<G09> Dropping Tubes on Your Opponent

[Jimmy Cao]

Hey,

I have a few questions regarding rule G09, as follows:

<G09> POSSESSION - ROBOTS may only have 1 (one) GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION at
any time during the match. Inadvertent bulldozing of GAME PIECES while the ROBOT
moves around the field is allowed. Controlled "herding" of a single GAME PIECE lying on
the floor is permitted as long as no other GAME PIECE is in the POSSESSION of the
ROBOT. Herding of multiple GAME PIECES, or herding of a GAME PIECE on the floor
while in POSSESSION of another GAME PIECE is not permitted (as this would be
considered POSSESSION of more than one GAME PIECE).

What if you were blocking an opposing robot from scoring, and they happened to drop the inner tube onto your robot while you already had one in your possession and the one they dropped on you did not roll off. Would this be considered as being "in possession" of the inner tube?

Thank you.

[Pavan Dave]

Sounds like a YMTD topic to me. I think this it would be counted as possession since the robot now has control of two ringers.

Pavan.

[Imajie]

POSSESSION: a GAME PIECE is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a ROBOT if it is
being fully supported by the ROBOT, or if the ROBOT is controlling the position and movement of
the GAME PIECE. A GAME PIECE on the floor is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a ROBOT
if it contacts the ROBOT at more than a single point (e.g. the ROBOT has a concave
"plow" feature that is used to push the GAME PIECE in a controlled manner).

[trilogism]

So could your robot be designed to put the ringers on your opponents, who then receive penalties for possesing more than one ringer?

Edit: I know that this is against FIRST spirit

[Pavan Dave]

So could your robot be designed to put the ringers on your opponents, who then receive penalties for possesing more than one ringer?
That is against the FIRST spirit. I hope that teams do not do this but I think that I will wait until someone asks this question on the FIRST forums and we get a reply from them.

Pavan.

[Noah Kleinberg]

Hey,

I have a few questions regarding rule G09, as follows:

<G09> POSSESSION - ROBOTS may only have 1 (one) GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION at
any time during the match. Inadvertent bulldozing of GAME PIECES while the ROBOT
moves around the field is allowed. Controlled "herding" of a single GAME PIECE lying on
the floor is permitted as long as no other GAME PIECE is in the POSSESSION of the
ROBOT. Herding of multiple GAME PIECES, or herding of a GAME PIECE on the floor
while in POSSESSION of another GAME PIECE is not permitted (as this would be
considered POSSESSION of more than one GAME PIECE).

What if you were blocking an opposing robot from scoring, and they happened to drop the inner tube onto your robot while you already had one in your possession and the one they dropped on you did not roll off. Would this be considered as being "in possession" of the inner tube?

Thank you.


Technically yes, but it should probably go to the FIRST Q&A. Obviously this is not the reason for the rule, so it's possible that they'll change it to allow for this. Designing a robot to put ringers on your opponents is legal under the current rules, but is against the spirit of the rules in my opinion.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see that Pavan responded first.

[jgannon]

Is there a general rule for determining the penalty for violating a rule when it isn't explicitly given, such as <G09>? It is "not permitted", but what happens if it does? 10 points? Disable? DQ? Break the coach's kneecaps? (Please don't.) I tend to assume that things that aren't labelled as a DQ are 10-point penalties, but I don't see anything that indicates that this is the case.

[xenicator]

I seem to recall the word "innovation" prominent in the acronym of FIRST. Creativity in interpreting the rules where no robot is being harmed seems, on the contrary, to be IN the spirit of FIRST. I have noticed that Gracious Professionalism has started to be increasingly used to discourage innovation rather than maliciousness. Is it ungracious to hope that there is a slight loophole in the rules which makes this game based on technology rather than simply driver control and quickness of wit? Without these loopholes what is this game but another sporting event, something that is opposing the spirit of FIRST and promoting the “Rich and Famous” as an ideal lifestyle rather than commitment and hard work.

[shamuwong]

Actually, the rule book specifically tells teams not to "lawyer" the rules and such. By that, they mean stick to the spirit of the competition and don't look for loopholes to get the advantage through devious game play.

I think innovation refers not to creativity in interpreting the rules, but rather, the game.

[Mike o.]

Looking at the situation from a Ref aspect, I would think that they would come out with a revision to this that states that if a robot inadvertently comes into possession of multiple ringers (i.e. by means of an opposing robot dropping a ringer onto it), that if it does not try to loose possession of the ringers and reduce its possession to one ringer in a timely fashion (i.e. within 5 seconds), the offending robot will be assessed a multiple possession penalty (not sure if there is already one, but if there isn't my guess is that it would be another 10 point penalty).

[jgannon]

I seem to recall the word "innovation" prominent in the acronym of FIRST.
That's "inspiration".
Creativity in interpreting the rules where no robot is being harmed seems, on the contrary, to be IN the spirit of FIRST. I have noticed that Gracious Professionalism has started to be increasingly used to discourage innovation rather than maliciousness. Is it ungracious to hope that there is a slight loophole in the rules which makes this game based on technology rather than simply driver control and quickness of wit? Without these loopholes what is this game but another sporting event, something that is opposing the spirit of FIRST and promoting the “Rich and Famous” as an ideal lifestyle rather than commitment and hard work.
Getting ahead on loopholes is a part of today's corporate culture, and is something that I would not expect FIRST seeking to encourage. If you find a loophole, go ahead and put in on the Q&A, and see if it's something that's allowed.

[RogerR]

reading the rule, notice the mention of "controlled" in the rule; i suspect that this will be how the define 'being in the possession' of a game peice, and while there may be grey area on that, i confident that an opponents game peice that is dropped onto your 'bot by an opposing machine wouldn't fulfill this requirement, and thus wouldn't be considered 'in your possession'.

[Brandon Holley]

Here is another possiblity, maybe a YMTC deal......your robot is in possession of a tube and is attempting to score it on teh rack. As you are doing this the tube hits the spider foot and slips over your arm and slides down to ur base (the tube is now around your arm)....there is still 1:30 left in the match...is your bot done with tubes for the match???

[Swan217]

Different question, same thread:

Am I blind, or is there not a penalty for violating G09 (yet)? 10 pts? DQ?

If not, FIRST will probably catch this in a revision pretty soon (crosses fingers).

[jgannon]

Am I blind, or is there not a penalty for violating G09 (yet)? 10 pts? DQ?
Yeah, you're not the only one who doesn't see it in there. I'm expecting a clarification too. (And I'm hoping it's not the kneecap thing.)

[JamesBrown]

I seem to recall the word "innovation" prominent in the acronym of FIRST. Creativity in interpreting the rules where no robot is being harmed seems, on the contrary, to be IN the spirit of FIRST. I have noticed that Gracious Professionalism has started to be increasingly used to discourage innovation rather than maliciousness. Is it ungracious to hope that there is a slight loophole in the rules which makes this game based on technology rather than simply driver control and quickness of wit? Without these loopholes what is this game but another sporting event, something that is opposing the spirit of FIRST and promoting the “Rich and Famous” as an ideal lifestyle rather than commitment and hard work.

To quote Dave Lavery

"Lawyers find loopholes. Engineers find solutions. For which would you rather be known?"

The rules are constraints. If you decide to become an engineer, you are going to face constraints. If you find that the guidlines your employer gives you offer you a loop hole which will make your life easier but you will be creating a product that is not at all what your employer wants then when you present the product your boss wont laugh and say "$@#$@#$@#$@# you got me" they will as a best case senerio send you back to do it right.

If you want the game to be based on technology (It is a robotics competition how can it not be?) then build an arm that is faster, a drive train that is stronger, an autonomous that is perfect and then tell me that you need loop holes. I was talking to Dave from 121 today and he pointed out that every year on Einstein the teams that win are the teams that can score the best. Focus on scoring, if you can do that then you dont need to waste your time and ringers on the other alliances robot.

[SteveO]

As it is right now, it seems like robots should be designed in such a way that ringers are not easily placed on them.

I don't see that becoming as big an issue as deflated ringers getting caught in drivetrains etc.

[Joobacca]

As it is right now, it seems like robots should be designed in such a way that ringers are not easily placed on them.

I don't see that becoming as big an issue as deflated ringers getting caught in drivetrains etc.

very interesting. i'd like to see FIRST's response to this scenario. it seems to be there needs to be much clarification on various rules, and we'll be seeing them within days.

[dtengineering]

Hmm... In 2004 team 1241 had a great robot that would catch all the balls as they were dropped from above. Another team picked up one of the giant double-points balls and stuffed it into their ball hopper, preventing them from catching any of the small balls. This was not considered against the spirit of the game, or rules... and the real example of G.P. was how 1241 responded to a brilliant and innovative move by their opponent.

In this year's game it would strike me that your robot should be able to survive having a ringer dropped on it... without either inadvertently taking possession of the ringer or having a key mechanism disabled by the ringer.

Mind you, the Q&A forum and competition officials DO take precidence over my opinion. :ahh:

Jason

[Tytus Gerrish]

that's a slick move and a briliant tactical manuver. i look forward to seeing it happen.

[Beth Sweet]

You know, when I was on HOT, we did a very similar maneuver (put the giant ball in the robot of the Canadian team with the blue shirts and orange hats) and not only was it not considered poor sportsmanship, it was considered brilliant strategy. Are people offended because this would be intentional penalizing to the other team if they are already holding a ring?

[Tristan Lall]

You know, when I was on HOT, we did a very similar maneuver (put the giant ball in the robot of the Canadian team with the blue shirts and orange hats)...That was the aforementioned team 1241; they have orange toques and blue jerseys.

Back on topic, the consternation regarding this being against the spirit of FIRST is a little ridiculous. You can't expect to participate in a competition (or even a competitive environment, like business) where no party seeks to choose the most beneficial strategy for them, within the rules and ethics that govern their enterprise. Where's the ethical fault in causing an opponent to incur this penalty (in the FRC)? They know the rules, and should have studied them well, and as a result, if they didn't anticipate the possibility of this manoeuvre (and protect against it, if desired), they should expect to reap the consequences.

Simply put, there's no harm done, and no violation of the rules; what's the problem? If every strategy that helped your opponents to lose a match were considered so egregious, what sort of competition would we have?*

If the rule is amended, then you have a tacit statement from FIRST that this was not what they intended. If not, exploit the rule to its reasonable limits, and conversely, don't complain to the referees when someone does it to you. It's just part of the game.

I fully support asking the Q&A about it, though. But let's first seek to understand what the status of the Q&A is this year—are responses equivalent to official rules and updates, or are they guidelines for the interpretation of rules? Basically, if the Q&A contradicts a stated rule, which takes precedence this year (it's gone various ways in the past)?

*Don't speak of 2001....

[Imajie]

How can you protect against it if you have the flags on your bot, thats a very easy target for any team.

[Tristan Lall]

How can you protect against it if you have the flags on your bot, thats a very easy target for any team.Robots may extend vertically; you could take advantage of that to devise a protective device, if you felt it necessary.

[Ian Curtis]

Thank you Tristan! Remember folks, when Woodie first introduced Gracious Proffessionalism, TIPPING OTHER ROBOTS ON PURPOSE WAS LEGAL! The manualIt was only changed becuase a 121 was so good at it, then would just tip everyone else in the first 20 seconds and use the rest of the match to score as the only robot on the field.

EDIT: Actually, 1997 was the year of Aquatread VI (I know there was a V in it), 121's robot that was too good as tipping, as in 1998, tipping became illegal again.

[Ericgehrken]

This shouldn't be a violation because this was beyond the receiving team's control and the advertantly place the tube into their own possession.

[Alekat]

I could see lots of bots with big flat tops for stacking purposes. Falling ringers could easily land on these surfaces and then all it takes is some lip to keep it from being shaken off.

[KevinH]

If FIRST doesn't take a stance against this, I think this must be considered fair strategy. The only reason for debate is the word 'penalty'; if this word wasn't used it'd be a clear, clean strategy. We'll have to see if FIRST is opposed to us inflicting penalties on other teams intentionally in this situation.

I'm expecting a rule update.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Something more likely to happen, and less likely to elicit FIRST's sympathy, is the very real possibility that a team might drop a tube in a way that it is hung up on their own robot, but still impossible to score or dislodge. In this case, a robot might just be hamstrung for the match, unable to pick up another tube.

[kawelch]

IMHO... having an opponent place a tube on you is not under your control and you should not be penalized. Designing a robot that has the flaw that the tubes it is moving get hung up and can't be removed is a bad design and therefore is subject to not picking up more tubes.

[geeknerd99]

Something more likely to happen, and less likely to elicit FIRST's sympathy, is the very real possibility that a team might drop a tube in a way that it is hung up on their own robot, but still impossible to score or dislodge. In this case, a robot might just be hamstrung for the match, unable to pick up another tube.

And that's when you launch plan B: the power to push an opposing robot sideways across the length of the field. Too bad the kit doesn't come with skyway wheels anymore....

[Choi9111]

I think that you might get a yellow flag if you drop it on an opponent on purpose...other than that, IDK?!

[Nawaid Ladak]

i'd pick a yellow card team that did that,

does anyone know if you have a yellow card at the end of the Q's does it go away for the Eliminations,

hopefullly, this is the case

[xrabohrok]

I don't think it will matter. I don't see the refs going "Oh, a robot dropped a tube on your robot, you have 2 tubes, YOUR GOING DOWN!". I wouldn't worry about it. The other guys tube is quite useless to you, you can't score with it or anything.

[KevinH]

This rule deserves clarification at minimum.

[Jon K.]

I think that it is a perfectly legal and legit strategy, but I can see FIRST redeclaring it as illegal similar to the situation in 2005 with the loading zone penalties and teams intentionally backing up into passing teams to inflict high penalties points.



i'd pick a yellow card team that did that,

does anyone know if you have a yellow card at the end of the Q's does it go away for the Eliminations,

hopefullly, this is the case

RTM its in there...

Section 9- The Tournament

Page 8 of 9

Rule <T09>

<T09> YELLOW CARDS do not carry forward between qualification matches and elimination
matches. All teams move into the elimination matches with a clean slate.

[Tetraman]

So could your robot be designed to put the ringers on your opponents, who then receive penalties for possesing more than one ringer?

Edit: I know that this is against FIRST spirit

I would consider a robot like this can be violating the rule of robots that can't be built for the destruction of other robots.

I would think and hope the refs would understand if a ring accedently falls on your robot and you can't remove it.

[BrianR]

Robots may extend vertically; you could take advantage of that to devise a protective device, if you felt it necessary.

Can you do this? Does your flag have to be at the top only at the start of the match, at which point you could actuate it to "safety", or actuate something over it to "protect" it?

Obviously if you extend beyond it, it will no longer be at the top, and I haven't seen anything saying the flag needs to be above the highest point on the robot yet...

[Tristan Lall]

Can you do this? Does your flag have to be at the top only at the start of the match, at which point you could actuate it to "safety", or actuate something over it to "protect" it?

Obviously if you extend beyond it, it will no longer be at the top, and I haven't seen anything saying the flag needs to be above the highest point on the robot yet...You can temporarily extend things above the height of the flag. Not that you'd necessarily want to do this, but you could build an appendage that extends a COTS umbrella over your robot, to make it tougher to drop the tubes on the robot. As long as it was movable and not locked in place for most of the match, you'd be protected.

[Wayne Doenges]

Every team will have a 3' high flag on their bot. This is a potential object that the rings can drop onto your bot and not be easily removed. FIRST will probably come out with an update soon (I hope)
BTW, how many rings do you think will fit onto the flag? :)

[DonRotolo]

I don't think it will matter. I don't see the refs going "Oh, a robot dropped a tube on your robot, you have 2 tubes, YOUR GOING DOWN!". I wouldn't worry about it. The other guys tube is quite useless to you, you can't score with it or anything.

The key word is control: If you cannot control the ringer, you don't 'possess' it.
But, this is for FIRST to clarify.

[Imajie]

FIRST defined possession of a tube to be contact with it at more than one point, so you don't NEED to control the tube to possess it.

[RogerR]

FIRST defined possession of a tube to be contact with it at more than one point, so you don't NEED to control the tube to possess it.

can you referance this? i've read though the rules and didn't spot anything relating multiple points of contact to possession; i agree with don rotolo: control is the key to possesion.

[Imajie]

woops. I was reading the on the floor part of possession.
However it does say if the robot is supporting the ring it is possession
POSSESSION: a GAME PIECE is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a ROBOT if it is
being fully supported by the ROBOT, or if the ROBOT is controlling the position and movement of the GAME PIECE. A GAME PIECE on the floor is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a
ROBOT if it contacts the ROBOT at more than a single point (e.g. the ROBOT has a concave
"plow" feature that is used to push the GAME PIECE in a controlled manner)