Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid [Archive]

usbcd36

01-03-2008, 15:45

The rules used to prohibit impeding all the time, but were changed in team update 2.

Rule <G40>
IMPEDING Traffic –ROBOTS shall not intentionally IMPEDE the flow of traffic
around the TRACK. During the Teleoperated Period, a ROBOT will be considered
to be IMPEDING traffic if it is preventing an opposing ROBOT from proceeding
around the TRACK. A ROBOT can be found to be IMPEDING traffic if:
 the ROBOT is traveling slowly relative to the approaching ROBOT, and
moving to prevent the approaching ROBOT from passing, or
 the ROBOT is stopped on the TRACK and there is no clear lane of passage
for the opposing ROBOT, or
 the ROBOT pins an opposing ROBOT against an arena element, border, or
another ROBOT
Note that a ROBOT is not IMPEDING traffic if:
 there is a clear “passing lane” around the ROBOT, or
 the IMPEDING ROBOT and the approaching ROBOT are from the same
ALLIANCE (i.e. a ROBOT can not impede another ROBOT of the same
ALLIANCE), or
 the ROBOT is in the process of HURDLING (except as noted in Rule
<G43>).

XaulZan11

01-03-2008, 15:47

Cory

01-03-2008, 15:48

I think one difference is that high speed ramming can cause damage to the other robots, while impeding doesn't (unless the other robot is going to fast and cannot stop). I actually like the strategy of having a defensive autonomous.

I think it sucks. You aren't allowed to intentionally impede anyone during teleoperated mode, so why should you be able to in hybrid?

lukevanoort

01-03-2008, 15:49

I think one difference is that high speed ramming can cause damage to the other robots, while impeding doesn't (unless the other robot is going to fast and cannot stop). I actually like the strategy of having a defensive autonomous.
And that it is kind of hard to require that all teams make their robot able to respond to bumps to pass autonomously, which is the reason why the rules are like they are, I imagine.

Bongle

01-03-2008, 17:52

Chuck Glick

01-03-2008, 17:58

Teams that have high-speed hybrid modes that can get far enough to be impeded likely also have the talent to have a 'stop' command that they can give in hybrid. If you see your team is going to ram another, it's your job to stop it, not their job to get out of the way.

And getting penalties for high-speed in autonomous isn't new. Back in 2006 when drive-straight blocking was all the rage, teams that were deemed too fast would get stern talks from the refs.

But what if your IR isnt strong enough? you get a penalty because your remote isnt as good as the next teams? and crossing the line to hit the estop is a penalty too. So what gives? you get a penalty just for trying to NOT get a penalty.

Bongle

01-03-2008, 18:03

But what if your IR isnt strong enough? you get a penalty because your remote isnt as good as the next teams? and crossing the line to hit the estop is a penalty too. So what gives? you get a penalty just for trying to NOT get a penalty.

There are many solutions:
Slow down as you enter their zone, or use a different technology than IR, or have a command that says "warning: the opposing team is blocking us, slow down when you enter their zone", and give it as soon as you see that the opposing team is trying to impede you. You don't have to give a real-time command to stop.

Actually, aren't the robo-coach stations for your alliance located at both ends of your home zone? That means as you enter the most likely area for impediment entering the opposing home-zone, your robocoach is just feet away.

I don't think there's been a year where high-speed in autonomous has been A-OK. If you're going to go fast, there had better be some form of safety for other teams, whether it is a robocoach stop command, not going fast when you're likely to encounter others, or active detection like ultrasound or cameras. The alternative amounts to: "I want 120lbs of metal to go as fast as possible in hybrid, and if another team gets damaged by that, it's not my fault: it's hybrid mode"

Cory

01-03-2008, 18:09

And getting penalties for high-speed in autonomous isn't new. Back in 2006 when drive-straight blocking was all the rage, teams that were deemed too fast would get stern talks from the refs.

I think this is a poor comparison, because as you said, the intent was clearly for these teams to ram another team to mess up their autonomous program.

1114 in specific was yellow carded for ramming an opponent. Their autonomous is clearly not designed to hit other teams to interfere with them. It;s designed to go around the field and score points. This is a crucial difference.

Bongle

01-03-2008, 18:22

I think this is a poor comparison, because as you said, the intent was clearly for these teams to ram another team to mess up their autonomous program.

1114 in specific was yellow carded for ramming an opponent. Their autonomous is clearly not designed to hit other teams to interfere with them. It;s designed to go around the field and score points. This is a crucial difference.

I guess my response to that was what I edited in just as you posted: the intent may be to have a successful autonomous mode and not to hurt anyone, but to have 120lbs of metal moving as fast as it can without trying (or rather: to have a game where there is no incentive) to reduce the amount of damage it'd do to things in its path can be seen as a bit reckless. There needs to be some pressure on teams to reduce speeds when they might encounter opponents (like when they enter the opposing team's home zone where impeding teams are likely to be).

EricVicenti

01-03-2008, 18:34

Yesterday morning at the drivers meeting here in Portland, the question came up. The head ref said impeding was illegal during hybrid, intentional or not. However, I have never seen them call it, though I have seen them call ramming, even though it was unintentional.

Jonathan Norris

01-03-2008, 18:38

how about this: you are not allowed to intentionally impeed robots in your home zone, so basically you are not allowed in that zone to drive 3 feet and stop, but otherwise its allright. Because if there isn't going to be rule change here, its going to become common place for teams to drive 3 feet to stop the good hybrid bots.

jgannon

01-03-2008, 19:04

Their autonomous is clearly not designed to hit other teams to interfere with them.
Regardless of the ramming team's intent, high-speed ramming penalties exist to protect the other robots from damage.

Cory

01-03-2008, 19:19

Regardless of the ramming team's intent, high-speed ramming penalties exist to protect the other robots from damage.

<G37> (as follows) would disagree to an extent:

a. High speed accidental collisions are likely to occur during the MATCH, and are an expected part of the game. However, high-speed intentional (emphasis mine) ramming is not acceptable and will be penalized.

It says quite clearly in no fewer than 4 places throughout G37 that robots must be designed to withstand high speed collisions as this is a high speed game.

It seems to me the entire point of G37 is to keep robots as it says, from pursuing strategies involving intentional damage or destruction of opposing robots. It clearly makes reference to accidental collisions at high speed being expected, and the necessity for teams to make robust robots due to such high speed interaction.

The only mention of handing out a penalty for high speed ramming is when the offending team intentionally does so. I will admit that intent is nearly impossible to judge normally, but I think during hybrid intent is quite clear.

For example, a robot with an excellent hybrid mode who nearly always crosses 3-4 lines is not going to collide with a team on purpose. That would be totally counterproductive towards their own scoring. Therefore if they collide with another team, I would assume it was incidental.

My concern lies almost exclusively with teams who have the intent to block the lane in their own home zone.

I guarantee that with certain teams very effectively shutting down all traffic in their home zone by parking 3' out in front of the lane divider, this will become a prominent strategy by many teams who have weak hybrid modes.

If this becomes common, sooner or later some team with a good, fast hybrid mode (such as 1114, or 1024, or others that we saw this weekend) is going to collide with the blocking team at high speed.

Is the team who is trying to score points in hybrid by effectively completing the task at hand going to be penalized for ramming a team that quite clearly intended to do nothing more productive than ruining the hybrid routines for the other alliance? If so, I will be extremely unhappy.

As long as the GDC wants to let teams impede others in hybrid (which seems to be what update 2 and 5 are saying), it seems entirely unfair to punish a team which may collide with them.

thefro526

01-03-2008, 19:30

We thought about using this strategy in some of our matches but did not have the opportunity. I see this being addressed in the next update

XaulZan11

01-03-2008, 19:34

We thought about using this strategy in some of our matches but did not have the opportunity. I see this being addressed in the next update

How do you think will be addressed? Can't a robot that has no autonomous and just sits there be guilty of impeding? Or a robot that just decieds to cross the first line and stops?

Laaba 80

01-03-2008, 19:35

I believe an update allows impeding in hybrid mode.

Unintentional impeding is allowed, however intentional impeding is not allowed in hybrid mode from the Q&A.

Rule <G38> and Rule <G40> were modified to remove any concerns that teams may have about inadvertently impeding robots during the Hybrid Period. This was to avoid an unrealistic requirement that the robots be able to autonomously recognize and respond to "Bump To Pass" signals or identify and steer around stalled robots on the Track during the Hybrid Period. The purpose of these modifications is not to permit the intentional blocking of the Track during Hybrid Period.

The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized. However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.
I was at the midwest regional today, and it was obvious that robots moved forward to block 1024's amazing autonomous modes. The refs never called a penalty. It is not like this happened just once, teams were doing it to them all day.
Joey

TomZ

01-03-2008, 19:44

I will not name names. Anyone who watches the matches will see quite a few teams, and a very low number team in particular who should know better, blocking in quite a few hybrid modes.

I'll say it again. These teams should know better. I will have our drivers bring it up to the Wayne State folks during the drivers meeting, and they will be ready to talk the refs after EVERY match that they see this strategy in.

Hybrid mode is something that is very difficult to do, and good ones should be celebrated. Not stopped by a clearly illegal tactic.

Shankar M

01-03-2008, 20:06

Is the team who is trying to score points in hybrid by effectively completing the task at hand going to be penalized for ramming a team that quite clearly intended to do nothing more productive than ruining the hybrid routines for the other alliance?

I am definitely in the camp for letting the teams who have the prowess to write amazing autonomous modes strut their stuff. The best of the best should be allowed to showcase their talents to everyone, and I am sure everyone is equally anxious to see what these teams have come up with. However, to suggest that teams that are not quite at that level sit idly by and let their opponents rack up points seems a bit unfair.

If your robot was not able to circle the track, or at least not able to circle the track as many times as your opponent, are you going to let them drive around untouched? Isn't that just giving up before you've even started?

In an ideal situation, of course everyone is crossing as many lines as they possibly can. Unfortunately this is not always possible for all teams, so they are forced to adapt. If a team cannot cross four lines, then is it not equally as beneficial for them to stop their opponent from crossing four lines? Is this not the kind of situation that teams consider at the beginning of the season?

Do we want to try and do the scoring, or do we think that we are more suited, more capable of building a very good robot that can limit the number of points our opponent scores?

Offense tends to look more glorious on the field, but it is often a defense that can give teams an edge. This year, the rules seem to be written to provide an advantage to the robots that are out to score. Despite this, teams that were not so adept at scoring showed this weekend that there are ways to play defense.

Although, impeding seems like an ideal defensive measure, the rules seem to indicate that the action of impeding an opponent is illegal. So what does that leave teams that are not able to lap during hybrid to do? What does that leave teams that are able to lap far fewer times than their opponent to do?

Drwurm

01-03-2008, 21:08

I saw a lot of impeding today, in hybrid and in tele. I saw robots blatantly
tipped, some while hurdling.

I saw very little in the way of penalties for the teams attempting these, and
no yellow cards. The yellow cards that were handed out seemed very trivial.

That said, this is week one. Perhaps now that there have been some
regionals, the refs at the others will get a feeling for what the real problems
are. This is a tough game to ref, considering in previous years, defense such
as this has been a viable strategy. The definition for impeding is a tough nut
to crack.

Even cracking down on hybrid mode impeding could get tricky. If a team
drives forward at 1ft/s could they claim to have just been in the wrong place
at the wrong time, and it was an "accident" when they blocked the path? I
would hope that no teams stoop to this level, but it's bound to happen some
time. (Hopefully they wouldn't also claim that they were rammed during the
same maneuver....)

Tristan Lall

01-03-2008, 21:32

Unintentional impeding is allowed, however intentional impeding is not allowed in hybrid mode from the Q&A.
Rule <G38> and Rule <G40> were modified to remove any concerns that teams may have about inadvertently impeding robots during the Hybrid Period. This was to avoid an unrealistic requirement that the robots be able to autonomously recognize and respond to "Bump To Pass" signals or identify and steer around stalled robots on the Track during the Hybrid Period. The purpose of these modifications is not to permit the intentional blocking of the Track during Hybrid Period.

The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized. However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.

I was at the midwest regional today, and it was obvious that robots moved forward to block 1024's amazing autonomous modes. The refs never even said anything. It is not like this happened just once, teams were doing it to them all day. I also didnt see refs calling impeding during teleoperated mode.
JoeyUnfortunately, that GDC response sounds like wishful thinking. It suggests that the referees should estimate the team's intent, which is always a cause for careful consideration among conscientious officials. I suspect that these officials will tend to err on the permissive side, because the opportunity to assign a small sanction (i.e. a 10-point penalty) is not available, and the requirements for a yellow card include "egregious" conduct—which is very tough to justify against a robot playing positional defence under autonomous control against an opponent with an unpredictable path, approaching from behind.

In other words, it's not getting called because the referees don't think that simple defence in hybrid mode is necessarily egregious.

On the other hand, <G40> makes it known that "ROBOTS shall not intentionally IMPEDE the flow of traffic around the TRACK." This statement is part of a rule, but disobeying it carries no specific penalty. Despite the lack of a penalty, it ought to be followed by teams preparing hybrid mode routines.

Of course, the trouble with <G40> is that it doesn't make a clear distinction between intentionally taking an action which might possibly impede an opponent, and intentionally instructing the robot to act an impediment. (And I realize that that is a difficult distinction to express in an enforceable manner!) For example, if Redabot was programmed to advance 1 m and do a series of doughnut maneouvres during the hybrid mode, would it be be intentionally impeding Bluabot, which just happened to want to pass through the same area during its hybrid mode? It's a judgement of intent, and as noted before, those tend to favour the alleged offender, simply because it's too hard to know for sure.

Jimmy Cao

01-03-2008, 21:42

I feel that any team taht's intentionally obstructing in autonomous should not only get a penalty, but they should lose protection under the highspeedram rule. I mean... If you move into the way of an autonomous robot that's laping, it's your fault. You cant say they intentionally rammed you. If given the choice, of course they'd rather get the 8 or 12 points for the lap than take you out with an autonomous hit.

I have a feeling there will be a team update on Sunday/Monday/Tuesday that puts a rule simular to what's above into effect.

Cory

01-03-2008, 22:01

For example, if Redabot was programmed to advance 1 m and do a series of doughnut maneouvres during the hybrid mode, would it be be intentionally impeding Bluabot, which just happened to want to pass through the same area during its hybrid mode?

I think the solution is to not consider flagging/carding teams for ramming in Hybrid.

Jack Jones

01-03-2008, 22:08

Regardless of the ramming team's intent, high-speed ramming penalties exist to protect the other robots from damage.

Regardless of the team’s intent, teams that move three feet forward and stop should earn themselves a yellow card. Not only to protect both robots from damage, but also to protect the integrity of the way the game is clearly supposed to be played.

T3_1565

01-03-2008, 22:11

waialua359

01-03-2008, 22:20

I just dont think impeding during hybrid is wrong, if the GDC decides not to call it and its "legal."
HOWEVER, if the blocking robot gets hit, that's their fault and the robot ramming into them shouldn't get penalized.

BUT, this whole issue is hard to prove which is why I dont think they will change the rule. What if a team is using a remote, but loses range, and it stops? What if a team doesn't even move from its starting position, but has an opponent ramming into them in the process of trying to do a lap during auto mode? Should that be penalized also?
Its tough. The game calls for scoring more points if you can lap, hurdle and herd faster, yet, if you go too fast and bang someone, its a possible penalty.
No referee or game is perfect and there may be conflicting issues concerning game play. Its just tough.

Laxphan1525

01-03-2008, 22:27

I was at the midwest regional today, and it was obvious that robots moved forward to block 1024's amazing autonomous modes. The refs never even said anything. It is not like this happened just once, teams were doing it to them all day. I also didnt see refs calling impeding during teleoperated mode.
Joey

I was competing at Midwest Regional Event this weekend and you could see on many occasions the refs weren't calling the impeding traffic rule. In fact I think they were more concerned about the ridiculous cross traffic rule. When you’re stuck in a small quadrant with three or four other robots it’s hard to maneuver around. Why are teams penalized for barely crossing the line when clearly there attempting to get around and increase the flow of traffic? As opposed to sitting and waiting in a short game for everyone to clear out. I mean they were even penalizing teams who crossed the lines during autonomous. I think this rule is obnoxious because clearly teams aren't trying to drive clockwise to mess with the game they are just trying to get around the track.

As for 1114 case I say why should they be given a yellow card because they can race around the track 16 feet per second. It’s not like they have control over where teams go. Especially when teams started to pick up on how they can ruin there lap. I could understand if they hey guys why don't you tone done the autonomous a little bit but giving them a yellow card right away I think that was a bad call.

T3_1565

01-03-2008, 22:29

I could understand if they hey guys why don't you tone done the autonomous a little bit but giving them a yellow card right away I think that was a bad call.

I agree a verbal warning would of been good, instead of right to the yellow card

Cory

01-03-2008, 22:30

See the problem with this argument it the fact that the refs have to assume things.. which they aren't going to do. You can't assume they are blocking on purpose, as was said (wrong place at the wrong time). and you can't assume that the speedy bots aren't trying to hit people (they only do laps cause they "miss" the opposing robots). So if you leave it up to assuming they you will get bad calls.

Better to make sure your robot doesn't travel a billion mile an hour around a corner or, like was said, in the opposing zone.

And as was said a billion mile an hour auto mode has never been allowed, why should it be now, whereas defensive autos have always been allowed.

Firstly, it was extremely evident to me that certain teams started off with automodes that traveled around the field, then they figured out that they weren't working that well, and that other teams were getting HUGE hybrid scores. At this point I noticed said teams abandoning their previous efforts, moving forward three feet, and stopping. Why else would you do this, when it goes against previously established behavior, unless you were trying to impede the opposing alliance?

Furthermore, a "billion mile an hour" automode has been allowed. Teams have had extremely fast autonomous modes in 2003 and 2004. I saw some extremely violent collisions in both years. I don't ever recall seeing a DQ or penalty for such.

Your point about defensive automodes always being allowed is kind of moot, as the Q&A referenced above clearly prohibits it this season.

If there's no way to determine intent with respect to blocking (and I think there very clearly is. It was 110% clear who was attempting to impede other alliances, and who was trying to run laps), then I think there's no logical way that you can penalize/yellow card/dq a team that happens to hit such a team who may or may not be impeding the track intentionally.

If you penalize the team trying to navigate the field, then the impeding robot has scored a double victory--they have avoided a yellow card that I believe they certainly deserve, and they have given their opponent a penalty/yellow/red card. How is this fair?

I think a yellow card is a totally justifiable penalty. With teams like MWR had, two good hybrid bots on one alliance can score between 24-32 points in lines, and 8-16 points in balls, plus whatever the third robot can do. With teams impeding at the far lane divider, the most these 2 teams can score is 16 points in lines and 8-16 points in balls. Even if the offending team were assessed a 10 point penalty, they have effectively negated up to 24-32 points for the other alliance. Without the yellow card, it would be totally worth it for everyone who did not have a great hybrid mode to just camp at the corner and take 10 point penalties all day, to keep more than 10 points from being scored against them.

I agree a verbal warning would of been good, instead of right to the yellow card

To be fair to the referees, us armchair quarterbacks have no idea whether 1114 was or was not given such a warning prior to being carded.

Jimmy Cao

01-03-2008, 22:32

the refs weren't calling the impeding traffic award.

Dang I want that award =D

From the webcasts, I didnt see this being called either.

StevenB

01-03-2008, 22:40

Remember that per <G40>:
Note that a ROBOT is not IMPEDING traffic if:
• there is a clear “passing lane” around the ROBOT.

If all three teams drove out and stopped right next to each other, that might be a violation. Otherwise, it seems like fair defense to me.
On the whole, I don't like the idea of being penalized for what happens in autonomous mode. There are so many things that can go wrong, and the only way to stop the robot is to E-stop - which disables the robot for the rest of the match. Perhaps there should be an autonomous-only E-stop.

Laaba 80

01-03-2008, 22:40

After thinking about this problem for a while I think MWR refs actually did a pretty good job. One of the things that I think is most important in a ref crew is consistancy, basically, dont call a penalty on 1 team and not call it when another team does the same thing. The MWR called the penalty on the robot moving, and not on the team impeding. I dont think this was the right call, however after the first incident, all teams knew the risks of autonomous mode. I would have liked to see it called the other way, however they took over a problem that wasnt braught up before and remained consistant with it. I dont think the yellow card had a large impact on 1114, however I may be wrong.
Joey

jgannon

01-03-2008, 22:43

From the webcasts, I didnt see this being called either.
If you didn't see this penalty being called, it is likely that either the blocked team had not bumped to pass, there was a clear lane around the impeding bot, one of the impeding bots was from the same alliance as the robot being impeded, the impeding robot was in the process of hurdling, or the impeding action didn't last for more than six seconds. Many impeding counts were started. Not many penalties were called. Please read <G40> and <G41> to understand how this rule actually works.

SU 39

01-03-2008, 22:44

Remember that per <G40>:
There are so many things that can go wrong, and the only way to stop the robot is to E-stop - which disables the robot for the rest of the match. Perhaps there should be an autonomous-only E-stop.

That's what your IR board is for.;)

T3_1565

01-03-2008, 22:45

To be fair to the referees, us armchair quarterbacks have no idea whether 1114 was or was not given such a warning prior to being carded.

That was the first time they hit someone that hard (I believe anyways) so no they weren't warned.

Secondly, I don't think ethier should get a yellow card simply cause you can't penalize a robot that doesn't move. A lap bot takes a wide turn and crashes into a robot without an auto mode and that bot gets a yellow card for impeding?? Is that fair??

Ethier way no yellow cards should be awarded, not right away anyways.
It was a little unfair, but when 1114 got a yellow card, they didn't hit a "drive 3 feet and stop" bot, they hit a bot who had crossed one line. So I believe a warning would of worked.. but I'm not a ref.

It comes down to what people assume, and unfortunatly that changes from person to person, and bad calls will always be called, and some people won't think they are bad calls, and some people will.

Drwurm

01-03-2008, 22:46

As soon as the robot makes a turn, your IR board becomes somewhat useless.

jgannon

01-03-2008, 22:48

That was the first time they hit someone that hard (I believe anyways) so no they weren't warned.
If you weren't on the field, you would have no way of knowing whether a team received a warning.

Laaba 80

01-03-2008, 22:52

A lap bot takes a wide turn and crashes into a robot without an auto mode and that bot gets a yellow card for impeding?? Is that fair??

The rule is for intentional impeding. If a robot has never had an autonomous mode, I think it is safe to assume they arent doing it intentionally.
Joey

TubaMorg

01-03-2008, 22:58

There's no crying in robotics!

Uberbots

01-03-2008, 23:06

I think it sucks. You aren't allowed to intentionally impede anyone during teleoperated mode, so why should you be able to in hybrid?

What if you arent "intentionally" impeding? sure if you have an auto mode that drives forward 3 feet and stops, its impeding, but so could an auto that hits the middle wall and breaks. A rule preventing impeding during hybrid would be very subjective considering the large potential for error.

Cory

01-03-2008, 23:12

What if you arent "intentionally" impeding? sure if you have an auto mode that drives forward 3 feet and stops, its impeding, but so could an auto that hits the middle wall and breaks. A rule preventing impeding during hybrid would be very subjective considering the large potential for error.

I really think it's pretty obvious who has an auto mode that does something, and goes wrong, and who has an auto mode that's sole purpose is to impede other robots.

In the above situation, you could easily tell by assessing whether it stopped short of the divider, hits the divider and keeps spinning it's wheels, starts madly spinning in circles, etc.

-To anyone playing devil's advocate, an impeding team could certainly have their robot do the above things to mimic a hybrid mode gone bad, but seeing as impeding teams is already illegal, I should hope nobody would stoop to such lows.

Vogel648

01-03-2008, 23:25

As the robocoach of one of the teams(along with 16, bombsquad), who impeded 1114 and 1024's hybrid mode in the semi-final matches of Chicago, I would like to say, that there was concern about the legality of the strategy. We specifically asked the refs if that would be called a penalty.

Saying that a low numbered team(team 16 bombsquad) should have known better is ridiculous. The rules allowed it and it did not cause any excess risk of damage to robots or humans.

Honestly I would be fine seeing this change over to a penalty, but don't rip on us for playing with some strategy.

AdamHeard

01-03-2008, 23:26

Just so we are clear on what we mean by 3 feet and stop, look at what 48/16 did to 1114 in quals/elims.

They were probably under the influence it was a legal move, as this is a grayish area in the minds of most.

I believe it should be illegal, because of the Q&A ruling that states it is. However, it seemed liked very few people knew about it.

And, this argument isn't even for our own benefit; 973 has yet to run a hybrid mode on our competition bot. We have some decent modes for past robots (so were not all that behind).

hipsterjr

01-03-2008, 23:26

There's no crying in robotics!

yes, but there is strenuous, drawn out debates between uncompromising professionals. A.K.A: nerd fight:p

Zyik

01-03-2008, 23:29

jgannon

01-03-2008, 23:30

It sounds like there may be some confusion about what actually constitutes an impeding penalty. Please, before complaining any more about this, reread <G40>, and then review a few videos on TBA.

Cory

01-03-2008, 23:43

It sounds like there may be some confusion about what actually constitutes an impeding penalty. Please, before complaining any more about this, reread <G40>, and then review a few videos on TBA.

Actually, I think if you revisit the Q&A answer provided on the second page, you'll see the GDC makes no mention of "IMPEDING" as defined in the rulebook.

They simple say strategies designed to block traffic will not be permitted. In my opinion, this has no relevance whatsoever to <G40> furthermore <G40> applies only to teleoperated mode, not hybrid.

They do specifically mention that "The purpose of these modifications is not to permit the intentional blocking of the Track during Hybrid Period.", after saying that <G40> does not apply.

Jack Jones

02-03-2008, 00:55

Qbranch

02-03-2008, 01:33

I don't think there will be any rule change about the blocking in autonomous. It's kind of obvious when people are doing it on purpose and when they arent, but I just don't think there will be any kind of rule against this.

However, to deal with blocking robots, 1024 is possibly going to hand shifter control over to RALFF (our autonomous driver). In this case, if an obstruction is detected by the forward ultrasonic sensor array, our robot would gently (2 ft/sec) approach a robot which 'accidentally' got in the way, shift in to low gear, and push whatever is in the way out of the way with our 299lb pushing force (sustainable about 5 seconds at this 299lb level).

As usual, as soon as the traffic is cleared, the robot will continue on it's usual course. If for some reason the robot does not slide away from the front of our robot, ours would continue to push the robot at the 2ft/sec speed until the end of the hybrid period.

The thought of doing something like that never occurred even as a thought to our programming team until a certain 'explosive' robot continually blocked our autonomous. Don't take that as me complaining, I understand there is no rule that says you can't, and opposing robots have the same right to win as their opposition does.

See you all at Boilermaker!

-q

EDIT: While the drivetrain can produce 299lbf, I'm not 100% sure what exactly the tires can put to the floor. This has never been tested. Nope, we don't have any supersticky materials or anything.

Matt H.

02-03-2008, 01:41

Cory

02-03-2008, 01:48

n this case, if an obstruction is detected by the forward ultrasonic sensor array, our robot would gently (2 ft/sec) approach a robot which 'accidentally' got in the way, shift in to low gear, and push whatever is in the way out of the way with our 299lb pushing force (sustainable about 5 seconds at this 299lb level).

299 lbs?? :ahh: that'd be a coefficient of friction of 2.006 (which certainly is not possible) assuming a maximum weight of 120 lbs plus 14 for the battery, plus 15 for the bumpers.

Qbranch

02-03-2008, 01:48

I am of the firm belief that if impeding is allowed then high speed (autonomous) ramming should also be allowed. The IR is simply to flakey to ensure consistent commands and it would take an amazing team to program a robot which reliably avoids other robots. If impeding is allowed and ramming is not allowed autonomous will be limited to two line crosses and one trackball down for fear of penalties. The two rules go hand in hand--either both should be allowed or neither should be allowed.

Perhaps instead a required distance of movement in autonomous? Maybe something like "robot must be touching rear wall or must move outside of it's alliance's homestretch starting box (make a tape line box going from the end of the lane divider to the wall of the field)"

Really, even though it doesn't make me happy when i see our robot defensive autonomoused (it's so much fun to watch when it isn't!) by the way the rules lie right now, it can happen. So, instead of begging for a rule change, we'll hope for one, but as with most things in engineering, there's almost always another way to solve a problem. (i.e. what I mentioned above).

-q

Matt H.

02-03-2008, 01:58

Vikesrock

02-03-2008, 02:03

I like your above solution to the problem and as we have a spare ultrasonic it might be worth a try.

A note to the person who said such a pushing force was impossible I don't believe that it is. http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/frictioncoefficients.htm
lists the coefficient of friction of rubber on solids as being 1-4. That is for a smooth rubber strip on a smooth solid. A coefficient of friction of 2 on carpet is highly possible.

They are using 2 pairs of IFI traction tread (I would guess the wheels as well but we all know what happens with assumptions) and Andymark omnis (1 pair offset per side) in the front. The CoF of these wheels has been measured on carpet of the type used in FRC competitions and it is much closer to 1 than 2

Travis Hoffman

02-03-2008, 02:03

Okay, based on update 2 and 5, I see that no mention of impeding exists in hybrid mode.

Still, I don't like that high speed ramming is called, when it is clearly an unintentional act, and impeding is. Also, I will be very upset to see any team get called for ramming in hybrid after they hit a robot that drove 3 feet to impede traffic in hybrid (that would not be illegal, as the 3 foot drive is attempting to get hit, and you can't draw penalties). It's a shady strategy overall.

I understand it is legal per the rules now, I'm just venting.

Vent away, sir. I can understand your contention about waiving high speed ramming for hitting those who obviously intend to get hit. Waiving it for ramming/tipping robots numerous line crossings down your path that are stopped on the field because their auton is over, or they just happen to be jammed into a wall, or they never moved in the first place, is another story, IMHO.

Attaching the negatively-connotated words "shady" and "blatant" to any hybrid blocking strategy is going a bit far.

NO alliance is OBLIGATED to give ANY team a huge advantage in hybrid just because their robot is "cool" and can cross 48,000 lines in auton.

Blocking in hybrid is a smart, effective, legal (??....sigh), and SIMPLE strategy. I do believe you should only employ one bot for this effort (1504 did it expertly), as blocking the entire lane seems to bring the bump to pass rule into question. If there's a lane for the oncoming robots to move around the blocking robot, they have no beef.

There is nothing wrong with simple - I feel people tend to glorify the complex and put it up on a pedestal a bit too emphatically sometimes, at the expense of the more "boring" strategies. There is a place for both in FIRST.

And if the uber-hybrid bots don't like being blocked, they are welcome to use their programming expertise to add some collision avoidance code and move around the obstacle. Use it as an opportunity to "wow" people even more with your adept engineering skillz.

Qbranch and 1024 already outlined a constructive way to respond to this new challenge with additional strategic programming. I see this as yet another instance of "raising the bar". Quite literally getting a "free pass" does not accomplish this objective nearly as effectively.

DARPA Grand Challenge planners don't dilute the accomplishments of event participants by telling big rocks and obstacles to get out of the way of an oncoming autonomous vehicle (there's a funny thought). It's fairly safe to say we are amazed at the way that event "raises the bar" - why can FIRST not employ and permit similar tactics in their challenge design - the addition of defense simply adds "unexpected" disturbances for which robots must compensate.

Matt H.

02-03-2008, 02:06

Ah I made the mistake of not actually viewing their robot before posting. As IFI wheels have a coefficient of friction of 1.2-1.3 their pushing power may be lower than the posted figure. However teams have also designed their robots in creative ways such that when pushed from the front a fraction of the force is transmitted to their rear wheels placing much more weight on them and allowing for stronger pushing. (6 wheel drive with lowered centered wheel can achieve this effect).

Matt H.

02-03-2008, 02:09

Daniel Bathgate

02-03-2008, 02:15

What if a team is just beginning to develop their autonomous? If they had something that told the robot to go forwards x amount of feet to cross the first line, but somehow came out as x amount of inches, it might be seen as a "defensive autonomous" when it wasn't. If a robot hit them the first time they tested this and they didn't know it did this, should they be given a yellow card?

If they were, that would really discourage teams from attempting to write and autonomous mode in the middle of a regional. Writing code halfway through Friday is a time honored tradition, and I'd hate to see it go away. :rolleyes:

The point being, until you see the team do this multiple times in a row, don't assume anything.

Good point. Last year, our Friday written rookie autonomous was supposed to drive to the center of the field and stop to prepare for playing defense. The first time we ran it, our robot drove clear across the field and rammed an opposing robot because I guessed a time wrong. Getting a yellow card wouldn't have made me very happy.

YES! FIRST has been raising the bar and aiming high for some time now. A failure to prepare should have consequences.

No! Why would you want to discourage rookies that had a hard enough time getting a working robot in the crate on time (and everyone else, for that matter) from trying something simple but effective? The line violations in autonomous are discouragement enough from trying as it is. Wouldn't you prefer your alliance partners go for those 4 points?

and...
As soon as the robot makes a turn, your IR board becomes somewhat useless.
Not if you have an omni drive like us! :D

Qbranch

02-03-2008, 02:16

NO alliance is OBLIGATED to give ANY team a huge advantage in hybrid just because their robot is "cool" and can cross 48,000 lines in auton. Period.

...

And if the uber-hybrid bots don't like being blocked, they are welcome to use their programming expertise to add some collision avoidance code and move around the obstacle. Stop whining and use it as an opportunity to "wow" people even more with your adept engineering skillz.

Wow, 48,000 lines, I have to get to work! We only do 6 with no traffic!

And for the second part... we'll see what happens at boilermaker. There is rudimentary recovery code in the robot as of now (you can tell in the multiple times our robot weaved through traffic), but I'm hoping that our drivetrain people will be ok with us adding the autoshifting code in to push whatever is in the way out of the way.

If you all didn't read the edit on my post about 299lbf pushing, I do not know exactly how much pushing force we can put to the floor. All that is is the maximum 5-second-sustainable force at the tire.

Also, I know that 1114 and us (1024) have fast autonomous modes, but who else does?

-q

jgannon

02-03-2008, 02:38

However, to deal with blocking robots, 1024 is possibly going to hand shifter control over to RALFF (our autonomous driver). In this case, if an obstruction is detected by the forward ultrasonic sensor array, our robot would gently (2 ft/sec) approach a robot which 'accidentally' got in the way, shift in to low gear, and push whatever is in the way out of the way with our 299lb pushing force (sustainable about 5 seconds at this 299lb level).
While this sounds like a really cool idea, you should probably encourage RALFF to stop smoking first. ;)

Qbranch

02-03-2008, 02:44

While this sounds like a really cool idea, you should probably encourage RALFF to stop smoking first. ;)

*sigh* well the smoke had nothing to do with the drive system...

The short actually occurred within an ultrasonic sensor, thankfully, that's on the front of the robot.

-q

p.s. Wish you could have seen the smoke swirling under our cover panel before we turned it off... all the victor fans were blowing the smoke around making these awesome swirly vortexy thingies...

Zyik

02-03-2008, 03:14

YES! FIRST has been raising the bar and aiming high for some time now. A failure to prepare should have consequences.

Until you give every team the same programming know how, the same resources and the same experience it is not a failure to prepare.

For example, and I love examples:
Team A might not have any mentors who know anything about code and are relying entirely on one self taught student who hasn't been able to touch the robot because it was still being built all season. They don't have many resources, especially no big sponsors who can machine things for them. Most of their code was tested on Thursday and they are still working out the kinks.

Team B has many mentors. They've been around for a little while and know all about what makes FIRST tick. They've got a couple of decent sponsors, and even have their own practice field and practice robot. They've been able to work on the code all build season and beyond. Their hybrid mode has been tested time and again, so they are able to lend a hand to Team A.

Should these two teams be judged the same? One of them has the resources, the other doesn't. This isn't a case of failure to prepare and consequences for something that you cannot change is unfair. You can hold up a bar yes, but every year FIRST has rookie teams who don't have the same advantage as the rest of us. Some veteran teams don't even have some of the resources that the rookies do. FIRST is so diverse that no one standard can encompass everyone.

Travis Hoffman

02-03-2008, 03:24

Travis I would agree with most of what you are saying however the issue becomes more prominent when the team with the autonomous is penalized for "ramming" a blocking opponent as has happened already. I will stand by my earlier statement that if impeding is allowed then ramming must also be allowed. If a bot chooses to block then it is knowing putting itself into harms way.

I agree completely with this contention. But ONLY when it is clearly obvious the team is attempting to park and block.

To continue, I should also point out that teams who block typically do so by moving to the same spot every time. It would not take too much for the "elite" teams to add code which adjusted how far they drove straight before turning left, effectively avoiding the obstacle.

Of course then, that would be countered by oscillating defensive autons or perhaps even defensive modes which detect oncoming robots and adjust position accordingly.

Sounds pretty cool to me.

If we all just got out of the way (or were forced to do so per the rules) and let the best of the best do their thing without resistance, they wouldn't be challenged to push the envelope and create "the next great thing". I appreciate complex bots that can do amazing things on a field by themselves. But I truly am amazed by those bots who can do the same under defensive pressure.

This IS a robotic sport, is it not? I think the only people who enjoy watching the New England Patriots wax the dregs of the NFL with overwhelming offensive firepower are PATRIOTS fans. On the other hand, I believe EVERYONE, including casual observers, enjoys watching closely-contested battles such as those between the Giants and Pats this past season, where strong offense and defense were on display.

Now I gotta be honest, the level of intra-quadrant bumper zone D and "impeding" at Midwest this weekend seemed to go beyond my original interpretation of the game rules' intent (which, of course, counts for squat). We contributed to this. However, that's the way the referees called it, and it's their interpretation that ultimately sets the tone. Now, as a spectator, I enjoyed watching these matchups greatly. Watching the defensive alliance strategies set in motion and the resultant response to such pressure by the skilled drivers of the best offensive bots at Midwest made the scores that much closer and the spectacle so much more interesting.

And, oh by the way, with all the blocking/defense being played at the event, can anyone tell me who still came out on top at Midwest, when it was all said and done? If, in the journey to that victory, the matches were closer and the losing teams felt like they kept the victors honest, is that such a bad thing?

Congrats to 1114 and 1024 for persevering with their fine machines and even better drive teams and pit crews.

With very few alterations, I hope the way the game was played at Midwest is permitted to continue throughout the remainder of the season.

Dan 1038

02-03-2008, 03:43

We had a discussion with the head ref in Midwest concerning this very topic, due to the alliance we were up against (the 1114/1024 dream team who eventually won) we asked if we could intentionally stop a robot in an area with the intention to block an opponent's hybrid operation. Per him, this would be fine if there was a passing lane around the blocking 'bot (ie, we couldn't line all three of our alliance up to completely block the corner). So, in the nxt match, we prompty sent a partner out 3' and stopped, which seemed great until 1024 ran him over and continued on its way! :(

My .02!

Jimmy Cao

02-03-2008, 07:40

Ken Streeter

02-03-2008, 08:41

Also, I know that 1114 and us (1024) have fast autonomous modes, but who else does? -q

1519 has a pretty quick autonomous robot on their "speed racer" configuration, crossing 8 or 9 lines in autonomous; see this other CD thread for the video (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65193).

However, due to a ruling at GSR that our dual-configuration drive base robot was not legal, our "speed racer" configuration only participated in practice matches. (We used the "hurdling" configuration during the elimination rounds instead -- the hurdling configuration only crossed 3 lines.)

Jack Jones

02-03-2008, 08:52

Until you give every team the same programming know how, the same resources and the same experience it is not a failure to prepare.

For example, and I love examples:
Team A might not have any mentors who know anything about code and are relying entirely on one self taught student who hasn't been able to touch the robot because it was still being built all season. They don't have many resources, especially no big sponsors who can machine things for them. Most of their code was tested on Thursday and they are still working out the kinks.

Team B has many mentors. They've been around for a little while and know all about what makes FIRST tick. They've got a couple of decent sponsors, and even have their own practice field and practice robot. They've been able to work on the code all build season and beyond. Their hybrid mode has been tested time and again, so they are able to lend a hand to Team A.

Should these two teams be judged the same? One of them has the resources, the other doesn't. This isn't a case of failure to prepare and consequences for something that you cannot change is unfair. You can hold up a bar yes, but every year FIRST has rookie teams who don't have the same advantage as the rest of us. Some veteran teams don't even have some of the resources that the rookies do. FIRST is so diverse that no one standard can encompass everyone.

I feel their pain, but...

On January - 5 of this year every team was given the same opportunity. What they did with it was up to them. Should the rules be applied differently based on the ability to follow them? Should a team be allowed to go over the weight limit because they had no way to weigh their robot? I don’t think so. The failure to prepare in your scenario could have included the failure to test in the designated practice area. They could have chosen to try it out first. They may have chosen instead to just put it on the floor in a match and make their problem a problem for everyone else. Not one team goes out there looking to get penalties. Should FIRST conclude that, due to lack of intent, no rule will be enforced?

What we need here is a clear ruling on the matter; one without any mention of intent. IMO, if you block that far turn for any reason, you are not playing the game the way it was designed to be played. Imagine what would happen to NASCAR if they allowed roadblocks.

// OAO

Raul

02-03-2008, 10:16

Laaba 80

02-03-2008, 10:47

Please stop using the word "Impeding" when talking about a single robot. Just stop it!

When 1 robot stops anywhere on the track and does not extend to make themselves bigger, it is not impeding! Therefore, they cannot be breaking the impeding rule.

The definition of impeding you are refering to, <G40> only applies during teleoperated mode.
The real definition of impeding is
IMPEDING: Preventing or obstructing an opposing ROBOT’S ability to proceed around the TRACK
in the direction of traffic.

This never says anything about the amount of robots. So in hybrid it is possible for a single robot to impede, however there is no rule against it.
Here is a quote from the Q&A

The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized. However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.
It clearly says that you are not allowed to intentionaly block the flow of traffic. I am not sure if refs knew about this however. This is just a complete guess, no facts backing it, but I think the ref training session was mostly centered around the rulebook and not the Q&A. Since I never saw a rule against hybrid impeding, I'm assuming the refs thought it is legal and never saw the Q&A. Remember no one braught this up before the competitions, this was a problem they had to deal with that was just thrown on them, and they remained consistent with it.

Oh yeah, Raul, sorry your son beat you in the finals. I guess he has the bragging rights for a while.:D
Joey

Tristan Lall

02-03-2008, 12:21

However, due to a ruling at GSR that our dual-configuration drive base robot was not legal, our "speed racer" configuration only participated in practice matches. (We used the "hurdling" configuration during the elimination rounds instead -- the hurdling configuration only crossed 3 lines.)Not to pull things too far off topic, but what was the justification for ruling it illegal? Did the sum of the weights of all the parts used in both configurations exceed the limit?

HotWings

02-03-2008, 12:26

i lol'ed soo hard watching the simulcasts online, and this rule. hahaha wow, it was great. I couldnt stand watching teams lose because of this...

Dan Richardson

02-03-2008, 14:01

The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized. However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.

This conversation disgusts me, the question has been answered whether you agree with it or not is pointless, a rule is a rule until its changed.

What happened in those matches was illegal no ifs ands or buts about it, There is absolutely 0 question in my mind or any one of those involved minds that what they did was illegal. Should it be legal I guess that could be a question, but why they heck are you guys trying to defend yourselves. Those specific teams, and you know who you are, should have been disqualified on the 2nd offense.

I understand you may have asked the refs and they just didn't know I gave those teams a pass yesterday. But now that you do know its illegal just flipping apologize, and get on with it. I'm not upset with the teams for doing it especially because you got clarification, but I'm set with you guys coming on to these forums, reading the rules and still trying to defend yourselves, your flat out WRONG.

What ticks me off even more is I thought FIRST was taking great lengths to train their refs properly, this should have been addressed as it is such an obvious strategies. Teams would try to block other teams, and its stupid to think there wouldn't be someone who tried it. I've gone to great measures to defend refs in previous posts, but something so blatantly missed in a dozen or so matches really gets my blood boiling.

I hope this problem is rectified before next week, week 1 always finds many problems, and this is surely one of the bigger ones.

Ohh and for those of you saying " You have to figure out there intent " thats absolute bull crap. If a team crosses a line or trys to every single match they compete in, and then all of a sudden " Whoops I guess my autonomous doesn't work it only went out 3 feet and it happens to get in the way of 1114 and 1024.. Oh whatever am I going to do..." Give me a break, you broke a rule, you didn't get caught, you may have asked for clarifications and the refs were blatantly wrong, stop with the excuses, say your sorry.

Vogel648

02-03-2008, 14:31

I feel no need to apologize for strategically using what we confirmed with the refs was how the rules were. The fact that these refs were wrong is IN NO WAY OUR FAULT. I completely agree, they were incorrect, but it would be wrong to blame us, heck apparently the other teams didn't even realize it was actually illegal.

Just calm down everybody, nobody did anything with any ill intent, we were simply competing in the way to give us the best chance inside our understanding of the rules.

Big_Al_1741

02-03-2008, 14:32

Well, on the subject of impeding, all I have to say is that team 1741 (yes, i'm on that team, and i know because I gave this idea out!) used the great idea of stopping early in hybrid mode so that team 148 could not go any farther than where we were (brilliant, right? ;) ), and from what I know, another team did the same in the final matches in the elimination! YAY for my idea! :cool:

jgannon

02-03-2008, 14:43

What happened in those matches was illegal no ifs ands or buts about it, There is absolutely 0 question in my mind or any one of those involved minds that what they did was illegal.
These are very harsh accusations that you are leveling. Nonetheless, you sound pretty confident about this issue. Can you please provide a rule from the latest revision of the manual that would back up your claim? It would really provide something more useful and less libelous to the discussion.

Cory

02-03-2008, 14:51

These are very harsh accusations that you are leveling. Nonetheless, you sound pretty confident about this issue. Can you please provide a rule from the latest revision of the manual that would back up your claim? It would really provide something more useful and less libelous to the discussion.

I think this discussion is really headed nowhere useful at this point.

The Q&A is quite clear that the GDC intended for teams to not be allowed to block in hybrid.

Due to the fact that the Q&A response was not added to a Team Update, it's easy for me to believe that the referees were not aware of it.

Furthermore, as Joey pointed out to me yesterday, and I now seem to recall this being the case, that in the case of a Q&A response disagreeing with the manual, the manual/team updates take precedence. I'm not sure where this was stated. Can anyone else confirm?

I think we all just need to chill out and wait for a team update to clarify this situation.

Paul Copioli

02-03-2008, 14:52

I agree 100% with Raul (and Travis .. which never happens). Those of you that have made an auton (hybrid, whatever) that can do laps, stop whining. It is quite ridiculous. We have a hybrid that does laps and we have been stopped by 1 robot moving to block us. 1 robot can't stop the flow of traffic ... period.

This is not a science fair. Being able to complete a lap in autonomous with no one on the field is boring. Being able to complete a lap with others in your way is exciting.

People tried to do this to us in hybrid all elimination rounds. The risk that they are taking is to not get any points in hybrid. 45 tried to do this in finals 1 and 148 went in front of them and we went behind them. The result: a 36 point deficit after hybrid.

One robot moving 3 feet and stopping will not be called impeding this year and we all better stop complaining and get used to it.

I can't believe the amount of whining already, especially from teams who haven't even played yet.

EricH

02-03-2008, 15:56

Furthermore, as Joey pointed out to me yesterday, and I now seem to recall this being the case, that in the case of a Q&A response disagreeing with the manual, the manual/team updates take precedence. I'm not sure where this was stated. Can anyone else confirm?I can't remember such a statement, and I can't find it in the manual, but I would say it's valid. Though I think that somewhere there should be a clear statement of what takes precedence, such as what FLL has. (Not necessarily FLL's statement, though.)

I think we all just need to chill out and wait for a team update to clarify this situation.Ditto.

Oh, and I agree with Tristan on 1519's robot. Unless both parts together violated a rule (weight/size), it should have been allowed to play as is.

Matt H.

02-03-2008, 16:07

I believe the situation has already been clarified--that is what the Q&A is for. It is simply a matter of the refs not being aware of a preexisting rule.

AdamHeard

02-03-2008, 16:40

I believe the situation has already been clarified--that is what the Q&A is for. It is simply a matter of the refs not being aware of a preexisting rule.

Actually the situation is very tricky.

Right now, it is not clear if the Q&A can override the rules when they contradict. Usually this isn't an issue because Q&As that change the game substantially are quickly incorporated into the team updates.

Alan Anderson

02-03-2008, 16:50

What happened in those matches was illegal no ifs ands or buts about it, There is absolutely 0 question in my mind or any one of those involved minds that what they did was illegal.

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. A single stationary robot cannot be impeding traffic. In the specific situation prompting this thread, there was certainly a passing zone around the robot attempting to block the hybrid lap-runner. Impeding traffic is prohibited, but sitting still to block a robot is not illegal.

(On the other hand, running into a stationary robot at high speed is likely to deserve a penalty for ramming.)

AdamHeard

02-03-2008, 17:01

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. A single stationary robot cannot be impeding traffic. In the specific situation prompting this thread, there was certainly a passing zone around the robot attempting to block the hybrid lap-runner. Impeding traffic is prohibited, but sitting still to block a robot is not illegal.

(On the other hand, running into a stationary robot at high speed is likely to deserve a penalty for ramming.)

I hate that this thread makes me disagree with people I respect, but; based on the wording of the Q&A, it just says block traffic. So, I would assume any intentional traffic blocking, whether or not it blocked the whole lane, is illegal.

[QUOTE]However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.[/[QUOTE]]

TubaMorg

02-03-2008, 19:03

Tristan Lall

02-03-2008, 19:05

I hate that this thread makes me disagree with people I respect, but; based on the wording of the Q&A, it just says block traffic. So, I would assume any intentional traffic blocking, whether or not it blocked the whole lane, is illegal.Does that mean, blocking any traffic in hybrid mode is illegal (and yellow-cardable), or blocking all traffic? And when is impeding equivalent to blocking traffic? These are things that need to be clearly and precisely specified, otherwise we're bound to have referees calling it in different ways, and teams operating under different impressions of what's legal.

And regarding the order of precedence of rules, it has not, to my knowledge, been stated anywhere official this year. In the past (not necessarily last year), there was a communication from FIRST that said rules, team updates, e-mail blasts and Q&As were official, and that in case of conflict, the most recent revision of the rule (i.e. from the latest rulebook and/or latest update) was binding. Q&As and e-mail blasts were interpreted as being clarifying statements only, but could not change what was in the rulebook.

I've personally continued to operate under the assumption that that hierarchy is valid, but I make sure to take account of whether an official order of precedence has been issued (and therefore if a team should have been expected to follow it).

Matt H.

02-03-2008, 19:06

Although this may sound lawyer like I believe there is little conflict between the manual and the Q&A. As many teams have pointed out the impeding rules in the manual do not apply to hybrid period.
The Q&A makes not mention of impeding. It only mentions blocking. This word choice is highly significant and would indicate that their intent is to allow no obstruction of the field. Part of the problem in discussing these issues is that first has taken common words such as impeding and given them very specific definitions.

SU 39

02-03-2008, 19:11

Oh, and I agree with Tristan on 1519's robot. Unless both parts together violated a rule (weight/size), it should have been allowed to play as is.

Not trying to get too off topic either, but I believe the rule is <R09>...although I do love the idea.

<R09> Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the
2008 FIRST Robotics Competition. That ROBOT shall fully comply with all rules specified in
the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition manual.

EricH

02-03-2008, 19:24

Not trying to get too off topic either, but I believe the rule is <R09>...although I do love the idea.That could explain it. Though that would depend on whether the speed demon could be attached to the hurdler without changing anything other than bumpers and what was connected to the RC.

Laaba 80

02-03-2008, 19:38

I suppose the issue here is what the definition of blocking traffic is. The GDC in Q and A says that strategies designed to block traffic are not allowed. Some here are interpreting this to be in conflict with the manual. However consider the idea that they are in perfect agreement. The manual says that a robot is not impeding if there is a passing lane. Phrased another way, a robot that is stopped (whether in hybrid or teleoperated mode) is not blocking traffic if there is a passing lane. A strategy that involves blocking traffic would require a concerted effort to block all lanes. Therefore a single robot driving forward and stopping in the known path of another robot's hybrid is not blocking traffic as long as there are other avenues to travel. This is simply a good idea, not an illegal move.

During Aim High I was very impressed with various team's strategies during autonomous to block the shooters. I was even more impressed during elimination rounds at the ever evolving auto modes where a shooter was blocked, then the next round the blocker was blocked to free up the shooter. I have to believe that any team clever enough to drive laps during hybrid mode can counteract a simple parked robot.

You are looking at the impeding RULES not the definition. The rule you are talking about only applies in teleoperated, it means nothing in hybrid.
The real definition of hybrid is:
IMPEDING: Preventing or obstructing an opposing ROBOT’S ability to proceed around the TRACK
in the direction of traffic.
With that definition, I think 1 robot driving out to block the flow of traffic is considered impeding, dont you? That said, the Q&A people are quoting never says anything about impeding or bump to pass or anything like that.
However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.
It says it may be considered a yellow card offense. I may be wrong, but I dont know if there is anything in the rulebook about yellow cards this year. There are things that are said to be a yellow card offense, but I have never actually seen what a yellow card does. I would look for it now, but I think the FIRST site is down again. If someone else knows where it is defined please let me know. There needs to be an update to clarify this, because as I see it, it is not allowed, however there is no penalty for doing it, unless a yellow card also gives a penalty.
Also, I dont think that the Q&A is conflicting. If the manual has nothing about impeding/blocking in hybrid, how can the 2 be conflicting?
Joey

Karthik

02-03-2008, 20:30

I am sure that they and 1114 will come up with a way to go around the blocking robot where there is room to do so. Or they can choose to push them slowly out of the way as he said.

Already working on it. :p

Just to make something clear, 1114 is in no way upset at any team who tried to block us in hybrid mode. These teams were making the strategically smart decision, and we would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed. We don't expect teams to sit by and let us score points. We went through this in 2006 in autonomous mode, and as we did then, we're going to make every effort to adapt.

Alan Anderson

02-03-2008, 20:36

IMPEDING: Preventing or obstructing an opposing ROBOT’S ability to proceed around the TRACK in the direction of traffic.
With that definition, I think 1 robot driving out to block the flow of traffic is considered impeding, dont you?

I don't think so. One stationary robot cannot prevent an opponent from proceeding around the track. It can get in the opponent's way, but as long as it leaves room for the opponent to pass, traffic is not obstructed.

Qbranch

02-03-2008, 21:14

Already working on it. :p

Just to make something clear, 1114 is in no way upset at any team who tried to block us in hybrid mode. These teams were making the strategically smart decision, and we would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed. We don't expect teams to sit by and let us score points. We went through this in 2006 in autonomous mode, and as we did then, we're going to make every effort to adapt.

We share your sentiments 1114 (who is, by the way, awesome! :D ).

1024 is developing multiple strategies, ranging from brute-force to elegant. We'll put them all in the robot and toggle-switch-select them at match time.

See you in atlanta, simbotics!

Everybody else: see you in Boilermaker!

-q

jason_zielke

02-03-2008, 21:16

Just to make something clear, 1114 is in no way upset at any team who tried to block us in hybrid mode. These teams were making the strategically smart decision, and we would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed. We don't expect teams to sit by and let us score points. We went through this in 2006 in autonomous mode, and as we did then, we're going to make every effort to adapt.

I was going to say almost the exact same thing. 1024 feels the same way.

This challenge translate well into most engineers daily lives as well. Our customers do not just accept what we give them and change thier needs ("rules") to make it easy for us to do our job. Nor does the competition step out of the way to allow us to be the market leader.

It is only by challenging each other do we all grow smarter together. It is only when you are challenged that you can find your flaws and be motivied to fix them.

I think this year's hybrid mode is outstanding. There are so many options for teams work together, complement each other and adapt to the competition. It allows for a lot of creativity and a wide range of unqiue solutions in software, very much like we have had for years related to the mechanical and electrical design of the robots.

martschr

02-03-2008, 21:53

First off let me say that I'm glad you are not mad at us. Next let me say that a strategy that was thrown out was to make a wall that would block the way needless to say we did not do this because we took the rules into consideration. We made sure that a path would be available so we would not be obstructing traffic. This same thing happens every year. We have been blocked in auto many times in previous years. This is a valid strategy that we decided to use, and it paid off. We won the first match that we played against the alliance of 1114 and 1024, but lost the next two. One difference in this year and previous years when it was allowed is that this year everyone can control their robot using their hybrid controls allowing them the chance to adapt and go around any robots in their way. If they were to make a rule against doing this then we would not do it again, although I think that they will not and should not do this. That being said I would like to say we lost to a great alliance and the entire team agrees with me in saying that we enjoyed the hard fought matches.

Derek Bessette

02-03-2008, 22:40

First off I would like to congratulate the referees at the Midwest regional on a job well done. Their job this year is difficult to say the least. Their interpretations of the rules were communicated very well at the driver’s meetings. It was always known how they intended to call things.

My understanding of “impeding” has changed after week one. The key part of <G40> that I did not fully understand is the following:

Note that a ROBOT is not IMPEDING traffic if:
- there is a clear “passing lane” around the ROBOT

This part of the rule seems pretty clear. There can be no impeding call if there is an open lane. The big question is what defines an open lane. If I stretch my robot out so it is 60” wide then one robot could be called for impeding if they drove out 4 ft and stopped.

In the case of the elimination rounds at the Midwest regional, the closest any robot could have been to impeding would have been team 16. With there flop down style there robot was close to 5ft long when in it’s playing configuration. With 13.5ft between the wall and the lane divider there would be 51 inches on either side of them, worst case. Our measly 34” wide robot had a lot of room to get around. The way the rulebook is written the lack of impeding calls in hybrid mode was justified.

My feeling on the subject is that one robot should generally not be called for impeding in hybrid. The only case I feel should be called is if the robot is continually moving back a forth to block all lanes. I also believe that two robots that work together to block traffic should generally be called for impeding, even if one of the robots has not moved in hybrid mode. A 44 inch robot on the wall with another robot pulled out 7 feet could create a condition where there is not adequate room to pass.

As for the question of ramming, if a team is purposely putting their robot in harms way then there should be no ramming call on the opposing alliance.

rich vogel

02-03-2008, 23:40

Laaba 80

03-03-2008, 17:50

Ok, I need to say this again. As of now there is no such thing as IMPEDING in hybrid. People bring up rule <G40> and are saying that what they have seen in hybrid is not impeding. Unless they make an update about it, <G40> means nothing in hybrid mode. The only thing said in the Q&A is about blocking, not impeding. I do feel that driving out and stopping is blocking traffic.
Alan, I agree with you that 1 robot isnt preventing access around the track, however I feel it is obstructing. Obstructing in my opinion doesnt mean no access, it just means that there is something it the way.
I dont care which way this goes, but people have so many different opinions on what this means, it needs to be clarified.
Joey

Kevin Sevcik

03-03-2008, 19:10

I enjoyed watching 1114's high speed autonomous runs, but safety should be paramount. A safer, more easily refereed approach than the yellow flag treatment that 1114 received would be the imposition of a speed limit, but I doubt that 1114 is lobbying for that;) . I believe that another robot at MWR was penalized for a high speed autonomous collision that knocked down 111's operator controls, so 1114 does not appear to have been singled out for this policy at MWR.
Did someone say restrictor plates?

But seriously. In response to those that think moving 3 feet and stopping is illegally blocking traffic... What if the team instead was constantly driving forward at a slow rate? The Sim-o-byte robot would still be moving in the direction of traffic, albeit slowly. What if a team is attempting to remove a ball when they're hit? What if they're attempting to remove a ball but have ended up in the wrong place? What if they get hit by the dreaded 8.2V bug? What if they just set up the wrong auto mode? Do we really want to require teams to fill out sworn affidavits and submit to polygraphs to decide if they're getting a 10-pointer?

T3_1565

03-03-2008, 19:25

Did someone say restrictor plates?

But seriously. In response to those that think moving 3 feet and stopping is illegally blocking traffic... What if the team instead was constantly driving forward at a slow rate? The Sim-o-byte robot would still be moving in the direction of traffic, albeit slowly. What if a team is attempting to remove a ball when they're hit? What if they're attempting to remove a ball but have ended up in the wrong place? What if they get hit by the dreaded 8.2V bug? What if they just set up the wrong auto mode? Do we really want to require teams to fill out sworn affidavits and submit to polygraphs to decide if they're getting a 10-pointer?

Thank you!

The problem is if you want an impeding penalty, then those robots trying to knock off balls get it, those robots who cross one line a stop get it, those robots whos auto mode doesn't work right, or misses there trackball with vision or whatever, all get penalized as well.

I for one think its fine to block, learn to get around it, there is plenty more space on the track to drive!

AdamHeard

03-03-2008, 19:26

Did someone say restrictor plates?

But seriously. In response to those that think moving 3 feet and stopping is illegally blocking traffic... What if the team instead was constantly driving forward at a slow rate? The Sim-o-byte robot would still be moving in the direction of traffic, albeit slowly. What if a team is attempting to remove a ball when they're hit? What if they're attempting to remove a ball but have ended up in the wrong place? What if they get hit by the dreaded 8.2V bug? What if they just set up the wrong auto mode? Do we really want to require teams to fill out sworn affidavits and submit to polygraphs to decide if they're getting a 10-pointer?

In an ambiguous case, no penalty.

When it is as blatant as some of the cases I saw this weekend, It should be a penalty and yellow; A yellow should be assessed as I see teams taking the 10 pt penalty to prevent the other alliance from scoring 10+ points.

Paul Copioli

03-03-2008, 19:37

adman

03-03-2008, 19:46

First of all thanks to 1114 for being a great alliance partner and they did a
great job helping 2014 to get ready for the finals. See you in Atlanta!

I have been mentoring at 1024 for 3 years now in Software. The 2006
Shooterbot became notorious for scoring points. After a while we would
have blocking robots coming after us. We countered with variable delays.

Its a game! Play it well and win. 1114 and 1024 got a chance to show how
to lap the field. The Gyro Code is posted on Kevins site at NASA/JPL. He is
a great guy and wants to help everyone have autonomous. QBranch always
helps anyone that asks. GP is all about this.

Now the first week has been played we all know what to expect. As fast
as we were packing the crate we were figuring out how to thwart the
deadly CAD ( Corner Autonomous Defense).

Heck if our Gyro breaks you better believe we would consider it too.

P.S. 1024 now is very skilled at getting smoke back into the Robot!

AdamHeard

03-03-2008, 19:58

Jimmy Cao

03-03-2008, 22:39

Upon further concideration and reading, I think that teams should be permitted to block in autonomous, but by doing so, they forfeit protection from the high-speed ram rule. I mean, they know they are going to block a robot from lapping, and it's expected that they'll get nailed. If teams cannot take the blow, then dont drive forward 3 feet >.>

Laaba 80

03-03-2008, 22:54

For the people who are saying you should be allowed to block and that teams with good auto modes should "deal with it", could you please tell me why you should be able to? If you arent able to obstruct during teleoperated, why should you be able to in hybrid? I dont think you should be able to block in hybrid. In teleoperated mode, if someone is in your way, you can bump to pass. Robots arent going to respond to that in hybrid. So how can they allow teams to block. I'm not just saying this because our team has a great auto mode either. I havent gotten a chance to work on auto mode at all with the finished robot. If we have anything, I will need to do it on thursday at the comp. I really dont think teams should be able to block, however whatever the GDC decides I will be ok with.
Joey

Stu Bloom

03-03-2008, 23:33

For those of you so intent on quoting the Q&A as your reason for insisting that hybrid "blocking" (note that the term blocking is not defined anywhere in the rules) is illegal, PLEASE consider this Q&A (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8670), and LACK of direct answer by the GDC. The scenario put forth seems to be exactly what you are all complaining about - It seems that if the intent of the GDC was to dis-allow that specific strategic hybrid defense they would have made it clear in an answer to that question.

Note, in fact, that the only time ANY form of the root "block" (non-electrical, non-hotel) is used in the rules is in section 7.3.5.2, rule G43, which refers to "effectively blocking the width of the TRACK", and NOT just a single robot blocking a path. (THANKS team358.org !)

Cascade

03-03-2008, 23:38

From the Q&A:

GDC GDC is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,411
Default Re: Hybrid Blocking
Rule <G38> and Rule <G40> were modified to remove any concerns that teams may have about inadvertently impeding robots during the Hybrid Period. This was to avoid an unrealistic requirement that the robots be able to autonomously recognize and respond to "Bump To Pass" signals or identify and steer around stalled robots on the Track during the Hybrid Period. The purpose of these modifications is not to permit the intentional blocking of the Track during Hybrid Period.

The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized. However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.

We shall see how FIRST responds this week, especially in light of the fact we have teams admitting to intentionally impeding in HYBRID mode. On the other hand, this is a great strategy to use against great hybrid mode robots.

We shall see.

Jeff K.

03-03-2008, 23:54

This is going to be hard to rule. Teams that move, but do not move out of their first quadrant should be excused from the high speed ramming rule, meaning if they are in there, they better expect consequences for their choice to run that auto mode. Having to make the more capable teams give the right of way to the teams that impede traffic goes against the regular match play. These rules seem to become more complicated for reffing as these updates come out.

I do agree it is a great idea for them to do as a defensive strategy, but penalizing the other person for falling into their trap isn't right.

It's like a person parking their car in the middle of the freeway...try explaining to the auto insurance why you caused the 5 car pile up and how it's their fault for you voluntarily parking there.

Cory

04-03-2008, 00:58

hillale

04-03-2008, 01:05

In my eyes the high speed ramming is still a very plausible call in autonomous/hybrid, even if the robot intentionally moves into the way to block said rammer (intentional/unintentional potential damage to a robot is a very serious problem and should merit a warning on first offense). Our team received a warning the first time, and a yellow card the second, for entangling other teams in our accumulator (very unintentional). Also, the idea of intentionally moving into possible lanes of traffic is a very legitimate strategy (as long as there is still a lane wide enough for a robot to fit through as far as the track is concerned). 1024 has a very very well thought out completely autonomous mode that will slow down to "gracefully" push obstacles out of their way (or attempt to avoid them in general). 1114 has the advantage (disadvantage?) of using the robocoach to tell their bot when to turn (brings in human error and field of vision). Finally, I feel that all of the matches were spectacularly played by every team on the field and I can't think of anyone better to lose to.

Thank you for your time,

Alec Hill

David Brinza

04-03-2008, 01:17

We shall see how FIRST responds this week, especially in light of the fact we have teams admitting to intentionally impeding in HYBRID mode.
Per <G40>, a robot is not impeding traffic if there is a clear passing lane around the robot. So "getting in the way" or otherwise interfering with an opposing alliance's robot path around the track is not necessarily impeding. Alliance #2 in the MWR specifically asked the referee for clarification on this point before they successfully employed this strategy in the semifinals. It may seem as though I'm nit-picking, but the terms used in FIRST are carefully defined intentionally.

AdamHeard

04-03-2008, 01:37

Per <G40>, a robot is not impeding traffic if there is a clear passing lane around the robot. So "getting in the way" or otherwise interfering with an opposing alliance's robot path around the track is not necessarily impeding. Alliance #2 in the MWR specifically asked the referee for clarification on this point before they successfully employed this strategy in the semifinals. It may seem as though I'm nit-picking, but the terms used in FIRST are carefully defined intentionally.

The QnA makes no mention of the word impeding; The QnA also makes you think it would be made into an update, but that never happened.

Please, for the sake of a decent debate, no longer use the word impeding, it is not what this debate is about anymore.

(That is not a personal attack on you David, just a request to everyone)

Dan Richardson

05-03-2008, 00:07

Adam,

Please prove that it is actually the rule, using only the manual and official updates as your sources. In no way, shape, or form do the Q & A supercede the rules or updates. If a clarification in the Q & A warrant an update, then the official updates are released.

-PAul

Paul ( and others who have made the same claim not just Paul he's just the most recently quoted),

I really don't follow this logic, the Q&A section is listed within the 2008 Competition Manual and Related Documents, It has a printable export file that coincides with the manual that could be represented and read at competitions or before hand.

Tho the quotes we use do not have an R# or G#

Game Q & A System

FIRST Robotics Competition Question & Answer System

This system is used to provide teams with answers to questions about the rules of the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition.

To proceed, please click on the link below.

The question as posed was:
Is it legal for 1 or 2 robots on the same alliance to block traffic, preventing any scoring for the opposing alliance? Or would they be penalized for it?

The answer is as follows.
Rule <G38> and Rule <G40> were modified to remove any concerns that teams may have about inadvertently impeding robots during the Hybrid Period. This was to avoid an unrealistic requirement that the robots be able to autonomously recognize and respond to "Bump To Pass" signals or identify and steer around stalled robots on the Track during the Hybrid Period. The purpose of these modifications is not to permit the intentional blocking of the Track during Hybrid Period.

The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized. However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.

If FIRST calls this their official interpretation of rules <G38> and <G40> why does it need to be taken further? At the very least I'd believe you'd have to agree that this is an answer to an intent to the rules ( of the multiple intents they actually have ), I mean I don't see how it gets any more clear. Now I've had a lot of correspondence with people about the official status of the Q&A and its FIRST's fault for not updating either the role of Q&A or this specific update which is why in my first post I outlined giving people and teams pass. I may have been a bit rough on the refs, when I should have been more frustrated with FIRST as a whole, which is nothing new for me lol I usually find at least 1 thing to get frustrated about each year, however usually you and I are frustrated about the same thing.

That said, I still don't understand how people can shrug this off as at the very least an official interpretation, regardless if it has any official weight during the matches. The question is direct, and the answer is even more direct, I guess you can argue about whether teams meant to block ( keep in mind it doesn't mention impeding ), but most have openly stated it was their strategy.

Honestly, as I watched the matches I thought the same way as most of you, but after reading this Q&A I just am having trouble seeing the otherside of the argument at all, and trust me, I've thought about it possibly more than any of you because of the responses that I got on my last post. But baring an official interpretation, I can't possibly see how any of the teams I participate would use this strategy until its officially cleared up. Call me a Moral Crusader, but I don't like to tread too deep in the Grey Areas, because the black just creeps up on you to quickly.

I really could care less which way FIRST decides, but I'm pretty sure my head will explode in this quagmire of ambiguity if they don't decide soon.

Paul Copioli

05-03-2008, 00:14

Dan Richardson

05-03-2008, 01:38

When the GDC uses the word block, they seem to throw in "the entire track" or "the flow of traffic."

I guess I can understand the ambiguity of the statement because "Block" is not specifically defined, however niether are the words traffic or entire, I don't mean to be sarcastic but I guess it seems to be a bit of lawyerisms, from the other perspective I would believe that many people would just assume, unless previously redefined, the definition of the word would reflect either colloquial or dictionary definition.

Dictionary.com ( because its easy to cut and paste ) makes three references that I would assume to be relevant in 4, 6 and v. intr 1.

v. blocked, block·ing, blocks
v. tr.
4.
1. To stop or impede the passage of or movement through; obstruct: block traffic.
2. To shut out from view: a curtain blocking the stage.
3. To stop the passage of (a motion or bill) in a legislative assembly.
6. Sports To impede the movement of (an opponent or the ball) by physical interference.
v. intr.
1. Sports To obstruct the movement of an opponent.

Ironically, the word Impede does show up, which I'm not even sure who that helps, but these are the definitions. I know this doesn't really further the argument, because we both agree on what its saying, we just don't agree on how its applied. It bothers me that the rules are unclear, because the place where they clarify intent, specifically states blocking, by anyone of the above definitions, would be illegal.

Really I guess I can only see two ways to address this problem, Update the purpose of Q&A or update a bulletproof clarification with no vague answers on the Q&A.

For the Q&A's sake partial applied weight doesn't make sense to me, either make it equal to the updates OR get rid of it as a public forum. I realize at a competition this is kind of what a referee group does by specifically clarifying intent in driver meetings and by established a precedence in their calls. This all comes by what was handed down to them by FIRST. But to have one FIRST document say one thing and one say another is ludicrous, its wishy washy, it creates confusion, and those who can't adapt to the clarification at competition suffer greatly, when they did all they could to prepare before they got there.

CraigHickman

05-03-2008, 01:42

I'm not a physics student, but maybe someone can help me out with a bit of math... Say we've got a 150lb robot, moving at 20fps (a high speed hybrid/auton mode). It impacts another 150lb robot, square on. That has to be a HUGE amount of force. What I think needs to be implemented is a new mode for robots: If you detect a hit on someone who impeded your auton, back up, and ram repeatedly until the time is over. All you need to do is take one penalty for intentional ramming, and NO ONE will get in your way for the rest of the season. All it takes is one frame being reduced to scrap metal to send a clear message, right?

(for those that don't get it, that was sarcasm. I personally think the issue is near impossible to definitively rule on, and won't really be solved. I think teams need to shape up, and not mess with the high power team's hybrid/auton.)

Matt H.

05-03-2008, 02:48

Dan,

We agree that it is clear, but just not what is clear.

The rules and updates are official. The rules and updates provide a clear direction that one robot can't possibly impede. The Q & A are irrelevant on a rule that is clear in the manual and update.

When the GDC uses the word block, they seem to throw in "the entire track" or "the flow of traffic." Look at St. Louis finals match 1 where 45 blocked by driving 7 feet and stopping. They clearly did not impede as both robots passed by them just fine.

One robot can't impede unless it is weaving back and forth, which is also specifically called out in the rules.

Where have you found this hierarchy of power which you reference? I have found no statement which says the manual supersedes the Q&A and it would seem much more logical that the Q&A supersedes the manual. Similarly the rules you mention only refer to teleoperated mode so the manual is not clear on the subject.

Travis Hoffman

05-03-2008, 07:26

(I think teams need to shape up, and not mess with the high power team's hybrid/auton.)

It's like Prometheus stealing fire from the gods and handing it down to the peons, right? :rolleyes:

Here's my contention - people can suggest you read every last bit of the Q/A and say that such rulings are official, but I live in the real world, and in the real world, teams and individuals barely have enough time to finish their robot, let alone spend hours reading hundreds of Q/A responses TO QUESTIONS THEY DIDN'T ASK and comparing them against the existing rulebook. Judging from this past week's events, I'd say the VOLUNTEER REFEREES also have difficulty finding time to perform such analyses. If someone feels a Q/A ruling is important enough that everyone and their brother should know about it, PUT IT IN A TEAM UPDATE, SEND IT OUT IN AN EMAIL BLAST - do what Woodie Flowers endorses and COMMUNICATE.

As far as I am concerned, NO Q/A response involving an important rule clarification is official until FIRST ensures it is properly communicated to everyone via appropriate and logical channels. Expecting everyone, including referees, to unearth the answers for themselves only unleashes the three-headed dog of inconsistency, confusion, and anger we are witnessing here in this thread.

Now I know there are teams out there that read this and go "Wah. We have Q/A Rules Compliance Officer Steve who spends half his life refreshing the Q/A every 2 minutes so we are always in compliance with every last response." You may feel pretty darn proud of this fact, and indeed, I commend thee for being so meticulous, but please don't stand up on your pedestals and look down with scorn upon other teams who may not be as efficient as yourselves or have the people or time to devote to such endeavors.

Thoroughly reading the manual and team updates is the responsbility of all teams. But sifting through the mass quantities of debris in the Q/A trying to glean the few true nuggets of gold among the miles of redundant and unimportant rulings is just asking too much.

Please, cut the teams some slack and COMMUNICATE with them. I think $6,000+ buys them at least that. A simple Team Update blurb and/or Email Blast would have alleviated all this controversy.

Once any official ruling on this matter is communicated to all, my team will abide by what is decided. Until then, since it was permitted in the *real* *world* at numerous Week 1 regionals, we will continue to use hybrid blocking at our discretion.

Jimmy Cao

05-03-2008, 07:44

With team update 14 released, and no mention to this rule in it, it's probably going to stand. Odds are that impeding will be permitted in future competitions =O

Raul

05-03-2008, 07:53

FYI - I submitted a request for clarification to the Q&A Forum. Let's see what comes out of it.

Alex Cormier

05-03-2008, 07:57

FYI - I submitted a request for clarification to the Q&A Forum. Let's see what comes out of it.

Hopefully it comes out before regionals start this week.

Tristan Lall

05-03-2008, 09:09

Where have you found this hierarchy of power which you reference? I have found no statement which says the manual supersedes the Q&A and it would seem much more logical that the Q&A supersedes the manual. Similarly the rules you mention only refer to teleoperated mode so the manual is not clear on the subject.It's not in the manual. But Paul is basing that order of precedence on the one which was circulated a couple years ago, and which is generally used by the officials to this day, in the absence of an official statement.

But like Travis says, FIRST is doing a poor job of managing rule changes and updates. Effectively, officials need to be aware of two sometimes-disparate interpretations: what the most recent rules say, and what the Q&A says. (And before someone cops out with a comment about how FIRST is not composed of awyers, and therefore can't be expected to spend time on minutiae like this, I'll just point out that managing rule changes is just like version control—which is typically an engineering function.)

Andy Baker

05-03-2008, 09:43

When the GDC uses the word block, they seem to throw in "the entire track" or "the flow of traffic." Look at St. Louis finals match 1 where 45 blocked by driving 7 feet and stopping. They clearly did not impede as both robots passed by them just fine.

Clearly. True.

Ugh... team 292, who played you guys in the quarterfinals, told us to go out 8 feet and stop. I looked at the corner where we were planning on stopping, and figured that 7 feet was a better number.

Low and behold, 148 missed our front bumper by less than 1 inch, and 217 missed our back bumper by the same amount.

For match two, we changed our position to 8 feet out, as our friends on 292 originally suggested. That worked and held up 148. 217 hit the wall, so they didn't make it to the corner.

Since only one team on our alliance had a blocking position, there was obviously a clear path around our robot. From a design perspective, the blocked robot could do a variety of things to adjust to our blocking position and continue on their goal of crossing lines in hybrid mode.

Andy B.

Stu Bloom

05-03-2008, 10:40

I guess I can understand the ambiguity of the statement because "Block" is not specifically defined ...

... For the Q&A's sake partial applied weight doesn't make sense to me, either make it equal to the updates OR get rid of it as a public forum. I realize at a competition this is kind of what a referee group does by specifically clarifying intent in driver meetings and by established a precedence in their calls. This all comes by what was handed down to them by FIRST. But to have one FIRST document say one thing and one say another is ludicrous, its wishy washy, it creates confusion, and those who can't adapt to the clarification at competition suffer greatly, when they did all they could to prepare before they got there.Dan (and others), I respect your opinion and your right to voice it, and VERY MUCH respect your desire to "avoid the gray areas". However, since you continue to use the Q&A as the basis of your disdain for this strategy, how do you explain this apparant inconsistency WITHIN THE Q&A ITSELF (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8670) (as referenced in my earlier post):

FRC86 02-07-2008 04:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrid Period

Scenario A: Blue 1 is a fast robot capable of scoring 28 points in the hybrid period by knocking down 2 balls and crossing 3 lines. The Red Alliance sets up Red 2 and Red 3 to block Blue 1 by setting up Red 3 to stop after moving 10 feet while Red 2 stops after moving 5 feet. Blue 1 turns the corner during the hybrid period and hits a blocking robot.
Is this a deliberate entanglement which is a violation of rules 37, 39, & 40?

Scenario B: Same as Scenario A with the addition that Blue 1 is tipped over by hitting the blocker?
Can Blue 1 be righted if a penalty is called against the Red Alliance?

Scenario C: Same as Scenario B with the addition that Blue 1 is damaged by hitting the blocker?
Will the red blocker(s) be disqualified?

GDC 02-11-2008 01:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hybrid Period

The described situation is too context-dependent to provide a definitive analysis of the situation. The rules and policies guiding the game will be implemented as well as possible by the referees, based on the conditions and actions that are observed at the time.

Please note that we can not provide an analysis of every potential hypothetical situation that may arise during game play. Please review the rules as written to gain an understanding of whether a particular technique would be permissible.
This response was issued more than two weeks after the one that is causing all of this "heartache", and the question describes a much more severe case of "blocking" during hybrid - using TWO robots. While I agree the addition of all of the detailed scenarios in this question somewhat complicates things, would this not have been a perfect opportunity for the GDC to clarify their intent/position with regard to "blocking" in hybrid mode if they intended it to be illegal? They chose NOT TO.

And - also from my earlier post:Note, in fact, that the only time ANY form of the root "block" (non-electrical, non-hotel) is used in the rules is in section 7.3.5.2, rule G43, which refers to "effectively blocking the width of the TRACK", and NOT just a single robot blocking a path. (THANKS FIRSTsearch on team358.org !) (http://www.team358.org/files/first_search/)

Ryan Dognaux

05-03-2008, 12:11

Until it's deemed illegal, I think it's a perfectly valid strategy and we'll probably have this option in our back pocket, just in case. One robot blocking another robot's selected path isn't blocking the entire track. I guess it's an 'if you can't beat them, stop them' sort of situation. It's interesting how defense can still be a part of this game even when the game's goal was to essentially take out any form of defense this year.

Wayne TenBrink

05-03-2008, 12:24

EricH

05-03-2008, 12:34

We don't plan to do this, but....

What if the blocking robot used robocoach controls for forward and backward movements, and then actively tried to block (intercept) oncoming opponents?

Someone is sure to take this next step.
If someone did that, they'd probably get called for impeding. That's part of the definition of impeding--one way is moving back and forth across the track with intent to block. Active blocking would get that penalty probably 90% of the time.

Cory

05-03-2008, 12:43

Dan (and others), I respect your opinion and your right to voice it, and VERY MUCH respect your desire to "avoid the gray areas". However, since you continue to use the Q&A as the basis of your disdain for this strategy, how do you explain this apparant inconsistency WITHIN THE Q&A ITSELF (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8670) (as referenced in my earlier post):

This response was issued more than two weeks after the one that is causing all of this "heartache", and the question describes a much more severe case of "blocking" during hybrid - using TWO robots. While I agree the addition of all of the detailed scenarios in this question somewhat complicates things, would this not have been a perfect opportunity for the GDC to clarify their intent/position with regard to "blocking" in hybrid mode if they intended it to be illegal? They chose NOT TO.

And - also from my earlier post:

Stu, the GDC never examines specific hypothetical situations that teams lay out in Q&A, from my experience following it (somewhat) closely. I don't think we can read into their lack of a response meaning consent.

If someone did that, they'd probably get called for impeding. That's part of the definition of impeding--one way is moving back and forth across the track with intent to block. Active blocking would get that penalty probably 90% of the time.

You can'it impede in hybrid. It only counts in teleoperated mode.

AmyPrib

05-03-2008, 15:24

You better believe that I darn well hope this "blocking" thing doesn't become illegal in hybrid mode. What a downer to not be able to do ANYthing about watching the powerhouses drive laps around you and get a huge lead in the first 15sec of the match. The defense has become just about ZERO in this game, and by negating any possibility of putting a damper on the hybrid awesomeness just plain sucks IMO. If the hybrid is that awesome, they can find a way to go around, or use their robocoaches. To expect everyone else to sit idly by and wave as they fly past you in hybrid, is sorta ridiculous.

So.. let's see.

We have "blocking and obstructing traffic". If I were on 4 lane expressway and stopped in one lane - it will suck for whoever is behind me, but they have 3 other lanes in which to get around me. I may be slowing them down a bit, but I'm not "preventing" them from getting around me (see reference to preventing below).

We have a definition of "impeding" - which we should logically carry it's definition over to whatever mode we're in... so again, preventing or obstructing an opponent robot's abiility to get around the track. One robot in it's way doesn't prevent it from getting around the track in another lane. Even if you want to argue that it IS impeding, then as long as there is 6sec left on the clock, there's no impeding penalty...... but it's not impeding.

"During teleoperated mode" you'll be impeding if you're "preventing" a team from going around the track (Update 2). Moving back and forth to prevent them from passing you could be considered "preventing" and "impeding" but that hasn't been specifically called out yet. But regardless, if there's a lane around you in which a robot can maneuver through, you're not "preventing" them from going around the track - you're just in their way in that particular spot.

Yes, 45 blocked 148 in the finals at St. Louis. But in the match prior to that, they went around us. So... in both cases, we moved out XX distance and stopped hoping to get in the way of one of those beasts. In one case we got in the way, in another we didn't. So because we happened to get in the way once, as opposed to not the other time, we should be penalized for that? We got lucky and they ran into us the second time - so we should be penalized? They could have changed their automode to go around us the next time after seeing what we did. Why do I have to change mine? One could argue - by them not changing THEIR automode, they ran right into us hoping to draw a penalty on us for impeding - which is also illegal in the rules....(I'm not arguing that though - just devil's advocate).
We had trouble with our automodes each day - so except for us, who's to say it didn't simply move out and stop with no particular intention? Maybe we wanted to drive past the finish line, but due to an error in the last modification, it stopped short..... I won't debate the intention thing - it's been beaten already.

Anyway, maybe I repeated a few things, but I for one hope they don't make it illegal unless it blocks the entire track, just as in tele-mode. With virtually no defense in this game, this is one little glimmer of possible tactics that can work. Just because you have an awesome automode doesn't necessarily mean we have to allow you to repeatedly crush us with it, right? Those who have already mastered the automode need some sort of added challenge, right? :)

SgtMillhouse648

05-03-2008, 17:07

As Vogel said earlier, we did ask the refs ahead of time to see if it was legal or not. In previous years, it has always been a legitimate autonomous strategy to block the opponent's robot. I remember quite a few robots last year who circled around behind the rack and blocked the robots trying to score. For those of you who don't know, Bomb Squad's robot is MASSIVE. I believe on it's longest axis it is 56 inches long. This is why when they start the match, they lean up against the rear wall, and during autonomous, drop down onto the flat.
As for the pushing approach 1024 talked about earlier, that's a nice idea, but a 4 wheel robot with tractions also facing perpendicular to where you want to go really doesn't move. Believe me, we've tried on last years' robot. The conveyor belting almost acts like velcro on the carpet of the field. We got hung up numerous times on the carpet where it was taped down on the field. When we would drive over it, the carpet decided it was going to try to come up with the wheels.
All in all, it was an awesome regional, and some very exciting eliminations, and had the opposing robots not run into 16, we would have lost that first match as well to the 30+ point autonomous.
Malhon

Jack Jones

05-03-2008, 17:15

I have to admit that I thought the GDC’s definition of impeding defied intuition. But today I noticed the following signs on I-75:

http://www.grovesrobotics.org/FIRSTtrafficSigns.jpg

T3_1565

05-03-2008, 17:20

lmao.... its about time humor got into this thread!

Cory

05-03-2008, 17:57

Can we PLEASE stop referring to "IMPEDING"

you CANNOT impede in hybrid mode. Team Updates have modified <G40> to specifically state that they apply to Teleoperated mode only

This round and round discussion of whether you can bump to pass, or impede as long as there aren't more than 6 seconds left is totally irrelevant, as you cannot impede in hybrid in the first place.

Diriye

05-03-2008, 19:20

"Wah. We have Q/A Rules Compliance Officer Steve who spends half his life refreshing the Q/A every 2 minutes so we are always in compliance with every last response."

How ironic... http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/member.php?u=4068 :D

Travis Hoffman

05-03-2008, 19:23

How ironic... http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/member.php?u=4068 :D

...and the other half, he spends coloring his hair....:eek: :)

Mr. Lim

05-03-2008, 20:21

How ironic... http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/member.php?u=4068 :D

Well played indeed Diriye... :D

But to Steve's credit. The questions in this thread about order of precedence of rules, updates and Q&A were asked by none other that Steve W a few years ago.

Again rules, updates and Q&As from prior years do not apply to this year's game, but to add perspective:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=737

This quote in particular is salient:

Answers on the Q&A system are not official rules. However, they are determinations of how the rules will be interpreted by competition authorities. When necessary,The Q&A answers are used as the basis for decisions by the judges, inspectors and referees (who are provided with the Q&A system responses as guidance).

Given that, in 2006 a Q&A interpretation of the rule would have set precedence.

Rich Kressly

05-03-2008, 21:57

Allow me to make myself widely unpopular for a moment, perhaps even with my own team.

Let me begin by saying two things I understand as of right now:
1. "IMPEDING" - there is no such thing in hybrid mode
2. "Blocking" traffic, the way it's described in the 45 vs 148/217 example is not currently in violation of any rule that I know of at all and is currently a legal strategy.

Here's the very unpopular part. Suppose through some clarification in a team update this "blocking" in hybrid would be deemed illegal? This would not be the end of the world, nor would it be a bad thing given the fact that we have a game that limits defense (Yes, it does this on purpose. Can we get over that notion, please?) and promotes offense and scoring.

I would propose that any team than can plan a hybrid routine to potentially block, could also plan one that crosses two lines to score 8 points. Why not go score? Have we all read Wayne's hybrid challenge thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61627)? Isn't it cool to have all teams moving forward in hybrid and putting points up?

If we all share code starting on Thursday, by the elims even the weakest alliance could cross 5 total lines and maybe even take a shot at one ball, right? So, that's 20 points for the five lines and if you're fortunate enough to swipe a ball it's 28.

Now, take the most dominant hybrid alliances from week one. 148, 217, and 830 could do 10 total lines max for a total of 40 if all of the planets lined up. The 1114 alliance at midwest was doing 8ish regularly with a ball sometimes for nearly the same top score as the St Louis crew.

So, would you be down to these powerhouses after hybrid, yes. Would it be tough to come back? Sure. Is it impossible to win? No.

But, even though I know that currently under the rules that these strategies are legal, I would ask everyone to think about the greater purpose of why we all are in FIRST. In fact, I'd ask you to think about the words of our Chairman of the Board, John Abele. In my humble opinion no one in all of FIRST deserves more respect than Mr. Abele. His words, which he has uttered many times, are found here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=630778&postcount=2) in paragraph 3.

FIRST espouses values that are clear. We're supposed to be changing the culture. Winning matches is only a very small part of what we do. Go use any viable strategy you want to under the rules, we're all cool with that. But, I urge you all to also think deeply about why we're all here, especially when we're on the field in the spotlight and others are looking at us as an example for the future.

Enjoy the remaining weeks and change as many lives as you can for the better. Namaste.

johnr

06-03-2008, 00:00

If blocking is made illegal, would that mean only bots that can run for the full 15 seconds would be able to leave starting blocks? Would you still be able to come to a complete stop to nock ball off? where do you draw the line between blocking and a short auto? seems there might be a whole can of worms opened with a no blocking rule. i would love to see a bot zig and zag and nock a ball or two down.
last year the team challenged itself to make two ringers in auto. this year, the zig , zag and balls down sounds pretty tuff. lets thruogh in a hurdle too,just to make it fun.

Qbranch

06-03-2008, 08:24

Uhm... this thread has an astronomical post count, and if you ask me, I don't think it's gone very far past where it was yesterday. (imho)

Are you guys arguing this for the sake of arguing it, or are there teams actually confused/angry over this? The thread started because (can't remember who) didn't like seing 1114 and our (1024) autonomous modes stopped, and I believe both of us have already stated we would have done the same thing, situations reversed.

I think the best thing to do is wait to see if FIRST has any updates on this. If they don't, there seems to be little reason to continue arguing this.

just my 0.48rubles

-q

Dan Richardson

06-03-2008, 09:57

Alan Anderson

06-03-2008, 10:11

I think the best thing to do is wait to see if FIRST has any updates on this. If they don't, there seems to be little reason to continue arguing this.

Why would there be another update? The GDC already commented on this. Many of the arguments are based on interpretations of that comment. The problem seems to be that some people are fixating on the word "block" without noticing that it goes along with "the track" rather than with "a robot".

To "block the track" is not the same thing as to "block a robot". The GDC says the first one will not be permitted. Nothing in the rules or in the Q&A responses makes the second one illegal.

Mark McLeod

06-03-2008, 14:53

Another Update :)

Team Update #15 (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Community/FRC/FRC_Documents_and_Updates/2008_Assets/Team_Updates/Team%20Update%2015.pdf)

Karthik

06-03-2008, 15:05

Why would there be another update? The GDC already commented on this. Many of the arguments are based on interpretations of that comment. The problem seems to be that some people are fixating on the word "block" without noticing that it goes along with "the track" rather than with "a robot".

To "block the track" is not the same thing as to "block a robot". The GDC says the first one will not be permitted. Nothing in the rules or in the Q&A responses makes the second one illegal.

It looks like the GDC disagrees with your interpretation of their words Alan.

(Added bolding for clarity)

Blocking in Hybrid

As stated in Section 7.1, the objective of FIRST Overdrive is to attain a higher score than your opponent by making counter-clockwise laps with your robot around the TRACK while moving large TRACKBALLS over and/or under the OVERPASS that bisects the TRACK. Certain rules were put into place to allow and encourage this to occur. <G40> states in its first sentence that “ROBOTS shall not intentionally IMPEDE the March 6, 2008 flow of traffic around the TRACK.” That is meant for the entire match. The rest of the rule goes on to define IMPEDING during the Teleoperated Period. Intentionally violating the first sentence of <G40> during the Hybrid Period is against the spirit of the rules. Robots that come to rest AFTER they have completed some other actions in Hybrid Mode (e.g. crossed one or more lines, attempted to knock down the Trackball, etc.) in a position that might impede other robots will not be penalized. This is consistent with the revised rules, and our intent of the rule. It encourages them to do something during Hybrid Mode, without demanding that they have total field state knowledge. However, robots that intentionally establish a position designed to impede or block traffic WITHOUT doing anything else (e.g. they just drive forward and stop at the corner of the Lane Divider) will be given a yellow card.

This is consistent with the previous Q&A answer we gave. We think there is enough distinction between the two alternatives that teams will understand the difference.
Please note that this is not a new interpretation, the following was stated in a Q&A answer on 1/24/08:

Paul Copioli

06-03-2008, 15:09

Well I didn't see that coming....

T3_1565

06-03-2008, 15:14

me nethier... lol What a shame...

Tom Bottiglieri

06-03-2008, 15:15

Fantastic news! Lets see a 150 point match this weekend!

Travis Hoffman

06-03-2008, 15:18

Fantastic news! Lets see a 150 point match this weekend!

150......to 145?

or

150......to 27?

Sadly, I think the latter will be more frequent.

Let's all revel in the humiliation of the opposition! YEAAAAAAAHHHH WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. :(

Paul Copioli

06-03-2008, 15:20

Tom Bottiglieri

06-03-2008, 15:24

Tom,

Don't get too excited. All this does is move the line. Let's say all three robots move out 30' and cross the scoring line. They scored 12 points in hybrid. This effectively blocks the other alliance from doing more than 2 lines in hybrid.

This above scenario will happen this weekend, I guarantee it.

-Paul
Its just nice to see people who designed to play the game the right way not get scorched like years past. While blowouts are unfortunate, high scoring matches sure do create buzz, which is exactly what is needed to gain exposure.

To your comment on hybrid: that is a possible scenario. I can see merit due to the fact that by the time most teams hit the 3rd line, there is less than 6 seconds left in hybrid, eliminating bump to pass and impeding penalties.

Derek Bessette

06-03-2008, 15:39

I TOLD YOU SO!!! Wait, I was wrong wasn't I?

I guess our fix-it window plans have changed.

If my interpretation is right, this would not only be a yellow card offence but would earn the alliance a 10 pt penalty for impeding.

Of course I've been wrong before. Just read by previous post in this thread, watch match 13 at the MWR or talk to my wife.

GaryVoshol

06-03-2008, 15:50

If my interpretation is right, this would not only be a yellow card offence but would earn the alliance a 10 pt penalty for impeding.I don't think so, Derek. I think the necessity of "bump to pass" and "6 seconds" would still apply before a 10-point penalty would be applied. Since that was the intent of last week's update - to remove the penalty in Hybrid when the robot couldn't respond to a bump - I would think there would be no penalty in the home stretch either. The Yellow Card is for going against the spirit of the game. Or as we say in soccer (*), for bringing the game into disrepute.

Of course, I thought the "move 3 feet" strategy was legal as long as the whole width of the track wasn't blocked. I guess I can be wrong too.

* - who is the soccer ref on the GDC? Yellow and red cards last year, impeding this year. Maybe we'll see prohibitions against deliberate handling in some future game - or penalty kicks. :)

Mike Harrison

06-03-2008, 15:59

Just because a team blocks in auton doesn't mean they aren't GP or they aren't playing by the rules or spirit of the game, it just means that defense is their strategy. When John Abele says we should push ourselves to excel and not drag down our opponents, i don't think that he's saying, "defense is not GP" or "if your strategy is defense, you are unsportsmanlike", it means it in a bigger sense, like helping other teams out in their pit or numerous other things that are bigger than the competitions themselves

Alan Anderson

06-03-2008, 16:17

Of course, I thought the "move 3 feet" strategy was legal as long as the whole width of the track wasn't blocked. I guess I can be wrong too.

I'm not too sure about the distinction between "illegal" and "will receive a yellow card". It sounds like moving to get in the way and stopping is still legal according to the letter of the rules, but it has been explicitly declared to be against the spirit of the rules. So it looks like yellow cards are given for "undesireable" behavior; "illegal" behavior is apparently still associated with point penalties.

I'm surprised by this update, but I understand it and I accept it wholeheartedly. (This is in contrast to the 1519 decision, which I do not understand and which I accept only grudgingly.)

Bob Steele

06-03-2008, 16:25

Its just nice to see people who designed to play the game the right way .

I think that perhaps the phrase "designed to play the game the right way" is a bit overzealous.

We have to remember that we have many teams that don't have the resources in either EXPERIENCE, mentors, or money to do what some of the other teams do.

I would never tell a team that was trying to block when it was fully within the rules as we knew them, that they were doing things the WRONG way.

Last year, the spirit of the game was to try and get as many rings on as possible so was playing defense the :"WRONG WAY" to play the game.

I believe that in most games, the spirit and intent of the game is to score as many points as possible... so does that mean that defensive players are playing the game the wrong way?

In FIRST, as in life, there is no WRONG WAY to do anything... when you play within the rules and you do your best you are playing the RIGHT way.

The rules have changed now... so yes teams that used a simple autonomous command to travel a few feet will now have to write one that goes further..

If the RIGHT WAY to play the game is to out score your opponent by many points .... then why are the tie-breakers about keeping the games close?
At least during the qualification rounds...

There is no ONE Right way to play this game....
I applaud teams that have great hybrid modes....
I applaud teams that find simple ways to stop great hybrid modes....
I applaud everyone.... for just having the guts to step up to the challenge of being in FIRST....

If it were easy.... everyone would do it....

....
stepping off the soap box...

B

Tom Bottiglieri

06-03-2008, 16:38

I would never tell a team that was trying to block when it was fully within the rules as we knew them, that they were doing things the WRONG way.

According to the rules, that is the wrong way.

There has been a trend in the past for teams to play "defense" every year, which realistically turns into them destroying other robots.

Do no automatically assume teams with more resources do not feel the hurt as much as teams without them. How do you think great teams are created? Thousands of hours of work. Getting your arm ripped off (and season ended) because a team wanted to play "defense" is probably just as disheartening as the situations you stated above.

johnr

06-03-2008, 17:00

Vogel648

06-03-2008, 17:04

I still have a question about the ruling, it is clear that a task such as knocking a ball down or passing lines counts as "completing some other action" but say my robot had to go straight forward then suddenly stop in order to fold out our arm, or like 16 had to had to get themselves in some other configuration for the rest of the match. Would completing a task like that count or not?

TubaMorg

06-03-2008, 17:11

Let me open that can of worms. How about this as a new auto.
wait five seconds then move. how would ref call that?
I saw our bot do some strange stuff last year to the point that i asked,"Where the heck did that come from?"

Ok off thread topic, but during Aim High our robot stunk. Our auto never worked right. One round, inexplicably, it took a long slow left turn and climbed right up the ramp and stopped. Our drivers were never able to climb the ramp by themselves. Of course, they managed to drive the robot off the ramp with two seconds left in the match :confused: Anyhow...back to topic, it's hard to tell what a team meant to do during hybrid vs. what actually happens. The update makes it fairly clear, though, that regardless of what a team means to do, if they happen to drive forward a few feet and end up disrupting the other team's hybrid, then they are in BIG trouble!

Bob Steele

06-03-2008, 17:11

I will make this one further comment.
Blocking the path of a robot in hybrid is not "tearing their arm off"

Trying to intentionally damage another robot is completely outside the scope of this argument. That is, most definitely, outside the rules.

My comment was related to whether things that are done within the rules are to be considered the WRONG way...

I, too, have distressed over the apparent increase in violent contact in the game over the years. I have respected the GDC's efforts to reduce the effects of possible contact between robots (bumpers and penalties).

I am speaking of the use of tactics that will negate other team's abilities to score.... tactics that are well within the scope of the rules.

I remember teams trying to stop other teams from hanging on the bar in the game in FIRST FRENZY... these defensive tactics varied from stopping and often tipping robots that tried to climb up the stairs to covering up the bar or just fighting it out on the platform...

Where any of these tactics WRONG? The spirit of the game "RAISING THE BAR" was to score points... some teams had very elaborate and wonderful technical answers to these challenges.... some did not...

IF the GDC wanted this to be a game in which contact or defense was not allowed, it would be simple enough to make rules that dictated that.
OR the game could be played with one robot on the field at a time....OR 3 robots from the same alliance playing at the same time...

That is not what the game is about. Robots must meet the challenge of overcoming the other alliance as well as just accomplishing the scoring goals.

I share in the anguish of a team that has an arm ripped off... or an electronics board damaged by an errant appendage... or actuators bent...
I have seen all of these things happen... both as a result of actions by the other alliance as well as "friendly" alliance members. I have also seen it happen to robots reacting with game elements. All of it is unfortunate and our team would be one of the first to jump in and help to fix another team's robot.

I don't want us to become ROBOT WARS.... competitions that are designed to destroy things are quite against my nature...

Blocking techniques, innovative defensive actions, and other tactics that enable a team to score MORE points than another team by limiting the other team's scoring are just as much a part of the game as hurdling or hybrid actions. The rules are there to prevent what the GDC and all of us want to prevent which is turning the game into Battle Bots...

I share in the anguish of any team who sees their best efforts squashed in the competition. Most teams put thousands of man-hours into the game.

We must keep our eyes on the prize. And the prize is really in the doing ....
Coming together to figure out simple answers to complex issues, working as a team, joining together with other teams to help them become competitive...spreading the word that everyone is capable of doing incredible things....

When I see a simple solution negate a complex, well-thought out plan I salute both teams... I also want to see the complex team come out in the next round and figure out a way to overcome that simple obstacle...

thank you for being passionate....
passion drives the world....

johnr

06-03-2008, 17:20

I hope it takes more then just disrupting to get penalty. I guess if your not sure your bot can atleast get past first line you better not move.

SgtMillhouse648

06-03-2008, 17:29

Well I personally am disappointed with the update. It takes a whole other dimension out of the game. It almost seems like nowadays many is against any kind of "violence" or defence at all, in games or in the real world. Everywhere people are worried about hurting people's feelings, and sadly now FIRST's seemed to stoop to everyone else's level. They wanted a high scoring game, well they had one with what little defense was in the game, but now, they'll get their high scores, but as Travis said, it will be complete and utter domination of another alliance. That makes for just plain old boring matches. I know everyone would rather watch a super close high scoring match versus a high scoring match with no opposition.
Just my $.02
Malhon

Mike Harrison

06-03-2008, 18:46

hipsterjr

06-03-2008, 19:42

Grrrrrrrrrr. I was planing to have offense and defense hybrid at the flip of a switch. Anyone at Florida or Palmetto last year remembers "342's distracting autonomous dance":cool:. But with this latest update, it looks like that is dead:( . This is my least favorite update/rule.
I mean how exciting would it be to see a team narrowly drive around a blocker bot in autonomous!

petek

06-03-2008, 20:23

This update could spell real trouble for No Robot Left Behind - Hybrid. Say I'm a rookie or other under-mentored team and am having trouble getting my robot to move straight ahead in Hybrid but wanted to try to at least get to the 4 points for crossing our finish line.

Before this update I'd keep plugging away at it and if the robot only moved out to the end of the divider in one match, I'd say "well, we're half-way there" and keep plugging away at it. After this update, however, if we unintentionally blocked the opponent with this move we'd draw a yellow card. Do you think our robot will move in any more Hybrid periods? Not likely.

eugenebrooks

06-03-2008, 21:30

So, you start on the right on the angled part of the wall,
so you are out of the way, and you spend a few minutes
coding an autonomous that pulls sort of straight forward
for a few seconds, stopping on the other end of the track
before you hit the opposing alliances wall.

It is not so hard that you would not want to take the risk
to get the four points. The issue at hand is relatively clear
and unambiguous obstruction from teams that are placing
their robots quite accurately.

Even with this ruling, there is opportunity for obstruction.
It would appear that you can pull just past your finish line
and stop, possibly preventing a robot from the opposing
alliance from coming through and bumping a ball. Teams
will just move where they obstruct, working a little harder
at it to do so. Where the rules allow defensive tactics,
defensive tactics will be employed.

Eugene

This update could spell real trouble for No Robot Left Behind - Hybrid. Say I'm a rookie or other under-mentored team and am having trouble getting my robot to move straight ahead in Hybrid but wanted to try to at least get to the 4 points for crossing our finish line.

Before this update I'd keep plugging away at it and if the robot only moved out to the end of the divider in one match, I'd say "well, we're half-way there" and keep plugging away at it. After this update, however, if we unintentionally blocked the opponent with this move we'd draw a yellow card. Do you think our robot will move in any more Hybrid periods? Not likely.

Herodotus

06-03-2008, 21:40

This makes me a sad person. I understand not damaging a robot, intentionally doing so is always out of the question, but one of the most fun things to see is two robots duking it out to try to accomplish the same task. Doing something isn't impressive, doing something with someone else trying to stop you is. What would have been more impressive last year? Robots just filling a rack up with tubes, or a robot pushing another robot out of the way, and then turning around and scoring where the first robot was planning to? What was more exciting in 2006? Seeing a robot drive out there and just pour balls into the target, or drive out there and pour balls into the target while being pushed by another robot?

If the GDC wants to encourage others to watch, removal of defense is not the way to go. Who cares about the score? The score is just numbers on a board, the exciting part is watching the robots interact and seeing robots( and more importantly, people) do the impossible.

Jimmy Cao

06-03-2008, 21:52

Well, I guess this issue has been mostly settled....

I dont know what to think of the final answer though. IMO, it's good and bad. Good in the sense that it gives teams that can do a successful autonomous much more ability to score, and bad in the sense that it gives the elite a bigger advantage than before.

I guess it's effects will be felt in week 2 regionals, and after then, we'll be able to properly evaluate how well this new standard works....

hipsterjr

06-03-2008, 22:01

If the GDC wants to encourage others to watch, removal of defense is not the way to go. Who cares about the score? The score is just numbers on a board, the exciting part is watching the robots interact and seeing robots( and more importantly, people) do the impossible.

I complete agree. Think about this if you will; how interesting would football, soccer,or NASCAR be with out defense? Many like to see others achieve high scores. But most like to see those battle for their points and even fail time to time. If you knew Jeff Gorden was going to run the fastest laps, NASCAR would be pretty boring. The reason people watch it is to see Jeff in the wall or just barely avoid it. NASCAR fans like the bumping, scrapping, and blocking .

Which sounds better?:
"team 1114 just scored their 6th hurdle of the match."
or
"team 1114 just gained the lead with another hurdle despite being bombarded with heavy defense by those two red robots!"

My 2 cents boil down to:Defense is fun to watch! and it seems that the GDC is trying to take it away.:mad:

jason_zielke

06-03-2008, 23:44

For those of you concerned about your hybrid mode and not having the mentors or resources to make it work correctly, please stop by our pit. One of our students would be happy to come to your pit and work with you to find and code a solution to create an effective autonomous mode. We are happy to teach anyone willing to learn.

For those you you that are concerned about it being "easy" on those that have a good hybrid mode, I think you are missing something. If blocking was allowed in the corner, it would be much easier to figure out where the robots were going to be and avoid them (drive long around the corner). However, now the robots will be scattered all over the field, which makes it much more complicated to avoid the obstructions in the field. This will require a different approach to overcome consistently. This update may have just made it more difficult to get around the field.

Cascade

07-03-2008, 01:37

Please see rule update 15. If there are any questions after this update, we all need to go do something else.

Enjoy

johnr

07-03-2008, 09:42

just cuase i like to argue,why didn't 619 get a yellow card first match of the day at richmond? what if he was in second lane? what if a robot ran into him? and remember this is just for argument sake.

Laaba 80

07-03-2008, 09:55

NASCAR fans like the bumping, scrapping, and blocking .

You can still bump and scrape. Also blocking is completely different from nascar to FRC. Nascar you try to stay in front of a car. You wouldnt just set your car out in the middle of the track for someone to hit you. That would be a huge waste of money. Also, it never said you cant touch other robots, it just says you cant drive out and sit. I agree with this. I dont like seeing the teams that put large efforts into their auto mode get defeated by those who just drive forward. I like this update and think it was the right move.
Joey

hillale

07-03-2008, 14:08

You can still bump and scrape. Also blocking is completely different from nascar to FRC. Nascar you try to stay in front of a car. You wouldnt just set your car out in the middle of the track for someone to hit you. That would be a huge waste of money. Also, it never said you cant touch other robots, it just says you cant drive out and sit. I agree with this. I dont like seeing the teams that put large efforts into their auto mode get defeated by those who just drive forward. I like this update and think it was the right move.
Joey

The outcome of the game this year shouldn't always be determined by autonomous mode though. Don't get me wrong, those teams who figure it out should definitely get a few points head start when teleoperated mode starts, but often-times, with powerhouse autonomous teams, the match is decided before players get a chance to touch their controls.

Alec

Laaba 80

07-03-2008, 14:25

The outcome of the game this year shouldn't always be determined by autonomous mode though. Don't get me wrong, those teams who figure it out should definitely get a few points head start when teleoperated mode starts, but often-times, with powerhouse autonomous teams, the match is decided before players get a chance to touch their controls.

Alec

Usually those powerhouse auto teams are overall powerhouse robots. Even if they can touch controls odds are they wont win anyway. To beat one, you either need to have another powerhouse on your team, have an amazing match, or have the powerhouse tip over. Also, the match really isnt decided in auto mode unless there are 2 great auto teams.

Lets look at this for a minute. The most I could ever see a team POSSIBLY getting is 32 points. I dont think we will see that happen very often. If I knew I was playing a team that could do that I would make a defensive auto mode, without just parking in the corner, but for this situation, we'll say I didnt. If all 3 robots on my team can cross 2 lines, and maybe knock a ball off. Thats 24 poins for lines plus 8 for a ball for a total of 32 points. Thats the same as the power house auto mode, with 3 fairly simple autos. Now lets say the other alliance has the power house and 2 bots that can cross 2 lines. They are getting a 16 point head start over the other alliance. Thats not too much, only 2 hurdles which is very possible to come back from.

Not to be rude, but everyon needs to stop complaining about the rule. Its here, move on, its done with. Work on some legal auto modes because they didnt rule out defense completely. They just want to make people think a little because anyone could say "Just drive 3 feet and stop". Think outside the box. There are legal defensive auto modes, you just need to think. Also if all teams can get at least 2 lines, which isnt TOO hard, you will never be completely dominated by a powerhouse auto team.
Joey

65_Xero_Huskie

07-03-2008, 18:42

hillale

07-03-2008, 18:54

Im glad to see this update. It gives the chance for people to show off their programming skills.
What would you rather see in a match?
robots crossing one line? Or robots crossing 5+?
Id have to say that the 5+ is the fun thing to view.

Well... when facing said robot, I'm sure that you'll find 1 line is plenty (much as I do). Let's just put our differences aside and play the game. Good golly.

Alec Hill

I personally don't agree with the update and feel that it will separate the tiers of competitive robots to an insurmountable clash of titans with the peasants onlooking...

Zyik

07-03-2008, 18:54

The most I could ever see a team POSSIBLY getting is 32 points.

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=5361

40 points for one alliance in hybrid. Yes, thats the finals, so you know that both sides have very decent teams, but still. Just wanted to get that out there. :)

65_Xero_Huskie

07-03-2008, 18:56

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=5361

40 points for one alliance in hybrid. Yes, thats the finals, so you know that both sides have very decent teams, but still. Just wanted to get that out there. :)

Did u see the tight spots 148 can get into?
No wonder they are the only undefeated team in FIRST right now.

Kristian Calhoun

07-03-2008, 19:03

Lets look at this for a minute. The most I could ever see a team POSSIBLY getting is 32 points.

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=5361

40 points for one alliance in hybrid. Yes, thats the finals, so you know that both sides have very decent teams, but still. Just wanted to get that out there. :)

Even higher - Qualification Match 58 at the New Jersey Regional had 52 points scored in the hybrid period. 1 robot passed 5 lines and knocked down both balls (36 points) while the other two each passed two lines (8 pts each).

The SOAP video doesn't show much of the field - I'm working on getting a copy of the video that our scouts took (static whole field view).

hipsterjr

07-03-2008, 19:10

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=5361

40 points for one alliance in hybrid. Yes, thats the finals, so you know that both sides have very decent teams, but still. Just wanted to get that out there. :)

I think it was a 1114 alliance that scored 50 points in auton. With that kind of auton, there is no use even going to the controls, the match is decided:( .

Laaba 80

07-03-2008, 19:25

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=5361

40 points for one alliance in hybrid. Yes, thats the finals, so you know that both sides have very decent teams, but still. Just wanted to get that out there. :)

I said TEAM not ALLIANCE. They are 2 very different things
Joey

Kristian Calhoun

07-03-2008, 19:28

I said TEAM not ALLIANCE. They are 2 very different things
Joey
I think you might have missed my last post, where I mentioned that a team did score over 32 points alone: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=714383&postcount=180

Laaba 80

07-03-2008, 19:33

I think you might have missed my last post, where I mentioned that a team did score over 32 points alone: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=714383&postcount=180

Is there a better video. It never showed 1 ball get knocked off.
Joey

Kristian Calhoun

07-03-2008, 19:35

Is there a better video. It never showed 1 ball get knocked off.
Joey
We're working on getting the better video. The first ball was actually knocked off second, after crossing our alliance's finish line for the second time.

purduephotog

07-03-2008, 20:00

I think it was a 1114 alliance that scored 50 points in auton. With that kind of auton, there is no use even going to the controls, the match is decided:( .

i just watched that match. How is it that the one member on the blue alliance with the really thin arm/claw is compliant with the 80" measurement? The ball when grasped at least 2x looked to be a minimum of 15" from the front of the robot. I can't see it exactly but pretty much any measurement that goes over 50% of the ball length is going to be very close to that 80".

Qbranch

07-03-2008, 23:38

i just watched that match. How is it that the one member on the blue alliance with the really thin arm/claw is compliant with the 80" measurement? The ball when grasped at least 2x looked to be a minimum of 15" from the front of the robot. I can't see it exactly but pretty much any measurement that goes over 50% of the ball length is going to be very close to that 80".

if(robot_with_really_thin_arm/claw.team_number == 1024)
{

printf("Yes, it is within the 80" requirement, but only just.\n\r");
printf("Autonomous only gets faster from here for 1024.\n\r");

}

//-q :]

Aren_Hill

08-03-2008, 01:42

FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.melsmegafans.com/hot11.jpeg

Travis Hoffman

08-03-2008, 09:25

(one more quadrant of) FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://home.pacbell.net/amsdm/GoofyMelSmall.jpg

:p

hillale

08-03-2008, 22:25

(one more quadrant of) FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://home.pacbell.net/amsdm/GoofyMelSmall.jpg

:p

Actually... being the one who instigated the original William Wallace post, I know that it was meant to be historically significant. William Wallace did not settle for the false freedoms pressed upon him and his people. He fought for what was fair and just 'til his dying words... a coup d'etat, if you will.

RIP William Wallace (you will always be remembered)

Alec Hill

Travis Hoffman

09-03-2008, 08:46

Actually... being the one who instigated the original William Wallace post, I know that it was meant to be historically significant. William Wallace did not settle for the false freedoms pressed upon him and his people. He fought for what was fair and just 'til his dying words... a coup d'etat, if you will.

RIP William Wallace (you will always be remembered)

Alec Hill

Your tribute to a historical figure notwithstanding, comparing stationary robotic obstacles (and the refs who permitted the strategy in Week 1) to the oppression levied by Edward Longshanks against Scotland is just a wee bit excessive, I would think.

Anyway, as I said, these robots will still have to come to rest somewhere, and most likely, the bulk of them will stop one quadrant further than they had previously. Those who profess to have "uber" hybrid modes will still have to navigate a stationary traffic jam of uncertain configuration - don't toss your keyboards into the garbage can just yet!

hillale

09-03-2008, 12:09

Your tribute to a historical figure notwithstanding, comparing stationary robotic obstacles (and the refs who permitted the strategy in Week 1) to the oppression levied by Edward Longshanks against Scotland is just a wee bit excessive, I would think.

Anyway, as I said, these robots will still have to come to rest somewhere, and most likely, the bulk of them will stop one quadrant further than they had previously. Those who profess to have "uber" hybrid modes will still have to navigate a stationary traffic jam of uncertain configuration - don't toss your keyboards into the garbage can just yet!

I know, lol. just having a little fun with it.

eugenebrooks

09-03-2008, 14:15

Qbranch,

I would like to suggest that you freeze frame the video
when the robot has its arm outstretched horizontally holding
the ball. Measure the horizontal distance from the end of
the arm to the back edge of the robot. Then measure the ball
diameter, take the appropriate ratio, and then multiply by 44
inches.

Eugene

if(robot_with_really_thin_arm/claw.team_number == 1024)
{

printf("Yes, it is within the 80" requirement, but only just.\n\r");
printf("Autonomous only gets faster from here for 1024.\n\r");

}

//-q :]

Dan Richardson

09-03-2008, 14:59

Furthering 1 quadrant is a 12 point potential difference, and a big part of the difficulty in this years task. Also, there aren't many people who profess to have "uber" auton modes, most teams just display it like 25, 1114, 1024, 148, 217 etc.. The proclaimers are those who are slack jawed after their performance.

Regardless it would be nice if people started looking it at from a different perspective. FIRST struggled last year during autonomous, it was very difficult while I was announcing last year to get the audience motivated in a 15 second period where almost nothing happend. FIRST gave us a very simple task, and a very hard task this year in autonomous, why not try to complete those tasks, it is after all a robotics competition.

Of course there are gonna be teams that can best you but take the challenge, do your best and get it done. The odometry or dead reckoning isn't too difficult to complete the easy tasks, there are many teams that would be willing to help you. Many teams have taken the hybrid challenge and hope to see every robot moving out crossing one or more lines in auton, it will be great to see more teams doing the same. Lets make Hybrid exciting, teams flying around the field scoring dozens of points narrowly avoiding disasterous crashes. Last year FIRST seemed very dissapointed with the lack of participants in autonomous, I mean IRI excluded most events really did not have much autonomous capping. It seems like FIRST tried very hard to make it worth something again, and to also make an easy tasks and hard task that teams can complete, much like in '06.

I've already seen great autons out of some teams that aren't what you would call perenial powerhouses, and nonexistent ones from teams you would. I don't buy the powerhouse argument, I think hybrid can be more of a field leveler ( except maybe in the cases of like 1114, because, well their just rediculous.. but thats not the point ) an average team can show up with a great autonomous this year and take home the competition against traditional powerhouses. Also most people get ignored when they complain about "fairness" in capabilities of super teams who can have 600 hours of machine time and 5 engineers, why is that any different than a team that can score a few points in autonomous. FIRST's intent was to make this a high scoring challenging game, Woody said it at kick off that people who think this game is too simple just havn't thought about it enough.

Take their challenge, a negative attitude towards it won't get anyone anywhere, but a positive outlook on hybrid may produce some spectacular performances, and I applaud the teams who try.

Travis Hoffman

09-03-2008, 16:43

Lets make Hybrid exciting, teams flying around the field scoring dozens of points narrowly avoiding disasterous crashes.

...

Take their challenge, a negative attitude towards it won't get anyone anywhere, but a positive outlook on hybrid may produce some spectacular performances, and I applaud the teams who try.

Furthering one quadrant for the short distance movers furthers the long distance movers by at least one, perhaps two. The majority of the time against strong hybrid players, net gain for short movers is, at best, zero.

Positive, negative, or neutral.....there are going to be a lot of teams who will end their autons, voluntarily or otherwise, one quadrant further down the pike than they had ended them previously. Except now, instead of meeting these obstacles at a relatively slow speed as they made the lane change, oncoming hybrid modes of those successful enough to program multi line crossings at rapid speeds (we will be one such team, although we only program 60% of full speed currently) will be contacting many of these obstacles after having half a field of acceleration time. You cannot possibly guarantee that 100% of hybrid routines will "narrowly avoid disasterous crashes". Bad luck will dictate that some will not be avoided. I'd have preferred retaining the low-speed collisions of Week 1 but now we must all be concerned with this new risk. So again, I caution, be careful. Dare I even suggest, slow down.

Driving (relatively) straight forward and stopping is basic enough to implement for teams who have never done it before, but there are still roadblocks to meeting this goal. I can realistically see this as a solution for most teams who do not currently have a hybrid mode. I've got code handy to help them with the task. But there are still roadblocks to this effort that must be overcome at events. I attempted to help one rookie team out at Midwest, but their programming mentor was absent at the time, and I wasn't going to commandeer their laptop and force feed it to them. I left the code in a text file with my phone number and encouraged them to call me later on when they had time to receive further assistance. Heck, some rookies don't even have access to a laptop. I don't feel putting the code in there is worth the time and effort if I can't realistically explain it to the kids and get them to understand it. In the short amount of time we have at an event, this is a true roadblock.

Driving forward, turning a timed 90 degrees left, and changing lanes is much more of a challenge than even driving straight. A lot of repetitive trial and error is involved when implementing timed turns and moves of varying distance. Many teams are more concerned with passing inspection and being able to drive at all during practice matches than they are getting a 2-3 line autonomous to run. At some venues, there is no room for a team to tether up somewhere and verify how far their timer settings make them go and turn. So what happens when those teams program too long of a turn, point their machines CLOCKWISE down the field, and let er rip? What happens when delays are not sufficiently programmed between alliance partners, and collisions between teammates result in robots driving the wrong way, increasing their risk of damage? Are we all comfortable with such risks? That is a true risk of any hasty hybrid programming push.

One thing that aided us in autonomous tuning was videotaping our practice matches. Based on the replay timings we viewed in our pit, we were able to extrapolate the correct timed values we needed for fairly consistent turns, and a 2-3 line auton resulted. I can offer such a service to anyone who comes asking for such assistance in Pittsburgh and Cleveland, but I will not look to shove hybrid code down the throats of those who either do not want it or are not ready for it.

The build season and offseason are the TRUE times at which hybrid programming education should be promoted. With access to teleconferencing and remote desktop software, there are ample opportunities for veteran teams to reach out to long distance teams who wish to receive autonomous assistance, and there is enough TIME available to all to ensure that the resulting code is functional and safe. Letting an inexperienced team unleash an untested hybrid mode on the field at a qualifying match is a haphazard and careless exercise, in my opinion.

Be. Careful. Let's all merge these idealistic wishes with the true realities of the event venues, then proceed accordingly.

Qbranch

09-03-2008, 20:46

Letting an inexperienced team unleash an untested hybrid mode on the field at a qualifying match is a haphazard and careless exercise, in my opinion.

Hey, you never know, they might give you a push! :yikes:

You are right that untested autonomous modes are a potentially dangerous situation, but, well, even tested ones are. (See this shining example of what happens when one of your encoders is just chilling rattling around in you're robots belley pan instead of being coupled to a shaft. (http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/vids/08il/il_qm24.wmv))

48: You guys are running a timed autonomous? Wow you all must have some pretty consistent batteries! :ahh:

-q

Travis Hoffman

09-03-2008, 20:48

Hey, you never know, they might give you a push! :yikes:

You are right that untested autonomous modes are a potentially dangerous situation, but, well, even tested ones are. (See this shining example of what happens when one of your encoders is just chilling rattling around in you're robots belley pan instead of being coupled to a shaft. (http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/vids/08il/il_qm24.wmv))

48: You guys are running a timed autonomous? Wow you all must have some pretty consistent batteries! :ahh:

-q

See? All that "newfangled" technology just gits ye young whippersnappers in trouble, I reckon.

The wedged (wait, I better change that to "angled" before some misinformed person complains :rolleyes:) front end does wonders for correcting various navigational errors :p . Most of the time.....we did go clockwise once due to a collision from an errant partner.

One day we may hook up the Super Shifter encoders. One day....

T3_1565

09-03-2008, 21:02

ours is timed too. and we can get three lines consistently :D yay for no sensors!!

Qbranch

09-03-2008, 21:24

One day we may hook up the Super Shifter encoders. One day....

Don't bother. At least for our shifters, there was too much runout in the shaft for the open frame encoders to work consistently, so we came up with a more robust replacement setup (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/30093).

-q

GaryVoshol

09-03-2008, 21:29

At the Kettering Rookie tournament, many teams would either not move at all, or would manage to move at least beyond the finish line and then get hung up down at the other end of the field (if they even attempted to make the turn). We did have a robot or two that managed 3 or 4 lines.

However, we had several robots that might have blocked Hybrid if this was a hard and fast rule. They managed to move away from the wall, but would stop short of the finish line - maybe they just didn't move far enough, or maybe they veered off to the side and tangled with the wall or lane divider. Either way, they fell into the category of, "The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized." (Q&A 1/24/08) No calls for hybrid blocking were made. As Update #15 stated, "We think there is enough distinction between the two alternatives that teams will understand the difference."

The GDC has given their interpretation of the matter. Can we decide to get on with it, live with it, and let this matter drop?

smurfgirl

31-03-2008, 16:44

Did u see the tight spots 148 can get into?
No wonder they are the only undefeated team in FIRST right now.

We're undefeated this season... and so are other teams.

brentmcjunkin

31-03-2008, 17:33

This may not be in the right place but i think you should get pentilized if you see some one caught on the overpass and you are sending your robot signals and you hit the team and cause them to fall you should get pentalized and also if back up 5 inches or mabey less you still get pentalized i think there should be a little distance you should be able 2 back but like i said this is probobly in thee wrong place

hillale

31-03-2008, 18:51

We're undefeated this season... and so are other teams.

At the time of the post you quoted, I believe that 148 was the only team who was undefeated. Granted that several other teams hadn't played yet due to later regionals.

Fred Sayre

31-03-2008, 19:22

2 quick things to keep in mind:

1st, G40 clearly states that a robot is not IMPEDING if there is a clear “passing lane” around the ROBOT. This means that if there is room to drive around, the robot is not by definition, impeding. (if this was said before, I apologize - this is a long post, but people still refer to the drive forward 3' robot as necessarily impeding).

2nd, Our auto has a "Pause" function. I highly recommend it for these teams getting so many lines. If your robot is driving at extremely high speeds around the track and you do not have direct control I would say that it is negligent to think it is not going to ram into something. I think some of the better teams are using pure auto and are not dependent on the IR, and if that is the case, add a safety stop to your functions to avoid these penalties!

Just because your code goes fast and its not your fault that people "get in your way" does not mean that you can absolve yourself of the responsibility of keeping in check a machine that will have high speed collisions under normal field conditions.

cwood

31-03-2008, 21:38

Watch the hybrid in this (http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=5361) match. With no changes to hybrid mode whatsoever and without using the IR controller 2 robots managed to dodge the parked robot that drove 3 feet. So if someone does something that hurts your strategy, revamp your own strategy rather than try and blame them for not "playing by the rules". This video proves that it isn't that hard.

Edit: make that 3 if you count the other team on their own alliance.

i agree completely team 1629 has a special line of code just incase we are hit in fact in one match we were accidentally blocked and unfortunatly broke the other robot since we hit them at 25 ft/s (breaking and omni wheel and knocking electronics loose sorry 1001) but after the hit our robot simply pushed them out of the way and continued to get another 2 lines before time expired its safe to say that was the last time we were blocked accidentally or otherwise.