Simultaneous Herding and Posession

[UnknownMember]

I read in the FRC Manual that "ROBOTS may be in POSSESSION of a maximum of one EMPTY CELL, or may HERD a maximum of one EMPTY CELL at one time. A ROBOT may not be in POSSESSION and HERD EMPTY CELLS at the same time. A violation will cause a PENALTY to be assigned." (<G24>)

Herding is defined as "Controlling the position and movement of a GAME PIECE while the GAME PIECE is not supported by any ROBOT (i.e. supported by the CRATER or other GAME PIECES). Both continuous and intermittent contact between the ROBOT and GAME PIECE are considered HERDING. (e.g. bumping, plowing or dribbling a GAME PIECE)" (7.2 Definitions)

So, if I am reading this correctly, an alliance can receive a penalty if they are both herding and in posession of an empty cell at the same time, even though intermittently bumping the empty cell is considered herding? While there are only four empty cells, it still seems likely that one or two will land on the floor, and be nudged around by robots, even if unintential. So if one of those robots has an empty cell in their posession, they can legally be penalized?

I realize that it is highly unlikely that a ref would choose to penalize a bot for this unless it appeared obvious they were intending to hit the cell, but it still seems unfair to me...Any thoughts?

[GarrettF2395]

I agree with you, I doubt the ref would penalize a robot for skidding out of control and, bumping into one empty cell while possessing another. That being said, it still seems possible for a ref to make a mistake about this, and wrongly penalize a robot. I would suggest making sure the drivers be extra careful while the robot is carrying a empty cell.

[GaryVoshol]

Any thoughts?
How many 2008<G27> herding penalties did you see last year?

[martin417]

A worry I had was that if you build a robot that "vacuums" up all balls it contacts, and you inadvertently vacuum up two empty cells, how can you get rid of one? Most robots of this design will place balls in a hopper and empty the hopper either through a dump mechanism or a shooter.

I also see a strategy where a robot, in possession of an empty cell, passes the outpost. The payload specialist throws a second empty cell into the hopper or where the vacuum will pick it up. That team then either gets a penalty, or has to immediately dump its load, both of which are a bad thing.

[BigWhiteYeti]

I am pretty sure the definition of herding implies an intentional movement of a cell, not just bumping it. In previous years, they used the term INADVERTENT BULLDOZING to refer to this; and although that is not a term this year, I assume it is still implied to a certain extent.

[Dominicano0519]

yeah think back to rack and roll

that rule is most likely just a way to stop teams from taking a bunch of empty cells in at once

[Madison]

A worry I had was that if you build a robot that "vacuums" up all balls it contacts, and you inadvertently vacuum up two empty cells, how can you get rid of one? Most robots of this design will place balls in a hopper and empty the hopper either through a dump mechanism or a shooter.

I also see a strategy where a robot, in possession of an empty cell, passes the outpost. The payload specialist throws a second empty cell into the hopper or where the vacuum will pick it up. That team then either gets a penalty, or has to immediately dump its load, both of which are a bad thing.

The Payload Specialist at the Outpost can only enter an EMPTY CELL into play through the opening in front of them. They can't throw it into the crater.

I am interested in seeing how the GDC handles questions about forcing your opponents to draw a penalty. Typically, this has been disallowed, of course.

If it's possible to force your opponent to draw a penalty, there is a good argument for depositing EMPTY CELLS into their trailers and, effectively, prohibiting them from manipulating other EMPTY CELLS.

[UnknownMember]

I am interested in seeing how the GDC handles questions about forcing your opponents to draw a penalty. Typically, this has been disallowed, of course.


The same rule is still in effect. "Causing PENALTIES – The actions of a ROBOT shall not cause an opposing ROBOT to break a rule and thus incur penalties. Any rule violations committed by the affected ROBOT shall be excused, and no penalties will be assigned." (<G18>)

What's interesting is that they state "the actions of a robot shall not cause an opposing robot..." So I suppose that means that if you cause a robot on your alliance to make a penalty, then the penalty sticks?

[martin417]

The Payload Specialist at the Outpost can only enter an EMPTY CELL into play through the opening in front of them. They can't throw it into the crater.


When I said "throw" I meant through the port (that's why I added the caveat about depositing it where it can picked up by the vacuuming mechanism)

[BandChick]

I agree with you, I doubt the ref would penalize a robot for skidding out of control and, bumping into one empty cell while possessing another. That being said, it still seems possible for a ref to make a mistake about this, and wrongly penalize a robot. I would suggest making sure the drivers be extra careful while the robot is carrying a empty cell.

I want to clarify this:
Based on the definition of HERDING from previous years of games, that "bumping" into a cell while in possession of one wouldn't be considered herding. Unless you were INTENTIONAL (and yes, I know intent is hard to judge) in your movement of that ball on the ground, I would imagine no penalty would be assessed.

[UnknownMember]

I want to clarify this:
Based on the definition of HERDING from previous years of games, that "bumping" into a cell while in possession of one wouldn't be considered herding. Unless you were INTENTIONAL (and yes, I know intent is hard to judge) in your movement of that ball on the ground, I would imagine no penalty would be assessed.

It really all comes down to the ref, and how he/she sees it. The definition of herding specifically includes bumping this year, as well as specifying that intermittent contact is still herding. Based on the vehemance of FIRST in their stance that they "Mean what they say," I don't think it would be wise to discount a possibility based on the rules of previous years.

[jgraber]

The Payload Specialist at the Outpost can only enter an EMPTY CELL into play through the opening in front of them. They can't throw it into the crater.

I am interested in seeing how the GDC handles questions about forcing your opponents to draw a penalty. Typically, this has been disallowed, of course.

If it's possible to force your opponent to draw a penalty, there is a good argument for depositing EMPTY CELLS into their trailers and, effectively, prohibiting them from manipulating other EMPTY CELLS.

EMPTY CELLS have a point value when scored in a trailer.
Since the trailer is not part of the Robot, I would not expect a trailered EMPTY CELL to count as being controlled by the Robot, even though it maintains a relative fixed position to the Robot.

On a related note, a shooting robot can accept an EMPTY CELL from the OUTPOST, then immediately shoot it diagonally across the field to roll it into their own refueling port. Then rapidly accept another EMPTY CELL and do the same.

[dodar]

The Payload Specialist at the Outpost can only enter an EMPTY CELL into play through the opening in front of them. They can't throw it into the crater.

I am interested in seeing how the GDC handles questions about forcing your opponents to draw a penalty. Typically, this has been disallowed, of course.

If it's possible to force your opponent to draw a penalty, there is a good argument for depositing EMPTY CELLS into their trailers and, effectively, prohibiting them from manipulating other EMPTY CELLS.

Actually im pretty sure that an empty cell can either be pushed through the hole or thrown over the wall

[GaryVoshol]

Actually im pretty sure that an empty cell can either be pushed through the hole or thrown over the wallI'm pretty sure you'd better check again, if you are talking about the OUTPOST wall.

[GaryVoshol]

HERDING: Controlling the position and movement of a GAME PIECE while the GAME PIECE is not supported by any ROBOT (i.e. supported by the CRATER or other GAME PIECES). Both continuous and intermittent contact between the ROBOT and GAME PIECE are considered HERDING. (e.g. bumping, plowing or dribbling a GAME PIECE)
POSSESSION: Controlling the position and movement of a GAME PIECE while the GAME PIECE is supported or captured by an ALLIANCE. A GAME PIECE shall be considered “supported” by a ROBOT if in the estimation of a reasonably astute observer the majority of the weight of the GAME PIECE is being borne by the ROBOT. A GAME PIECE shall be considered “captured” by a ROBOT if, as the ROBOT moves or changes orientation (e.g. backs up or spins in place), the GAME PIECE remains in approximately the same position relative to the ROBOT. Both the “supported” and “captured” conditions include the case where the GAME PIECE is also in contact with the floor.
<G24> Handling EMPTY CELLS – ROBOTS may be in POSSESSION of a maximum of one EMPTY CELL, or may HERD a maximum of one EMPTY CELL at one time. A ROBOT may not be in POSSESSION and HERD EMPTY CELLS at the same time. A violation will cause a PENALTY to be assigned.
And that's all she says this year.

Possession is a more restrictive form of herding - call it herding without possibility of being inadvertently released. The definitions are essentially the same as 2008's.

What is missing this year, as was noted, is a specific rule allowing bulldozing. (That term was not defined last year; something for the refs to interpret.)

I suspect that there will be a ruling that bulldozing (defined or undefined) and/or inadvertent bumping is OK. Else, this will become the new <G22> rule and contrary to what was said at Kickoff, there will be a lot of penalties.

[EricH]

EMPTY CELLS have a point value when scored in a trailer.
Since the trailer is not part of the Robot, I would not expect a trailered EMPTY CELL to count as being controlled by the Robot, even though it maintains a relative fixed position to the Robot. Somebody is correct! The GDC was asked this question and has answered as expected.