View Full Version : Pinning? Apparently I just don't seem to understand
Hello everyone!
Just got back from the Pittsburg regional...dissapointing.
Could someone PLEASE explain to me what is said in rule G24 about pinning. If my comuter is displaying the correct words, i believe that what I think it means is correct. :confused:
From the manual that i downloaded it states that you are NOT allowed to pin ANY robot against a barrier or field element for more than 10 seconds. :confused: :confused:
If ANYBODY out there can help to clear this up for me that would be GREATLY appreciated.
Thank You,
Team 888
Freddy Schurr
12-03-2006, 11:09
Yes, once you pin the robot for 10 seconds, the opposing robot must back off. However the robot can continue to pin and the referee will called 10 seconds and then it has to back off.
Thank You
Also, is G24 the final version of that rule or is there an update somewhere that i missed
Team 888
Greg Marra
12-03-2006, 11:28
The rule also very explicitly states "on a carpeted surface" since the ramp and the platform are not carpeted, pinning on these for longer than ten seconds is allowed within the rules (say, to get extra points by keeping an opposing robot on your platform).
The rule also very explicitly states "on a carpeted surface" since the ramp and the platform are not carpeted, pinning on these for longer than ten seconds is allowed within the rules (say, to get extra points by keeping an opposing robot on your platform).
On a note to that rule, pinning a robot at the front of the ramp (where you could push them up) still has the 10 second rule apply. It was called at the Arizona Regional and will probably be called elsewhere. I missed the part about pinning against field elements.
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!
Then could you PLEASE find an explanation for WHY TEAM 888's ROBOT WAS PINNED ON THE CARPET AGAINST THE RAMP FOR OVER OVER OVER OVER OVER I'll repeat that in case you missed. OVER
:ahh: :ahh: 40 SECONDS :ahh: :ahh:
IN THE THIRD GAME OF THE SEMIFINAL MATCH AT THE PITTSBURG REGIONAL.
Thank You
Team 888
Oh, I forgot to mention,
:( and not a SINGLE penalty awarded to the opposing alliance. :(
Eugenia Gabrielov
12-03-2006, 12:02
I'm sorry to hear you were pinned for that time. Could you please elaborate as to whether or not you spoke with a referee about this after the match, or whether you let it hang? Sometimes a question to clarify a penalty decision can make a big difference.
Yes we did ask the referee.
Myself and my co-driver went to the head referee after the game.
She told us that since it was a field element and not a barrier the rule did not apply. We ended up tying the game somehow though and i did not have time then to look up the rule (since I could remeber the exact wording) beause we were being rushed to redeploy our robot.
I did not look up the rule until i got home (BAD IDEA)
from what i read she was completely wrong.
A member of our team did video tape the game so when i go into school on monday i will be able to post the video and you can see exactly what happened.
888
Eugenia Gabrielov
12-03-2006, 13:16
I'm sorry to hear about that penalty. Unfortunately, by not calling the rule there, there isn't much that can be done. Better luck next time.
Our drive team carries a rule book in their cart, just for a case like this.
Our drive team carries a rule book in their cart, just for a case like this.
That is a great idea, I will definently have one with me at all times at Annapolis. It was just in the heat of the competition and watching the refs discuss the final score for 5 minutes that I assumed(I know, I am never supposed to do that) that one of them had refered to the rulebook before making a final descion. I will know better next time.
What part of the ramp were you near? I don't think it should matter (considering the pinning penalty against our alliance was called for pinning a robot against the front of the ramp, where you can drive straight up), but some refs may deem that being pinned against the front is not considered "pinning" because you can drive up the ramp to escape.
Stu Bloom
13-03-2006, 09:26
What part of the ramp were you near? I don't think it should matter (considering the pinning penalty against our alliance was called for pinning a robot against the front of the ramp, where you can drive straight up), but some refs may deem that being pinned against the front is not considered "pinning" because you can drive up the ramp to escape.I can assure you that this WILL be discussed amongst the head referees before the next set of regional competitions. My interpretation is that pinning is called when your robot is pinned against a field element in such a way that it CANNOT move. If you could have moved away (by driving up the ramp) but chose not to do so, then that is NOT considered pinning. Also note that the penalty is not assessed until after the 10 second count if the offending robot has not backed away.
And don't forget, we refs are only human (AND volunteers). While I believe ALL FIRST referees do the best job they can to help teams avoid penalties while objectively making the best call we can, it is possible to make a mistake. Even highly paid professional referees officiating games where the rules remain constant from year to year make extremely costly mistakes from time to time.
Since we are all talking about G24, I'd thought I'd post it so that we are all on the same page. This is taken from Rev D of The Game
Pinning - While on the carpeted field surface, a ROBOT cannot pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border) for more than 10 seconds. This rule does not apply if either ROBOT is entirely on an ALLIANCE PLATFORM. If a ROBOT has been pinned for 10 seconds, the team with the pinning ROBOT will be told by a referee to release the pinned ROBOT and back away approximately 3 feet. Once the pinning ROBOT has backed off by 3 feet, it may again attempt to pin its opponent, and if successful, the 10 second count will start over. If a referee determines that this rule has been violated, a 5-point penalty flag will be assessed for each violation.
Wetzel
Dillon Compton
13-03-2006, 10:06
It seems to me that one cannot be "pinned" against the front of the ramp... It is an open surface on which a robot can drive- perhaps a team neglected to design their robot with the ability to climb the ramp, but that does not call for a rule-change for their team in such a situation.
If it was against the SIDE of the ramp which creates a clear barrier over which movement is impossible, I would understand the confusion with the rule.
As I understand the situation now, it was clearly possible for a robot to drive up the ramp and avoid being pinned.
I agree with the refs on this one.
-Dillon Compton
team 1394
The Lucas
13-03-2006, 10:48
:ahh: :ahh: 40 SECONDS :ahh: :ahh:
IN THE THIRD GAME OF THE SEMIFINAL MATCH AT THE PITTSBURG REGIONAL.
I literally had a front row seat for this occurrence (front row of padded chairs right along the red ramp in question) so here is how I saw it:
Redabot spun 888 around so that its shooter was not facing the goal. Then Redabot pushes 888 against red ramp then backs off slightly so that 888's 4 wheels (2 drive, 2 caster) are on the carpet and 888 is not simultaneously making contact with Redabot and the ramp. 888's drive wheels were closest to Redabot and their casters were closest to the ramp. This wheel configuration along with their bumpers made it such that 888 could drive back and forth but not up the ramp or turn 90 degrees.
Later, one of the refs started a pinning count presumably after realizing 888 could move but could not get out of this situation. I would estimate over half the bots could have gotten out of that situation by driving up the ramp or turning. Redabot backed off immediately, but later pushed 888 up the ramp to score the points that would tie that match.
I am interested to hear how refs like Stu would interpret this situation since there is no simultaneous contact between the bots and ramp, which is a easily escapable situation for many robots.
coldabert
13-03-2006, 13:42
Allow me to give you guys some more information to consider:
Earlier in the match, we were intentionally rammed by another bot while setting near the ramp. They rammed us so hard that it bent the 1/8 inch plate that our front-left caster was mounted to. This disabled our robot from being able to climb the ramp without another robot pushing us. Once, the opposing alliance realized that we could not climb the ramp, they pinned us against a ramp that we could never have climbed (and by "pinned" i mean positioned their robot so that we could not move away from our position, and we were making contact with them when we tried to drive away from them. And... there is no specification in the rules about how close or far away from robot you must be to pin them. ).
chrisinmd
13-03-2006, 14:02
I happened to be standing behind the alliance station during this match, and I witnessed our driver, Brindza, repeatedly trying to drive forward and backwards, to no avail. In my opinion, when your robot cannot move, this is a pin.
KenWittlief
13-03-2006, 14:15
being held against a field object (pinned) with the other robot continuously holding you there
and being cornered in a spot that you cannot get out of (by pushing the other robot out of your way)
are not the same thing.
If a robot is blocking your path, but not touching you, then you are not pinned.
DjAlamose
13-03-2006, 14:19
Pinning on the ramp is acceptable. I don’t have a rule to quote right now but ill work on finding it. A robot can pin another robot on the ramp for any duration of the match. Whether it’s on the top or the sides, I don't know if that makes a difference. Again I will look for the rule unless someone else posts it.
KenWittlief
13-03-2006, 14:34
Pinning on the ramp is acceptable..
only as long as neither robot is on the carpet. In the case in question one robot had been pushed up on the ramp while the other was still on the carpet.
Stu Bloom
13-03-2006, 14:57
Allow me to give you guys some more information to consider:
Earlier in the match, we were intentionally rammed by another bot while setting near the ramp. They rammed us so hard that it bent the 1/8 inch plate that our front-left caster was mounted to. This disabled our robot from being able to climb the ramp without another robot pushing us. Once, the opposing alliance realized that we could not climb the ramp, they pinned us against a ramp that we could never have climbed (and by "pinned" i mean positioned their robot so that we could not move away from our position, and we were making contact with them when we tried to drive away from them. And... there is no specification in the rules about how far away from robot you must be to pin them. After all, the molecules of each robot are never really being held against each other).
The purpose of the pin rule is to prevent an alliance from scoring a point and then completely stopping the opposing alliance from having any oppurtunity to defend or score.
:mad: <-the only smily i have used in 3 years
First of all " :mad: Bogus refs" was completely in-appropriate. I think you chose a very bad time to use "the only smiley I have used in three years".
Let's move on to your issues:
As I have said many times, and will continue to repeat: PLEASE read the rules ...
Intentional ramming is EXPLICITLY allowed in the rules this year with one exception. Refer to <G22> (emphasis added):• Rule <R35> in Section 5.3.4 establishes ROBOT BUMPER ZONEs. Any contact within this zone is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed long distance ramming...I suspect they were trying to disrupt your scoring capability. It is clear to me that this type of play is intended and perhaps even encouraged this year. I have developed this opinion based on the following:
The explicit statement that any bumper zone contact is acceptable in the rule quote above.
Then you have the required 40 second period where each alliance is required to play "defense".
And last, but certainly not least, is the incentive of additional size and weight allowance to add bumpers to your robot.
If your team read the rules and did not plan and design a robot for this type of game (using bumpers AND a robust design - 1/8" aluminum sheet is not very strong) then I think you made an error in judgment.
Regarding the pinning rule, I am curious as to how you have inside information regarding the "purpose of the pin rule". Are you on the Game Design Committee?
As i mentioned in an earlier post, this rule/issue WILL be discussed amongst the head referees before next weekend, but please know that it already has been discussed at length and the consensus is that pinning means pinning ... it is really pretty simple (from dictionary.com: "To hold fast; immobilize: The passenger was pinned under the wreckage of the truck)".
edit Additionally, I just realized that the rule actually contains a relevant definition - quoted: "inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". As you described the incident it sounds like you had to move away from the ramp to make contact with the "pinning" robot - clearly not within the "FIRST" definition./edit
If you are PINNED AGAINST a field element such that you are unable to move away then the 10 second pinning count will be started. It IS LEGAL to pin for 10 seconds - the penalty is only imposed if the offending robot does not back away after 10 seconds. If you don't understand this then please re-read the rule very carefully, deciphering one word at a time if necessary.
Pinning on the ramp is acceptable. I don’t have a rule to quote right now but ill work on finding it. A robot can pin another robot on the ramp for any duration of the match. Whether it’s on the top or the sides, I don't know if that makes a difference. Again I will look for the rule unless someone else posts it.Rule quoted in post 15 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=469573&postcount=15) of this thread by Wetzel (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/member.php?u=407) - Thanks Wetzel!
only as long as neither robot is on the carpet. In the case in question one robot had been pushed up on the ramp while the other was still on the carpet.Sorry Ken ... not correct. Per <G24>:...This rule does not apply if either ROBOT is entirely on an ALLIANCE PLATFORM...
I literally had a front row seat for this occurrence (front row of padded chairs right along the red ramp in question) so here is how I saw it:
Redabot spun 888 around so that its shooter was not facing the goal. Then Redabot pushes 888 against red ramp then backs off slightly so that 888's 4 wheels (2 drive, 2 caster) are on the carpet and 888 is not simultaneously making contact with Redabot and the ramp. 888's drive wheels were closest to Redabot and their casters were closest to the ramp. This wheel configuration along with their bumpers made it such that 888 could drive back and forth but not up the ramp or turn 90 degrees.
Later, one of the refs started a pinning count presumably after realizing 888 could move but could not get out of this situation. I would estimate over half the bots could have gotten out of that situation by driving up the ramp or turning. Redabot backed off immediately, but later pushed 888 up the ramp to score the points that would tie that match.
I am interested to hear how refs like Stu would interpret this situation since there is no simultaneous contact between the bots and ramp, which is a easily escapable situation for many robots.
I am not sure where you were sitting but obvisouly you had a bad "angle". I am whatching the videotape as i write this post and i can give you a play by play account.
We were fighting for position in front of the high goal with team 1370, when they pushed our robot halfway up the ramp to keep us from shooting(completely legit and a good defensive call on thier part.) However, the force up the ramp caused our already strained casters from the previous matches to finally bend so that our robot could no longer make it up the ramp by ourselves. As our robot rolled back down the ramp, team 1370's robot backed up in front of ours so that they blocked us from moving after our robot was completely on the carpet. Team 1370's robot was sideways, perpindicular to the back of our robot. So i dont no how they backed up a little as you said. 1370 proceeded to leave their robot there when they realized that we could neither get up the ramp or push them off or turn.
After about 15 seconds of spinning our wheels desperately trying to free our robot the ref comes over to begin the count, relieving ourselves since we believed that they would be charged a penalty(it would be at least 20 points by that time). Since we believed that they were going to recieve a penalty and compensate for the time that was taken away from us to shoot i did not ask our allaince partners to push 1370 off our robot. Then abruptly the ref stopped the count and just watched as we could not move for another 20 seconds.
Afterwards, when we reviewed the video, our robot was completely pinned for a continuous 42 seconds.
and again i am uploading the video to this computer now so in time you will be able to see for yourselfs and have a first hand account.
KenWittlief
13-03-2006, 15:26
if 1370 was sideways and your bot rolled down the ramp into their bot, then they are not pinning you, they are blocking your path.
Unfortunately your bot was damaged and unable to climb the ramp to go around.
There is nothing in the rules that says you have to get out of a damaged robots path and allow them to go where they want to.
KenWittlief
13-03-2006, 15:28
Sorry Ken ... not correct. Per <G24>:
Stu is right - I read the "While on the carpeted field surface, a ROBOT cannot pin..." part and thought that was the defining requirement.
Eugenia Gabrielov
13-03-2006, 15:34
Please post this video instead of arguing and referencing it.
There are so many versions of this match floating around, and so many possible rule interpretations, that this thread is fairly useless until you can justify your anger with visual evidence.
Please continue attempts to be civil.
- Genia
Ryan Foley
13-03-2006, 15:35
It seems to me that one cannot be "pinned" against the front of the ramp... It is an open surface on which a robot can drive- perhaps a team neglected to design their robot with the ability to climb the ramp, but that does not call for a rule-change for their team in such a situation.
As I understand the situation now, it was clearly possible for a robot to drive up the ramp and avoid being pinned.
-Dillon Compton
team 1394
What if the robot was turned sideways? If it's wheels were parallel to the ramp, the steep angle of the ramp could possibly keep the robot from being pushed up the ramp and they certainly couldn't just drive up it, since they are oriented the wrong way. If the pinning robot had enough pushing power, it could possibly be able to prevent the pinned robot from moving side to side.
if 1370 was sideways and your bot rolled down the ramp into their bot, then they are not pinning you, they are blocking your path.
Unfortunately your bot was damaged and unable to climb the ramp to go around.
There is nothing in the rules that says you have to get out of a damaged robots path and allow them to go where they want to.
when you see the video you will notice that 1370 intentionally backed thier robot up to block our path as we attemped to get away. Pinning is refered to as inhibiting the movement of another robot and i belive that they did just that.
Also, i cant believe that some of you people are considering it wasnt a pin because we could have designed our robot to go up the ramp or be strong enough to push the other robot off. If that is the case then there is no need for the pin rule at all. No matter how you get pinned there will always have been some design for your robot that would have allowed you to get out.
Rick TYler
13-03-2006, 15:44
In the immortal words of coldabert "Prepare to be amazed. Soon a video will be posted to this forum that will shock and awe you. Stay tuned to see this ground-breaking demonstration of the power of Team 888." This video will clarify exactly how team 888 was robbed of their victory at Pittsburgh.
We have photos of two of our alliance robots sitting on the top of the platform at the end of a match. We also have video of a shot going through the center goal during autonomous in that same match. There were no penalties. We were awarded a total of six points for the match, including zero for autonomous. After protest, the referee added five points to our score. May I suggest that similar things happen several times per regional and that you should just get over it?
Stu Bloom
13-03-2006, 15:57
We have photos of two of our alliance robots sitting on the top of the platform at the end of a match. We also have video of a shot going through the center goal during autonomous in that same match. There were no penalties. We were awarded a total of six points for the match, including zero for autonomous. After protest, the referee added five points to our score. May I suggest that similar things happen several times per regional and that you should just get over it? Agreed Rick. While I am comfortable guaranteeing that no referee WANTS to make a bad call unfortunately it happens, but as I mentioned in a prior post:...we refs are only human (AND volunteers). While I believe ALL FIRST referees do the best job they can to help teams avoid penalties while objectively making the best call we can, it is possible to make a mistake. Even highly paid professional referees officiating games where the rules remain constant from year to year make extremely costly mistakes from time to time.
Rick TYler
13-03-2006, 16:37
...we refs are only human (AND volunteers). While I believe ALL FIRST referees do the best job they can to help teams avoid penalties while objectively making the best call we can, it is possible to make a mistake. Even highly paid professional referees officiating games where the rules remain constant from year to year make extremely costly mistakes from time to time.
I am surrounded by Seahawks fans. You don't have to tell me about officiating!
Andrew Blair
13-03-2006, 17:02
What if the robot was turned sideways? If it's wheels were parallel to the ramp, the steep angle of the ramp could possibly keep the robot from being pushed up the ramp and they certainly couldn't just drive up it, since they are oriented the wrong way. If the pinning robot had enough pushing power, it could possibly be able to prevent the pinned robot from moving side to side.
In one match, we pushed 1038 sideways in circles for ~ 40 seconds, and they had no control or ability to extricate themselves, but they were not considered pinned.
when you see the video you will notice that 1370 intentionally backed thier robot up to block our path as we attemped to get away. Pinning is refered to as inhibiting the movement of another robot and i belive that they did just that.
Yes, and no. Though there is no rule that I explicitly can recite, if I wish, I may corral another robot in the corner for as long as I wish, so long as I do not completely force them against a vertical barrier for more than ten seconds.
<G24> Pinning - While on the carpeted field surface, a ROBOT cannot pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border) for more than 10 seconds. This rule does not apply if either ROBOT is entirely on an ALLIANCE PLATFORM. If a ROBOT has been pinned for 10 seconds, the team with the pinning ROBOT will be told by a referee to release the pinned ROBOT and back away approximately 3 feet. Once the pinning ROBOT has backed off by 3 feet, it may again attempt to pin its opponent, and if successful, the 10 second count will start over. If a referee determines that this rule has been violated, a 5-point penalty flag will be assessed for each violation.
So, as long as they backed off a ways, (and believe me, distances are relative, we got DQ'ed that one time for infringement-another story) they were good to go. I know that we pushed a lot of people around, and we kept it fair, though fair is again relative.
***I think most of the confusion is coming from the fact that the rule says INHIBIT, and not completely stop.***
Ok here it is. Give me your opion of whether it was pinning or not.
Match 3 Semifinals (http://staff.howard.k12.md.us/~ashcraft/files/Match3Semi1.mpg)
I could not get it to work in windows media player but VLC Player played it fine.
Andrew Blair
13-03-2006, 19:51
I see about three seconds of video. Must have got cut off.
Oops, Sorry about that, Wrong file.
I am re uploading the file.
This should be the right file. It's a little big, but I don't have time to make it smaller. It's 8:30 and I have to go home... 24 is coming on soon.
Match 3 Semis (http://staff.howard.k12.md.us/~ashcraft/files/Match3Semis1.mpg)
MikeDubreuil
13-03-2006, 20:55
Wow, you're right. You were definitely pinned. Let me grab my pitch fork and you grab your torch. We're gonna find these refs and we're gonna make them PAY! :mad:
Seriously, what did you expect to accomplish my making this thread and posting the video? The collective community of FIRST to outcast the referees at Pittsburgh. You're right, it was a blown call. That doesn't mean you should parade around trashing the volunteers there. They didn't do it to spite you, they committed an accident. In the referee's defense, your robot didn't appear to try to escape the pinning. Because you have been so ungracious about the situation making claims of "shock and awe" I don't even think you deserve an apology.
Andrew Blair
13-03-2006, 21:00
I don't know that would ever be called as a pin. I see where your coming from, but 1370 never made a move once you were stuck in there. All 291 or 398 had to do was come over and give you a little shove. But remember: the refs had no idea whether 1370 was dead in the water or not. I make the point- they did not move AT ALL. Bad circumstance, but I'm not sure that would have been ever called, by anyone.
I've looked at this video pretty closely. I've come to the conclusion that there was no pinning rule violation.
From what I can see, the 888 bot clearly is moving back and forth. It on several attempts moves up the ramp a bit before stalling and sliding back down. This says to me that the bot was free to move forward up the ramp, and was in fact not wedged or pinned. The fact that the robot was unable to isn't a rule issue- it's a design issue on the teams part. Another robot that was better suited to climbing the ramp would have been able to get out.
I'm just calling them as I see them.
-Andy A.
Wow, you're right. You were definitely pinned. Let me grab my pitch fork and you grab your torch. We're gonna find these refs and we're gonna make them PAY! :mad:
Seriously, what did you expect to accomplish my making this thread and posting the video? The collective community of FIRST to outcast the referees at Pittsburgh. You're right, it was a blown call. That doesn't mean you should parade around trashing the volunteers there. They didn't do it to spite you, they committed an accident. In the referee's defense, your robot didn't appear to try to escape the pinning. Because you have been so ungracious about the situation making claims of "shock and awe" I don't even think you deserve an apology.
If you watch our robot closely you can see it rock back and forth trying to escape.
Because you have been so ungracious about the situation making claims of "shock and awe" I don't even think you deserve an apology.
I sincerely regret that this was ever posted. I completely agree and had already asked thesse to delete it. It was out of line, but out of my control.
Andrew, as I said before, the ref had started a count and that is why i did not ask my alliance to come over is because the ref had started a count and we believed they were either going to recieve a penalty or be asked to back off.
I've looked at this video pretty closely. I've come to the conclusion that there was no pinning rule violation.
From what I can see, the 888 bot clearly is moving back and forth. It on several attempts moves up the ramp a bit before stalling and sliding back down. This says to me that the bot was free to move forward up the ramp, and was in fact not wedged or pinned. The fact that the robot was unable to isn't a rule issue- it's a design issue on the teams part. Another robot that was better suited to climbing the ramp would have been able to get out.
I'm just calling them as I see them.
-Andy A.
I think that calling it not a pin because it was a design issue is ....
If that were the case then there would be no pinning rule in the manual at all. Any team could build a robot to be able to push another off. We could have made our robot omnidirectional that would allow us to move in all directions without turning and we wouldnt have been pinned either. If that is the case then i would like to see the rule removed so that we are not lead by the false sense of security that we will be able to run away from the opposing robot at the worst after 10 seconds of pinning.
KenWittlief
13-03-2006, 21:32
Ive always looked at being pinned like in wrestling, when your opponent is applying a force to hold you in place, and you cant squirm loose to get any leverage to free yourself.
If the other bot was turned 90 degrees and pushing you against the ramp then I would say 'pinned'.
From the video I would say 'blocked'.
Keep in mind the ref doesnt know if you are trying to push the other bot out of the way, or if you are stuck between the bot and the ramp. If you were up against a wall it would be obvious you had no place else to go, but how would the ref know your robot was not able to climb the ramp and go around?
Yes your bot moved back and forth a few times. Trying to push the other bot, or trying to climb the ramp? How would the ref know?
I think that calling it not a pin because it was a design issue is ....
If that were the case then there would be no pinning rule in the manual at all. Any team could build a robot to be able to push another off. We could have made our robot omnidirectional that would allow us to move in all directions without turning and we wouldnt have been pinned either. If that is the case then i would like to see the rule removed so that we are not lead by the false sense of security that we will be able to run away from the opposing robot at the worst after 10 seconds of pinning.
No.
The pinning rule is to protect teams from being wedged against a vertical barrier- such as the field railings. It's acknowledged that in this position even a very powerful robot would heaved great difficulty pushing back, especially if it is caught in a corner. The difference here is that you had a clear method of getting away. In fact, you had a method of escape that is a major factor of the game design. The ramp is not some impassible obstacle. It is intended to be climbed. The fact that your robot couldn't do what a large fraction of robots can- climb the ramp with out a running start, does not make the other robots actions illegal.
-Andy A.
Ive always looked at being pinned like in wrestling, when your opponent is applying a force to hold you in place, and you cant squirm loose to get any leverage to free yourself.
If the other bot was turned 90 degrees and pushing you against the ramp then I would say 'pinned'.
From the video I would say 'blocked'.
Keep in mind the ref doesnt know if you are trying to push the other bot out of the way, or if you are stuck between the bot and the ramp. If you were up against a wall it would be obvious you had no place else to go, but how would the ref know your robot was not able to climb the ramp and go around?
Yes your bot moved back and forth a few times. Trying to push the other bot, or trying to climb the ramp? How would the ref know?
I interperted the rule literally as it is written.
"Inibit the movement of another robot."
Our robot was clearly inhibited from moving anywhere while 1370's robot was there. If you could see the wheels of our robot during the video(or myself at the controls) it would be pretty clear that i tried every method of escape i could possibly think of. After 20 seconds it should have been clear that we were not able to move out of our position unless 1370 moved thier robot.
Also, I am still amazed that people still believe that it is not pinning due to a design issue. Whether we designed our robot not to be able to go up the ramp or whether we could not due to damage recieved to our robot during gameplay should not determine whether it was a pin or not. Of course the ramp is a major part of the game design, I completely agree. But to suggest that robots that have been designed a certain way are not privy to the same rules as other robots is absurd. There are many robots that chose not to be able to go up the ramp, are you saying that we are allowed to do that to any robot that can't climb the 30 degree ramp?
Also, I am still amazed that people still believe that it is not pinning due to a design issue.
Movement was not inhibited.
All the other team did was limit where you could drive. You where not forced into doing something that was impossible or illegal, like driving through the field enclosure to escape. Your option was to drive up the ramp. Or to turn 90 degrees and drive around the other bot. But, you couldn't not because of the other robots actions but because of your robots capabilities.
Take this example. Remove the ramp and imagine 2 robots on the field. One robot, Red bot, can only drive forward due to a programming problem that just manifested it's self. Blue bot positions it's self so that it blocks Red bot from driving forward anymore. This takes place in the middle of the field on level surface.
Should a pin be called?
One last time. Movement was not inhibited. You could move. The video shows that. Movement in the direction you wanted to go in was inhibited. But as has been said many times, that is blocking, not pinning.
-Andy A.
Jack Jones
13-03-2006, 23:26
We should all agree to accept whichever way the head refs decide to call a play like that. I think we can also agree that it certainly falls into the "tough call" category.
In my opinion, it would be pinning. The robot was between a rock and a hard place, with the other bot the rock and the ramp the hard place. Going onto the ramp against your will, even if you can, is not a good place to be. A large percentage of those who do end up on their backside. And they are forced to go where the other bot can legally pin them. It's like putting a gun to someones head and claiming it wasn't your fault they jumped of that cliff.
Consider last year (rules don't extend to the next year, but common sense does) a team could have held a bot against a goal and claimed it wasn't pinning because the other bot could have gone into the goal and out the other side. I wouldn't buy that. And I don't buy that holding against the ramp isn't pinning - unless THEY say it's not.
Justin Montois
14-03-2006, 00:02
At FLR 1511 lost drive and it left 191 pinned for 25-30 seconds, 1511 drivers were desperatly trying to move there bot but to no avail. They were not peanalized.
In my opinion, it would be pinning. The robot was between a rock and a hard place, with the other bot the rock and the ramp the hard place. Going onto the ramp against your will, even if you can, is not a good place to be. A large percentage of those who do end up on their backside. And they are forced to go where the other bot can legally pin them. It's like putting a gun to someones head and claiming it wasn't your fault they jumped of that cliff.
It is fully legal to push a robot onto the ramp from across the field and hold them there. They didn't want to go somewhere, but you pushed them where you wanted them. I didn't look at the video, and I'm not going to. I will say that if you read the rules, you must inhibit the movement of a robot while in contact with a field element or border. The ramp is a field element, so the question really only boils down to "was movement inhibited?"
Wetzel
At FLR 1511 lost drive and it left 191 pinned for 25-30 seconds, 1511 drivers were desperatly trying to move there bot but to no avail. They were not peanalized.
Yeah Jay got Ashley mad by saying the we and 271 were better defensive bot than their robot so she was out to make a point (Hell hath no fury like a woman dissed) so she take it out on us (Geez thanks Jay. Next time do that before one of your matches against them. :rolleyes: ).
Truth be told 1511 got stuck in Auto mode and could not get out of it but they should have hit the e-stop so we could actually participate in that round.
Jack Jones
14-03-2006, 05:41
It is fully legal to push a robot onto the ramp from across the field and hold them there. They didn't want to go somewhere, but you pushed them where you wanted them. I didn't look at the video, and I'm not going to. I will say that if you read the rules, you must inhibit the movement of a robot while in contact with a field element or border. The ramp is a field element, so the question really only boils down to "was movement inhibited?"
Wetzel
And the key word there is "inhibit". which does not necessarily mean to stop dead still. It can also mean. "to discourage from free or spontaneous activity ." You can choose to remain ignorant of the particulars of this case, but that robot was most definitely discouraged from free and spontaneous movement.
Now we can claim that the rules are exact and perfect as written, or THEY can do the right thing.
In that regard, and had the outcome been slightly different to result in the pinned bot tipping off the ramp while trying to get away, THEY could look to G22. THEY could decide that, given the number of bots that can't and/or don't navigate the ramp, any strategy aimed at forcing them onto the ramp could be construed as a strategy of damage, destruction, or tipping over the hapless and helpless opponent.
I'd enjoy seeing the bullies get that interpretation laid on them!
coldabert
14-03-2006, 06:40
I am sorry that you misunderstood the point of my "bogus refs" comment so I have since removed it. I was in no way calling the refs at Pitts bogus and I'm not trying to flame other refs. I understand that refs easily have the hardest job in FIRST and I have no desire to complain about whether they made a bad call. I just would like to have a discussion with someone about how we can make the refs jobs easier and eliminate these kinds of problems. This is a discussion forum, I just want to discuss it so we can move on to other (small) problems in the FIRST program.
I think that some people are getting the wrong idea about why i started this thread. and from reading my posts that i started it with, i can see why. I was a little frustrated when i started posting and it showed.
This thread was in no way meant to flame the refs at FIRST or Pittsburg. I just felt that we had a completely legitimate case for our robot. This thread was supposed to be one where we could, if possible, get the opinions of how it should have been called and how it will be called in future regionals from other teams and refs. Our team is about to go to the Chesapeake regional and if another team is going to be allowed to use this same tactic against us again I need to know so that we can have a plan for getting out of the situation.
Thanks for your input
Also, Please watch the video before you post your opinion.
KenWittlief
14-03-2006, 09:05
In the past the question of pinning has come up, and FIRST decreed that you can legally hold a bot against a field element for 9 seconds, back up a few inches for a second, then hold them for another 9 seconds, back up a few inches for a second, then hold them for another 9 seconds for the entire match if you want to
In order for pinning to occur you must hold the bot against the field element for 10 seconds. Since the agressor bot in this case was not applying any pressure against the blocked bot, and half the time was not even touching it - there was no pin.
I symphathize with the team that was stuck and could not move. It totally sucks when you cannot move your bot during a match, for any length of time.
Its all part of the game: you can build a bot that can man-handle everything on the field, or you can build a bot that is fast and agile. If you do the latter you must not let yourself get pushed into a field position where your bot cannot do what you want it to do.
The outcome of this is up to you. You can spend the rest of your life thinking your team got screwed, or you can accept that this is part of the game and build your bot differently next year to account for what experience has taught you.
Jack Jones
14-03-2006, 09:13
In the past the question of pinning has come up, and FIRST decreed that you can legally hold a bot against a field element for 9 seconds, back up a few inches for a second, then hold them for another 9 seconds, back up a few inches for a second, then hold them for another 9 seconds for the entire match if you want to
That is flat out wrong, at least according to all the head refs I've had the pleasure to work with. You must back off three feet, otherwise the count keeps ticking.
KenWittlief
14-03-2006, 09:24
That is flat out wrong, .
Originally Posted by =<G24>
Pinning - While on the carpeted field surface, a ROBOT cannot pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border) for more than 10 seconds. This rule does not apply if either ROBOT is entirely on an ALLIANCE PLATFORM. If a ROBOT has been pinned for 10 seconds, the team with the pinning ROBOT will be told by a referee to release the pinned ROBOT and back away approximately 3 feet. Once the pinning ROBOT has backed off by 3 feet, it may again attempt to pin its opponent, and if successful, the 10 second count will start over. If a referee determines that this rule has been violated, a 5-point penalty flag will be assessed for each violation.
you only need to back away 3 feet if the robot has been pinned for 10 seconds. This goes back to the holding part of it. If your bot is pushed against a rail, and the other bot backs up a bit, then pushes you against the rail again you are not continuously pinned.
If this were not the case then everytime you pushed a bot against the rail you would have to back up three feet before you could push then again. Then you would be called for ramming!
That is flat out wrong, at least according to all the head refs I've had the pleasure to work with. You must back off three feet, otherwise the count keeps ticking.
Yes, that is how i interpereted the rule, however i asked the head ref at the Pittsburg regional if that was the case and she said that the count would start over once the robot backed off. I did not agree with this interperetation of the rule because you could pin a robot for the entire match that way and never give them the chance to escape or move in any way.
KenWittlief
14-03-2006, 09:41
The real engineering basis of the pinning rule stems from the fact that a stalled motor will draw more current than the breakers can handle. If your robot is held against a wall and your drivetrain is geared such that you cannot even spin your wheels in that position you are totally helpless.
If your robot has a few inches of wiggle room then your motors are not held stalled. You can rock your robot back and forth, using impluse and inertia to work yourself free.
This is why you cannot be 'pinned' in a corner. Your robot must be held against a barrier to be pinned.
Jack Jones
14-03-2006, 10:01
And there, my friends, is the crux of the matter. There is no precedent because enough precedent exists to support almost any position. Where is the leadership on this? Could it really be true that we want to see a pair of bots playing bumpity-bump for the entire match? Can a motor really recover with a few inches of relief? Can they really outlaw wedge bots, and then give cart-blanche to the bricks on wheels by giving them a wedge built into the field?
It is almost laughable, were it not so pathetic.
KenWittlief
14-03-2006, 10:58
If a team has a robot that cannot out-run, out-push or out-maneuver their opponent, then what will happen when that team is on the field with 5 other competitive machines?
Isn't that the idea of an engineering competition/game? Or do we want to go back to the year 2001 and play FIRST T-Ball again?
I apologize for any offensive my comments have made. I had no intent to do so to anyone. My posts, I now see, were out of line and most of all out of character of myself and the team that I represent. There is no excuse for what I have done and I can only hope that you can accept my apology and assurance that something like this will never happen again.
It was a misinterpretation of the rule on my behalf and I completely overreacted. It is the referees descision and not mine. I repect the people that give up thier time to help with FIRST and allow any of this to be possible, I sincerely regret if I have conveyed a different message through my posts. I have learned from this experience and believe that I have grown and learned from my mistakes.
Again, I apologize on behalf of myself and team for our actions.
I am requesting that this thread be deleted from the Chief Delphi forums.
atomikitten
14-03-2006, 21:30
Hey now... one catchy soundbyte echoes in my head: "life's not fair, and neither is FIRST." I'm saying this even though it was my team that suffered because of some other people's errors. We're going to put up with a lot of crap from a lot of idiots in the real world; frankly, I'm just greatful to have experienced FIRST, where idiots and crap are at a minimum.
Having cleared that up, I can say confidently that team 888 had an overall pleasant, positive experience at the Pittsburgh Regional, despite the frustrations. To any individuals who made our acquaintances, please understand the team's frustration and try to look at it from our point of view--you were there too. The situation simply outraged us. This does not excuse our team's rants, but perhaps the rest of the FIRST world could borrow a little bit of perspective.
To tell you the truth, on Thursday, we felt that a few other teams were absurdly aggressive towards us, both in and outside of the arena. We were even subjected to repeated "speed screenings" because "other teams reported" that our shooter violated a velocity regulation. After three intermittent screenings, absolutely no breach of regulation was found. We were suspicious and a bit insulted, but we beared it.
I feel it's also important to acknowledge that there were individuals that were notably courteous and pure-intentionedly helpful to us as well.
most importantly:
I'm ready to put all of this behind me so that I am completely unburdened to look forward to the Chesapeake Regional. I can only ask and hope that everyone else feels similarly. After all, each day is fresh with no mistakes in it [yet]. :yikes: :) ;)
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.