzone line, and still get the bonus points, as it should be. I'm still not sure about "a robot being supported" by a tetra outside the endzone line (where the robot would otherwise be touching outside the endzone), but at this point, seems legal according to the rule as long as the robot itself is not touching outside the line.
If you use a tetra to violate G15, you get penalty. If you remove an oppoents tetra from their autostation, you'll get a penalty (G28). If you descore a stacked tetra from a goal with a tetra in your gripper, it's a penalty (G18-so technically the tetra is part of the robot in this case per the definition of that rule).
So, with that, I'm assuming if we're holding a tetra, and that accidentally knocks off our own auto tetra, it's also a penalty.... I guess technically it should be, but this should be included in the definition of when a tetra is part of the robot. I don't think they were calling these penalties at some regionals, and just picked the tetra up and put it back on the loader (even if it fell inside the field).
Dave, wouldn't the same be true if a robot is holding a tetra, approaches an autoloader, and subsequently knocks the tetra off the loader before entering the zone?
A reasonable question. The answer from FIRST is "no." It was recently answered on the Q&A system in the following manner:
1852 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 4/13/2005
Q: Please identify ANY and ALL cases in which a TETRA is considered and extension of a Robot. Is it ONLY during the HP loading function, or are there other situations this applies?
A: The tetra is considered part of the robot only during the human player loading sequence. This is for safety reasons. However, a tetra being carried by a robot is still the responsibility of the robot in situations such as de-scoring, removing tetras from an opponents automated loading zone, loading zone interference, etc. In these cases, causality will be the determining factor whether to assess a penalty, etc. Please see updated Q&A 1824 as described in Team Update 18, as well as the updated G15 examples in Team Update #20 that will be posted on Thursday, 4/14/2005.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.