Did anyone else see it this way?

[IndySam]

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070416/070416_robotfight_hlarge_2p.hlarge.jpg

During the final match I though that 177 repeatedly reached into the staring footprint with their arm and made contact with 233. They also grabbed onto and popped a ringer that was in Pinks possession.

Is this a penalty or incidental contact?


PS I don’t want to start a controversy; I just would like a civil discussion of the rules.

[kawelch]

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070416/070416_robotfight_hlarge_2p.hlarge.jpg

During the final match I though that 177 repeatedly reached into the staring footprint with their arm and made contact with 233. They also grabbed onto and popped a ringer that was in Pinks possession.

Is this a penalty or incidental contact?


PS I don’t want to start a controversy; I just would like a civil discussion of the rules.


While watching this online when I saw that I screamed at the moniter "PENALTY: Contact out of bumper zone."

Then I saw that the score was very close so I said "that penalty will decide the match"....

I was apparently wrong...

[Peter Matteson]

The contact was arm to tube. Not arm to arm and there was no malicious intent to tip the robot. Look at the picture more carefully and note the drivers hands are OFF the controls. Demonstrating to the refs that it was unintentional and allowing Pink to get clear.

Pete

[Liz Smith]

[off topic]
Hey! I see me in that picture!... bonus points if you know which one is me.

[/off topic]

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Penalty or no penalty, I thought it was some dirty play.

It often seemed that 177 used their arm to block pink. I don't think they tried to pop the ringers, but I do think they used their arm to play defense.

[Bharat Nain]

[off topic]
Hey! I see me in that picture!... bonus points if you know which one is me.

[/off topic]

Top right holding an electronic device with a ref shirt on.

[xzvrw2]

I believe that if a team is holding a tube, it is apart of their robot. Dont quote me on this though.

[IndySam]

What about:

<G36> Goal defense - ROBOTS may defend SPIDER LEGS by pushing and/or blocking other ROBOTS as they attempt to HANG GAME PIECES. If a ROBOT is holding a GAME PIECE, a ROBOT on the opposing ALLIANCE may not grasp/attach to the GAME PIECE in order to remove it from their POSSESSION or prevent them from HANGING. A violation will
result in a 10-point penalty being assessed to the offending ROBOT.

[David Brinza]

There's nobody with a better view of the interaction than the referee 4 feet from the robots. I say if he didn't call a penalty, it's because he considered the contact incidental. End of story...

[Cory]

When I saw this, I thought it was quite clearly illegal, per G36 and even G38. It seemed clear to me that it was not incidental contact and 177 intentionally was trying to grab the tube to either remove it, or inhibit 233's ability to move.

There's nobody with a better view of the interaction than the referee 4 feet from the robots. I say if he didn't call a penalty, it's because he considered the contact incidental. End of story...

That's a bit of a flawed assumption, given how questionable (at the very least, not consistent) the refereeing was throughout the championships.

[Morgan Gillespie]

When playing against 177 in the UTC regional eliminations we experienced similar defense. We were told by the referees it was incidental and just went back to the game. We are partially to blame, as we modified the gripper from NJ and it was rather loose at grabbing the tubes, if the change hadn't of been made it probably wouldn't have been a problem.
http://thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=1339
Around second 0:48

It is just another factor of the game, you have to work around it. 177 plays very tight defense and makes for a very challenging game.

[Lil' Lavery]

What about:

<G36> Goal defense - ROBOTS may defend SPIDER LEGS by pushing and/or blocking other ROBOTS as they attempt to HANG GAME PIECES. If a ROBOT is holding a GAME PIECE, a ROBOT on the opposing ALLIANCE may not grasp/attach to the GAME PIECE in order to remove it from their POSSESSION or prevent them from HANGING. A violation will
result in a 10-point penalty being assessed to the offending ROBOT.

177 never grasps the tube. If you watch the video, the popped tube merely gets snagged on their gripper, they never actively tried to grasp the tube.
While in many situations this season I would have liked to see more penalties called, especially for outside bumper zone contact, this is not one of them.

[Swampdude]

I'd like to hear what that ref had to say, because I thought he flagged that. I expected the penalties at the end of the match, but wondered if he just didn't report the penalty at the end because of the magnitude of a call in that final match. Or if he forgot...

[IndySam]

See this is where the ref's job is so hard. It’s totally a judgment call. I think 177 was clearly using their arm for defense outside the bumper zone in that match and they should have received a 10 point penalty, but other see it as incidental contact. Which is correct? Maybe both.

Whatever the ref rules somebody is going to be unhappy.


Anybody want that job?

[Tytus Gerrish]

See this is where the ref's job is so hard. It’s totally a judgment call. I think 177 was clearly using their arm for defense outside the bumper zone in that match and they should have received a 10 point penalty, but other see it as incidental contact. Which is correct? Maybe both.

Whatever the ref rules somebody is going to be unhappy.


Anybody want that job?

if infact it was incidental contact it should have only happened once. i counted 4 seprate incidents in that one match from 177 against 233

[Peter Matteson]

I know there is better video of this somewhere but check out The Blue Alliance for video posted and see how this contact began at the 1:04 mark.

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/team.php?team=177

At the 1:14 mark you can see Pink pulling 177 over.

At the 1:18 mark the 177 drivers hands come off the controls to allow 233 to get clear.

So where is the penalty? You are talking about a fraction of a second photo that makes things look bad and misrepresents the dynamic situation that was actually taking place.

[Liz Smith]

Whatever the ref rules somebody is going to be unhappy.


Anybody want that job?

Yep. Being a referee this year was one of my best experiences with FIRST. Even after all this debate and controversy about bad reffing and inconsistancies between calls, I am still really excited about doing it all again next year.

[Cory]

177 never grasps the tube. If you watch the video, the popped tube merely gets snagged on their gripper, they never actively tried to grasp the tube.
While in many situations this season I would have liked to see more penalties called, especially for outside bumper zone contact, this is not one of them.

Going back and watching again, you are correct. They never grab the tube.

However, seeing as they never attempted to score in that match, they should never have even raised their arm in the first place. The fact that their arm was raised all the way in the air, and contacting 233 outside of the bumper zone, while not attempting to score is illegal anyways.

They may not have intentionally got entangled, but it was clearly a conscious decision to use their arm to play defense.

[Rob]

However, seeing as they never attempted to score in that match, they should never have even raised their arm in the first place. The fact that their arm was raised all the way in the air, and contacting 233 outside of the bumper zone, while not attempting to score is illegal anyways.

They may not have intentionally got entangled, but it was clearly a conscious decision to use their arm to play defense.

Having watched 177 at several events this season, I can say that they always put their arm up while playing defense in order to avoid the gripper getting smashed between bumpers by being down low. The arm controller moves the arm up, then takes his hands off the controls while the base driver plays defense. It is clear to me that their intent was not to push/grab/pop tubes outside of the bumper zone, regardless of what occurred in the match.

In general, situations like this and others that occurred on the Curie and Archimedes fields are the result of what appears to be a "just let them play" approach to refereeing this year's game. It is hard to blame teams for what you might perceive as playing outside the rules when the referees are standing right there and allow them to play that way. As much as it hurts some, I say this is part of the game. If the refs are not calling something that you think should be called, you have to adjust your play style to deal with it.

Best of luck to all teams competing in offseason events!

RAZ

[Zotas]

However, seeing as they never attempted to score in that match, they should never have even raised their arm in the first place. The fact that their arm was raised all the way in the air, and contacting 233 outside of the bumper zone, while not attempting to score is illegal anyways.
conscious decision to use their arm to play defense.

It was not a conscious decision to use the arm for defense. The arm was raised due to the design of our "wrist". The wrist locked in place once the robot started moving and the arm was raised so that it did not hit the floor. If you watch to the matches you will notice that the arm pretty much stayed in the same place once it was raised.

I agree that that could have been called for a penalty even though it was incidental. Regardless, 177 won the match by 14 points so it would not have affected the outcome.

[David Brinza]

The danger of looking at a still photo of something that looks like it might be an infraction is you cannot determine how the situation arose. The referee needs to assess the action (who's moving what, where the contact originated, how both robots are responding, what is cause vs effect) all in real time. Not an easy job by any stretch of the imagination.

The referees at the Championship were very experienced - gained in multiple regionals and many matches in the divisions. I trust their judgment based on their knowledge of the rules (believe me, they know them), their impartiality and their understanding of the importance of their job.

[Cory]

Having watched 177 at several events this season, I can say that they always put their arm up while playing defense in order to avoid the gripper getting smashed between bumpers by being down low. The arm controller moves the arm up, then takes his hands off the controls while the base driver plays defense. It is clear to me that their intent was not to push/grab/pop tubes outside of the bumper zone, regardless of what occurred in the match.

That makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation.

[ALIBI]

Isn't the intent of the bumpers and bumber zone to make certain that defensive contact be made within that zone? 177 does not have a ringer and should not be considered to be playing offence. IMHO, when a robot goes into a defensive mode, they must make certain, it is thier responsibility, that the first part of thier robot that touches another robot either be bumpers or a part of thier robot flush with the vertical plane where the bumpers would be if they do not have bumpers. Playing defense in such a way that a part of your robot that is outside the bumper zone makes contact with the opposing robot first is wrong. Incidental contact once in a while, OK, but driving around the field with your arm outside the bumper zone and repeatedly having it be the first part of your robot that contacts the opposing alliances robot should have been a penalty.

[IndySam]

Isn't the intent of the bumpers and bumber zone to make certain that defensive contact be made within that zone? 177 does not have a ringer and should not be considered to be playing offence. IMHO, when a robot goes into a defensive mode, they must make certain, it is thier responsibility, that the first part of thier robot that touches another robot either be bumpers or a part of thier robot flush with the vertical plane where the bumpers would be if they do not have bumpers. Playing defense in such a way that a part of your robot that is outside the bumper zone makes contact with the opposing robot first is wrong. Incidental contact once in a while, OK, but driving around the field with your arm outside the bumper zone and repeatedly having it be the first part of your robot that contacts the opposing alliances robot should have been a penalty.

But if through the course of the competition no ref ever penalized them or even just warned them then they must correctly assume that they are playing within the rules. So you can’t blame them either. In their shoes I would have done the same thing.



My point of starting this thread was to show how difficult a referee’s job can be. We have the benefit of pictures and videos and we as a group can’t agree on what is correct. How can we expect a ref to decide in the heat of the moment and get it right every time?

Big thanks to the men and women who step and do this thankless job!

[Eric O]

What about:

<G36> Goal defense - ROBOTS may defend SPIDER LEGS by pushing and/or blocking other ROBOTS as they attempt to HANG GAME PIECES. If a ROBOT is holding a GAME PIECE, a ROBOT on the opposing ALLIANCE may not grasp/attach to the GAME PIECE in order to remove it from their POSSESSION or prevent them from HANGING. A violation will
result in a 10-point penalty being assessed to the offending ROBOT.

Sam,

I first want to thank you for looking up a rule to discuss. Many people will try to dispute a call on these forums without actually referencing a rule.

Second, team 177 is known for playing defense. We use it many times within our strategies and teach our driver (singular because our arm driver has nothing to do with defense) how to play it affectively and more importantly appropriately. They are not out there to break or flip other machines, but instead to properly position themselves to resist opponent scoring. Considering at least 25% of this years robots could not score a tube due to being ramp/lift only, I saw much of this type of play, including defense played against us. In fact, I do not believe that we had a penalty called on us all season.

Thirdly, it is up to the refs to call the rules and we respect that. If they think we have crossed the line and broken a rule and give us a penalty we usually ask for clarification. Not to argue to the call, but to better understand the call and make sure we do not do it again.

Lastly, in response to you questioning of the call and why the ref did or did not penalize us. I do not know what swayed the ref to not make the call, but can point out some of the reasons I think they did not call a penalty. The picture shown was in the final match. I have watched that video multiple times to see exactly what happened prior to the picture being discussed. During that match I noticed a few things which I would like to point out.
1) The arm driver never moves the arm except to raise it back up to a position inside of our starting platform. We had previously had it even more vertical, but the wearing of our worm gear caused it to flop backward if we went to far upright. We are unable to tuck the end effector in and therefore up is the only position we remain in our base platform.
2) As Pete pointed out, to avoid tipping or damaging Pink our drivers were told to take their hands off the sticks and let them get untangled.
3) The claw was never opened; therefore there was obviously no attempt to grab the tube.
4) The point where the tube gets entangled on our claw, pick is coming toward us with their arm outside the platform of their robot which is legal per rule G35: “Extension to extension contact between two ROBOTS with appendages outside the 28-inch by 38-inch starting footprint will generally not be penalized.” However, I don’t think this rule even applies due to the face that it was accidental contact with the tube and not even the robot.
5) The tube is not an extension of the robot. If this were true, human loading over the wall would have been illegal due to this rule: <S02>HUMAN PLAYERS, DRIVERS, and COACHES may not directly contact any ROBOT at any time during the match. Illegal contact will result in the disabling of the TEAM'S ROBOT for the remainder of the match.

I have obviously thought about this a bit and although I understand it looks like a one sided defensive post, but hope I have brought out fact and not just opinions. I commend all referees, not for making a call in our favor, but for doing what I just did in my post in about 10 seconds without a replay reel or manual in hand.

Thank you to all who have made it this far though the post.

Eric

[ALIBI]

But if through the course of the competition no ref ever penalized them or even just warned them then they must correctly assume that they are playing within the rules. So you can’t blame them either. In their shoes I would have done the same thing.



My point of starting this thread was to show how difficult a referee’s job can be. We have the benefit of pictures and videos and we as a group can’t agree on what is correct. How can we expect a ref to decide in the heat of the moment and get it right every time?

Big thanks to the men and women who step and do this thankless job!


I would have to agree with you on all points. The least that can be said is that the call was not made consistantly. I was at two regionals and the championship and saw many hours of webcast and could easily find countless other similar instances where this call was not made. There is a reason the Head Referee's call is final. I prefaced my remarks with IMHO fully realizing as you have stated so well that the referees did not typically make this call thoughout this season and 177 was only behaving as they had been permitted to in the past. Frankly, I am surprised that 177's arm held up so well! Incidental contact was given rather broad interpretation this year by the referee's. I am just a die hard bumper to bumper, pushing from one end of the field to the other fan of this type of defense. Alot of pushing without anybody's robot getting broke (drivetrains excepted).

[s_forbes]

Looking over the video again, it appears that when 233 and 177 contacted both of their bots had their arms arguably inside of their robot footprint. I think it was incidental contact and the tube just managed to get stuck on both of their arms.

[Jason Morrella]

In general, situations like this and others that occurred on the Curie and Archimedes fields are the result of what appears to be a "just let them play" approach to refereeing this year's game. It is hard to blame teams for what you might perceive as playing outside the rules when the referees are standing right there and allow them to play that way. As much as it hurts some, I say this is part of the game.

I think most agree that some (not all) refs did take the "just let them play" approach - which I don't mind in a very close gray area/tough call situation, but not when the rule violation is obvious. However, I would disagree that "it is part of the game". Mabye it is part of "life", but the game is the "game" as it is designed and written.

One thing I keep hearing, which I'm going to comment on even though I probably shouldn't....is that I don't get all the talk about whether something is incidental or intentional.

1. Part of that debate does not even matter - if something is against the rules (such as hitting teams outside of the bumper zone repeatedly while playing defense), then it's a penalty, no matter if it was intentional or not.

2. We need to give FIRST teams and the drivers/coaches of these robots a little more credit. These aren't clueless people who are "surprised" when an extended arm (not being used to play offense or score) hits another robot up high (out of the bumper zone) or tips it over. Especially playoff teams that have clearly discussed and set on a defensive strategy and/or veteran teams who I'm fairly sure understand the physics of what will likely tip another robot over when they choose to raise/extend their arm while interacting with another robot (and not attempting to score) instead of keeping it down.

3. Last, in the same line of thinking of giving the teams more credit than some of these arguments seem to:

FIRST teams are smart. FIRST teams adapt. FIRST teams push the limits to whatever is allowed. If the referees called the rules as written, and penalized teams at the regionals and in the Championship qualifiers for using extended arms for defense, hitting outside the bumper zone, overly agressive ramming and pinning/tipping robots - the teams would have stopped doing it for the most part.

In some of the examples people have posted here on CD, I don't really hold the "teams" accountable for damaging or tipping other robots. Since I saw it first hand, I'll comment on the Archimedes example posted in another thread:

There were incidents of questionable nature on all four fields during the elimination rounds, 2 of which directly affected champions. The most egregious of which happened in this incident on Curie and on Archimedes. While I have not yet been able to find video (or get it from teammates) of the incidents on Galileo or Newton, but I will post video of 254 being tipped on Archimedes (no call).
http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2XmhRZmMsM

Anyone who saw it was expecting the 494/254/997 alliance to move on after they were tipped by 107 towards the start of the second semifinal match (they won the first 140-4). It was probably one of the easiest to call examples of that the entire season. When the penalty wasn't called, every person standing around me knew exactly what was going to happen in the third match - the very same thing - you could go to the bank (or vegas) that 254 was going to be tipped very early in match 3, which they were. If teams know the refs aren't going to enforce the bumper zone or tipping rules, then of course they are going to take more chances playing defense. If they knew there was a likelihood of the rules being enforced and a penalty being called, I know that most of the teams would adjust their play accordingly.

Luckily, unlike some other previously discussed situations, in the Archimedes example I didn't hear of any hard feelings from the tip - for one because nothing on the 254 bot was damaged or torn apart (makes it easier not to be upset) and second, because the 494/254/997 alliance knew the issue was with the penalty not being called, not with the team playing defense. Plus the tip in the 3rd match was much more similar to the tip on Einstein, which is to say it certainly fell into the category of a judgement call and could have gone either way, as oppossed to the tip in match 2.

Important note here (since I do have an affiliation & history with 254) - in NO way am I implying 233/71/179 would not have won Archimedes. I think they had the best alliance and still would have won the division. Would have been a great matchup which many in the division were expecting and waiting to see, but I still think the right alliance came out of Archimedes. Hope I didn't just manage to offend either the 494/254/997 or 386/85/107 alliances.

Either way, the point is that FIRST teams will adapt if they know the refs are calling certain rules or actions and giving penalties - just as the teams will adjust their play to be much more agressive when they realize the rules aren't being enforced. What clearly caused even more frustration is that the rules at one regional or on one division field would be enforced the exact opposite then on one of the other fields. Teams expect (and most of us would argue deserve) two things - rules to be enforced as close to as written as possible (which will never happen 100% of the time - part of being human - and I believe most teams get that) and rules to be enforced consistently (or very close to). I don't think many would argue that either of those goals was even close to being achieved this year.

Is there any point harping on this? Not for the 2007 season, no - it's over and nothing's going to change. However, any organization needs to acknowledge what worked and what didn't so it can improve - so hopefully enough discussion and consensus on recognizing the inconsistencies of the rule enforcement this season (and things like the match algorithm) will help make things much better and improved next year for all the teams. The teams work too hard and spend too much not to have the play of the robots & teams decide the matches.

Very sorry for the long post - just couldn't bite my tongue on the incidental vs intentional comments anymore.

Hope everyone has a great weekend and a great off season!

[xzvrw2]

i watched the video only once. i did that so i can base my opinion off of, like a ref, only seeing the match once. (i got this idea from some one over in the now closed curie discussion) here is my opinion:

I see that 177s arm never moved, therefore they didnt intentionaly contact 233 outside the bumper zone. 233s arm was moving back and forth, sometimes in the bumper zone sometimes not. they both contacted eachother outside the bumper zone. so, in theory, they both should have gotten one. but i think the ref seen tat and decided to negate both penalties. Thats what i saw that one and only time i watched the match.

i think the ruling on this match was fair.

my $0.02

[chrisrobin]

During the drivers meeting I heard the Ref say that it was OK to try to knock a tube out of another robots grasp. It was NOT OK to grab the tube. If two robots became entangled it was incumbent on both of them to try to become disentangled. If one of them fell over, the other was probably going to be turned off for the rest of the match. The penalties I rememeber them stressing was from a full speed ramming run from 5 feet or more away (even in autonomous mode) and grabbing a tube in another robot's possession. I got the feeling they weren't going to call penalties for robot arms touching, incidental or otherwise.
I just wish we had had the chance to use some desperate and questionable tactics on Einstein. Not that we would have...

Chris

[Faith]

Watching from the stands, my immediate reaction was that 177 should have been called for a penalty. That was only in the heat of the match, though. Almost immediately afterwards, I thought about it and talked with a teammate and it became more obvious that it shouldn't have been called. Granted, we didn't have great seats, but I'm sure the ref made a great call, even though I had trouble with it :).

[John Wanninger]

Many robots operate much of the time with their extensions outside of their starting zone, and when in close quaters, frequently make contact with other robots' 38x28 ‘protected’ space. Rule <G35>, if strictly enforced would result in a sizable number of robots receiving penalties. I believe that the enforcement (and thusly the interpretation) of this rule had to be relaxed to avoid a rash of penalties, and the ‘incidental’ clause gives leeway. Because ‘incidental’ is never defined, and a visible line never drawn, interpretation is bound to be arbitrary. To further weaken the rule, note that it is sprinkled with softeners such as "generally" and "guidelines". Perpetrator intent may be a factor too, as the rule is titled "Intentional ROBOT- ROBOT Interaction"

A great deal of leeway has been incorporated into this rule - So much that the rule is no longer a rule but a guiding principle. This one is totally up to the referees.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

I was in the stands talking to my teammates and telling them that that is considered a penalty, but it is really up to the refs and its their ruling.

[vVigglEs]

During the drivers meeting I heard the Ref say that it was OK to try to knock a tube out of another robots grasp. It was NOT OK to grab the tube. If two robots became entangled it was incumbent on both of them to try to become disentangled. If one of them fell over, the other was probably going to be turned off for the rest of the match. The penalties I rememeber them stressing was from a full speed ramming run from 5 feet or more away (even in autonomous mode) and grabbing a tube in another robot's possession. I got the feeling they weren't going to call penalties for robot arms touching, incidental or otherwise.
Chris

This is true, i am surprised it was brought up so late in the discussion. 177 didn't grab the tube. When the two robots and the tube became in tangled 177's drivers took there hands of the controllers.

[henryBsick]

This is true, i am surprised it was brought up so late in the discussion. 177 didn't grab the tube. When the two robots and the tube became in tangled 177's drivers took there hands of the controllers.
In any situation, drivers should NEVER EVER take their hands off of their controls. I always waved with one hand and drove with the other(I think some of the gratitude goes to Aiden Brown). Removing your hand from the controlls garuntees 0% controll of the robot.

Just inputting on general actions,
-Henry Sick

[Jeffrafa]

During the drivers meeting I heard the Ref say that it was OK to try to knock a tube out of another robots grasp. It was NOT OK to grab the tube. If two robots became entangled it was incumbent on both of them to try to become disentangled. If one of them fell over, the other was probably going to be turned off for the rest of the match. The penalties I rememeber them stressing was from a full speed ramming run from 5 feet or more away (even in autonomous mode) and grabbing a tube in another robot's possession. I got the feeling they weren't going to call penalties for robot arms touching, incidental or otherwise.
I just wish we had had the chance to use some desperate and questionable tactics on Einstein. Not that we would have...

Chris

This was the biggest thing I got out of the driver's meeting. Basically, the way I understood it they said that unless something was extremely excessive, no penalties would be called on extension contact until someone tipped - then a 10 point penalty would likely be assessed. Obviously grabbing a tube was still out of line, but until somebody tipped it was fair game.

I was actually more surprised when 1270 was DQ'd for tipping 71 in the semifinal match. I wasn't watching when it happened, but I expected nothing more than a 10 point penalty - but it was just a judgment call on whether or not it was 'excessive' play.

(Chris mentioned that he understood it was a DQ for tipping, which would fit for this, but we had a qualifying match in which 217 was tipped and we were only assessed a 10pt penalty, although there was absolutely no hitting high )

- Jeff

[Jeremiah Johnson]

In any situation, drivers should NEVER EVER take their hands off of their controls. I always waved with one hand and drove with the other(I think some of the gratitude goes to Aiden Brown). Removing your hand from the controlls garuntees 0% controll of the robot.

Just inputting on general actions,
-Henry Sick

I agree... taking your hands off the controls could prove worse off. Example: Not being able to save your robot from tipping over if you're tangled and the other robot is pulling away. However, this does not need to be discussed here.


Back on topic: I don't believe this should have been penalized because 177 was consistent in raising their arm when they played defense. However, the photo angle does make it look intentional, but the video proves, in my opinion, that it was not intentional.

[Grant Cox]

As has been said, this was discussed at the driver's meeting. Using your appendage to block another appendage (the other one with a tube) is perfectly legal in the course of normal gameplay (drivers, remember the silly demonstration?). If it gets incidentally tangled up, oh well, you should probably work to get that fixed, but there's no penalties.

/had my arm blocked by an opposing team's shuttle several times, no penalty on them, which I feel is the correct interpretation

[Nevets Amstier]

This was the biggest thing I got out of the driver's meeting. Basically, the way I understood it they said that unless something was extremely excessive, no penalties would be called on extension contact until someone tipped - then a 10 point penalty would likely be assessed. Obviously grabbing a tube was still out of line, but until somebody tipped it was fair game.

I was actually more surprised when 1270 was DQ'd for tipping 71 in the semifinal match. I wasn't watching when it happened, but I expected nothing more than a 10 point penalty - but it was just a judgment call on whether or not it was 'excessive' play.

(Chris mentioned that he understood it was a DQ for tipping, which would fit for this, but we had a qualifying match in which 217 was tipped and we were only assessed a 10pt penalty, although there was absolutely no hitting high )

- Jeff

Watching that match, I had a good angle to view what the 1270 bot's arm was doing at that point. And it was very clear to me that 1270's arm was pushing 71's bot over, and I thought it was fair that 1270 be DQ'd

[Dinger]

After reading this thread i noticed many people talking about "useing the arm for defense". can someone cite a rule that specifically says that the arm cannot be used for defense? its says another robot, or a tube that another robot posses cannot be grasped, and that an arm cannot be used to push another robot. However, i see no rule (and please correct me if i am wrong) about useing the arm to just get in the way. if other robots cannot make arm to arm contact legally it seems to me that putting your arm where the opposition wants to put thiers is a great and legal defensive manuver.
As far as i can see, from my interp of the rules the "Arm as defense" argument for a penalty seems void.

[AdamHeard]

Watching that match, I had a good angle to view what the 1270 bot's arm was doing at that point. And it was very clear to me that 1270's arm was pushing 71's bot over, and I thought it was fair that 1270 be DQ'd

In that case, there should've been a DQ in 2 of 3 matches of the arch semifinal....

those had to be the most intentional tippings (107 on 254) I have ever seen.

[IndySam]

After reading this thread i noticed many people talking about "useing the arm for defense". can someone cite a rule that specifically says that the arm cannot be used for defense? its says another robot, or a tube that another robot posses cannot be grasped, and that an arm cannot be used to push another robot. However, i see no rule (and please correct me if i am wrong) about useing the arm to just get in the way. if other robots cannot make arm to arm contact legally it seems to me that putting your arm where the opposition wants to put thiers is a great and legal defensive manuver.
As far as i can see, from my interp of the rules the "Arm as defense" argument for a penalty seems void.

It’s not specifically a problem of playing defense but contact outside the bumper zone not being penalized. I think the rule was too loosely defined and that is what’s causing the trouble with interpretation.

<G35> Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable, and the offending ROBOT will be assessed a 10-point penalty, and may be disqualified from the match if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT.

Next year we need to do a better job of getting the GDC to tighten up rules like this.

[Liz Smith]

It’s not specifically a problem of playing defense but contact outside the bumper zone not being penalized. I think the rule was too loosely defined and that is what’s causing the trouble with interpretation.

<G35> Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable, and the offending ROBOT will be assessed a 10-point penalty, and may be disqualified from the match if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT.

Next year we need to do a better job of getting the GDC to tighten up rules like this.

They get a little tighter as you read on... you missed the second part of it...

-If a ROBOT extends outside of its 28 inch by 38 inch starting footprint, it is responsible
for the extension's contact with other ROBOTS and must not use the extension to
contact other ROBOTS outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Likewise, other ROBOTS will not
be responsible for contact with the extension outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Again,
incidental contact will not be penalized.

-Extension to extension contact between two ROBOTS with appendages outside the 28-
inch by 38-inch starting footprint will generally not be penalized.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

In that case, there should've been a DQ in 2 of 3 matches of the arch semifinal....

those had to be the most intentional tippings (107 on 254) I have ever seen.

The problem is that they weren't intentional in the least. I was right there in on the sideline for those two matches. In sf-2, 107 hadn't moved their arm from their middle row scoring preset, so there couldn't have been intentional tipping with their arm. However, there isn't sufficient evidence in the video to support either opinion. In sf-3, the second match in which 254 tipped, 254 had gotten hung up on the rack trying to hang a tube. What happened, and is clear in the video on SOAP (http://www.soap.circuitrunners.com/2007/movies/arc/arc_sf2m3.wmv), 107 had just missed placing a tube and at the same time 254 was trying to place one on the same leg and 107's arm was stuck on the leg, when 254 started pushing on the leg it didn't move and they tipped over. There was no contact between 254 and 107 with their arms.

[IndySam]

They get a little tighter as you read on... you missed the second part of it...

-If a ROBOT extends outside of its 28 inch by 38 inch starting footprint, it is responsible
for the extension's contact with other ROBOTS and must not use the extension to
contact other ROBOTS outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Likewise, other ROBOTS will not
be responsible for contact with the extension outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Again,
incidental contact will not be penalized.

-Extension to extension contact between two ROBOTS with appendages outside the 28-
inch by 38-inch starting footprint will generally not be penalized.

That rule isn't any clearer.

Must not, but incidental will not be penalized.
Generaly won't be penalized?

[Travis Covington]

The problem is that they weren't intentional in the least. I was right there in on the sideline for those two matches. In sf-2, 107 hadn't moved their arm from their middle row scoring preset, so there couldn't have been intentional tipping with their arm. However, there isn't sufficient evidence in the video to support either opinion. In sf-3, the second match in which 254 tipped, 254 had gotten hung up on the rack trying to hang a tube. What happened, and is clear in the video on SOAP (http://www.soap.circuitrunners.com/2007/movies/arc/arc_sf2m3.wmv), 107 had just missed placing a tube and at the same time 254 was trying to place one on the same leg and 107's arm was stuck on the leg, when 254 started pushing on the leg it didn't move and they tipped over. There was no contact between 254 and 107 with their arms.


I'll go ahead and agree with SF2-3, but it was clearly contact outside of the bumper zone in SF2-2 that caused 254 to tip, whether it was intentional or not. I too was on the sidelines, and it was as clear as day to me. They were 5 feet away from the goal, neither robot anywhere near scoring position, and 107 had their arm straight out parrallel to the floor, extending a solid 18" outward from the front of the robot. It doesn't get any more clear than that. It has nothing to do with it being intentional or not... their arm was pointed straight out, and they proceeded to drive forward playing defense against 254. Clearly a pentalty at the very least, and more appropriately a DQ. The soap video only shows this contact for 1/2 a second or so, but it's there none the less.

[P.J. Baker]

That rule isn't any clearer.

Must not, but incidental will not be penalized.
Generaly won't be penalized?

I've gone back and forth trying to decide if this rule is clear - which leads me to conclude that it is not.

It is a catch all that should probably be listed as several rules in the future. Personally, I would like it to address the following items:

Pushing - Robots are expected to push each other during normal game play. Pushing must occur via robot to robot contact in the bumper zone. Penalties will be assessed for pushing outside the bumper zone. A DQ may be assessed at the discretion of the referee.

No fault entanglement - It is expected that robots will occasionally become entangled during normal game play. The entangled parties must attempt to become un-entangled. Penalties/DQ's will only be assessed if one party uses this situation to pull another more than is needed to break the entanglement, creating a risk for tipping or robot damage.

At fault entanglement - At the discretion of the referee, teams with robot design features and/or strategies which are considered to present an entanglement risk will be penalized if there is an entanglement during the match. Robot design features that present risk must be modified prior to that robots next match.

Pulling - Robots on opposing alliances are not expected to pull each other during normal game play. Some pulling is allowed between robots in a No Fault Entanglement. Outside of this situation, the pulling robot will be assessed and penalty and possibly a DQ.

Contact outside the bumper zone - Contact between robots outside the bumper zone is expected during normal game play as robots attempt to score on and defend against each other. However, this contact can easily lead to at fault entanglement, pushing outside the bumper zone and pulling, all of which carry penalties or DQ's. Please design your robots and strategies accordingly.

It's certainly not perfect, but it's a start and perhaps a little bit clearer. Please add, subtract and edit with your own thoughts.

[Lil' Lavery]

The problem is that they weren't intentional in the least. I was right there in on the sideline for those two matches. In sf-2, 107 hadn't moved their arm from their middle row scoring preset, so there couldn't have been intentional tipping with their arm. However, there isn't sufficient evidence in the video to support either opinion. In sf-3, the second match in which 254 tipped, 254 had gotten hung up on the rack trying to hang a tube. What happened, and is clear in the video on SOAP (http://www.soap.circuitrunners.com/2007/movies/arc/arc_sf2m3.wmv), 107 had just missed placing a tube and at the same time 254 was trying to place one on the same leg and 107's arm was stuck on the leg, when 254 started pushing on the leg it didn't move and they tipped over. There was no contact between 254 and 107 with their arms.
In SF-2

107 was not holding a ringer. 107 was not attempting to pick up a ringer .
107 was using their extended arm to push 254 up high (from the side).
107 was using their extended arm to push outside/above the bumper
zone.
254 was in possession of a ringer.
254 was moving towards the rack, presumably to score.
Neither 254 nor 107 were actively in the process of attempting to score.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z2XmhRZmMsM


<G35>Intentional ROBOT - ROBOT interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. In all cases involving robot-to-robot contact, the head referee may assess a 10-point penalty and/or the ROBOT may be disqualified.
However, Rack 'n' Roll is a highly interactive game, and some appropriate contact is allowed under the following guidelines:
[...]
Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable, and the offending ROBOT will be assessed a 10-point penalty, and may be disqualified from the match if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT. Incidental contact will not be penalized. Contact outside the BUMPER ZONE that is a result of tipping caused by contact within the BUMPER ZONE will be considered incidental contact.
If a ROBOT extends outside of its 28 inch by 38 inch starting footprint, it is responsible for the extension's contact with other ROBOTS and must not use the extension to contact other ROBOTS outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Likewise, other ROBOTS will not be responsible for contact with the extension outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Again, incidental contact will not be penalized.
[...]

Intention is never mentioned in the rule. Incidental, however, is (and I presume this is where many people infer the need for intention).
1. happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else.
Now, therefor, in order for contact to be deemed incidental, it would have to be proved unplanned and in conjunction with legal defense, or simply, an accidental side effect of legal defense. That raises the question, what is legal defense?
In pertaining to this situation, it would be the quotes outlined in <G35>, as 107 is clearly not defending a spider leg (<G36>), interacting with a game piece (<G36> and <G37>), entangling (<G38>), or pinning (<G39>). As 107s sole defensive mean (and sole means of contact with 254 period) at that moment was contact outside the bumper zone, I cannot possibly believe that it would fit the definition of incidental (meaning an subordinate side-effect of another action), and as such, must be penelized (minimum 10 point by the rule, maximum DQ).