Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

Posted on the FRC Manual site, 3/18/2014: http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/Updates/0#term 176

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

Anyone know what caused the change to R1? I assume there was a specific robot/thread/Q&A question that caused it, but I can’t think of any that would have.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

I wonder why they added more approved batteries in the middle of the season. Maybe there is a shortage of the other models?

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

It might be because of the withholding allowance change to prevent teams from bringing whole practice robots.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

QA for R1: https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/...r-pit-will-thi

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

I'm glad they changed the rule on possessing opponents' balls. Our alliances have gotten technicals for "trapping" on a few occasions, but usually the technical was not the biggest factor in the score for those matches.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

I'm not sure that's it. This team does not plan to enter the robot into competition, only put it on display.


Well, at least this update is some progress. I was hoping for more... but I was also kind of expecting nothing.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

Looks like they are no longer accepting suggestions about what could be a legal battery this year. My suggestion apparently did not make to the approved list.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

They may not have been planning on entering it, but bringing it into the pits raises a huge load of question about witholding allowances, etc. And whether they could enter that robot in the event their competition robot, say, explodes before it ever sees an inspector.

On the other hand, I heard tell of a rookie team that apparently had a serious misunderstanding and showed up with a Vex bot that pretty clearly had little or nothing to do with Aerial Assist.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

what even

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

Just a Vex bot :confused:

If they had one along with the competition bot and inspectors thought it counted as "parts" or something, that might also be messed up.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

Could anyone with more information please elaborate on this? I'm genuinely baffled as to how a team could pay the $5,00 entry fee and not even think to look at the game. There must be some rational explanation.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

A team thought those models were equivalent batteries and asked FIRST if they agreed, just like the blue box said before it was removed (which I don't get).

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

Could whoever the OP heard this from have been talking about a rookie team bringing only a minibot to the Logomotion competition? This could be plausible as the minibots could be shared among teams if I remember correctly and were they not made out of VEX (Tetrix) components?

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

They were, but OP specifically referred to Aerial Assist, so it must have been this year.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

I for one, really appreciate the updates to G12.
Nice work GDC, glad to see our comments are not falling on deaf ears.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

I am really concerned about the new wording of G12. Maybe it will cut down on the number of Technical Fouls, but it seems like they could hand out a Foul for every time that your opponents' ball touches you.
If the the criteria for a Foul includes "unintentional and inconsequential" infractions, then that opens the floodgates. It negates the qualifiers for intentional possession like "desired location" and "overt isolation or holding."
The combination of the definitions + the new Foul qualification for "unintentional and inconsequential" actions + the Blue Box make for a confusing set of rules that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. I expect that some Refs are going to start handing out Fouls like candy and the defensive game will have to completely change since the Ball becomes a Foul button.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

This is my favorite Team Update thus far. Thank god for that rule change.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

I have seen many many instances where a team defending deliberately knocks a ball away from an offensive robot attempting to pick it up. Because this didn't meet the technical definition of herding in the manual it wasn't a foul. I always thought this was wrong. Deliberately deflecting a ball to me is possession, even if it's one hit. I wonder if this update effects this in any way. I would love to see a 20 point foul assessed for this action.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

I'd be all for that, if they also loosened up the purse strings for handing out inital assists for inbounders one-bumping a ball to the next team.

Seems the only way to get that inital inbound assist is for the inbounding team to hold the ball in their machine.

If the purpose of the game is to work together, we need to make it easier for teams to contribute to their alliance.

Although, I'm not convince the refs can tell the difference between deliberate and accidental bumping of a ball. This would probably just add more penalties to the game.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

It does seem, though, that the TECHNICAL FOUL called on 1114s alliance in SF1-2 at ONTO would have been reduced to a FOUL by this rule change.

Errant blue TRUSS shot lands in red ROBOT and is immediately ejected seems like a FOUL and not a TECHNICAL FOUL, by my reading of this change.

I agree that refs seem to be really reluctant to dish out POSSESSIONs to HERDing ROBOTs of an ALLIANCE matching the colour of the BALL. They seem to be much more frequently dishing out the G12 foul for HERDing or TRAPping and opponent's BALL. I don't understand why this is.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

Agreed. According to the rules, the same definition for POSSESSION and HERDING is supposed to apply whether you're touching your own game ball or the opponents'.

Sometimes a team gets called for any little bump of the opponents' ball. That is not the way it's supposed to be called, in my opinion, because one tap is not possession.

The change to a regular foul for unintentionally or inconsequential POSSESSION is a good change. However, I suspect that referees will have a hard time distinguishing between POSSESSION and CONTACT when making this call, and a lot 20 point fouls will be called when a robot touches the other team's ball for any reason and with any result.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

I came to the same conclusion on your second point. I've been in a situation where a robot on our alliance had a ball land in them on a bounce after a truss shot by the other alliance, and immediately got it out of their robot using their intake mechanism. They were still assessed a technical. That felt off to me, even though the manual tells you in a blue box to try to avoid unintentional possession.

I'm going to ask's the refs at RIDE, as we all should, if they will call it this way. Attempting to immediately remedy the situation of unintentional possession such as that, although pointed out in the manual, really shouldn't be the harshest penalty in the book.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

I'm not sure whether it would be just a foul now, watching the video it seemed as though they drove towards the bouncing ball. It wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome of the game but it looks intentional from an outside observer.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

The new update to the rule seems to make it more subjective to interpretation and more of a Judgement call for Refs. Take something that was Black and White and make it a bit Grey.

For each possession of an opponent's ball the ref will have to determine:

- Was that unintentional and inconsequential possession? (Foul)
- Was it Consequential? (Technical Foul)
- Was it Strategic? (Red Card aka DQ)

While continuing to watch for Assists/Trusses/Catches at the same time.

I also agree that Refs need to give assist for the bumping the ball twice (Herding), the same as opponents bumping the other alliance ball twice and getting a Foul.

-Clinton-

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

So I'm a bit more confused now as to the difference between "deflecting" and one incidental hit. Deflecting seems to be an acceptable version of ball control from a defensive perspective due to the fact that there are goalie zones. (1 hit, intentionally trying to prevent the ball from going where it was originally going)

IndySam post #19 "Deliberately deflecting a ball to me is possession, even if it's one hit." under this then all defensive goalie bots are illegal. Why have goalie zones and increased height allowances if deflection is against the addition to G12 blue box?

But it now seems that this could fall into a 20 point foul.

Is one brief intentional hit on an opponents ball allowed as it falls under deflection covered in the blue box of G12?
The addition to the blue box seems to contradict the first part.

--I'll be back with an edit for related quotes and such

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

One hit on an opposing ball by anything not moving relative to the ROBOT is a deflection. IndySam is suggesting a change to that rule, but this update did not change it -- it only affects POSSESSIONs.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

No, it's still not a foul. The main body of G12 still only penalizes POSSESSION, and deflecting a ball, regardless of how deliberate it is, is still not POSSESSION.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

There are no situations in which this rule change will cause more penalties. The defending robot still needs to POSSESS the ball to get a penalty call, which is exactly what the old rules said. All that this rule does is minimize the impact of unintentional and inconsequential POSSESSIONs by opponent robots by making this infraction worth 20 points instead of 50.

There will be no appreciable change in game flow since the base rule is still the same (don't POSSESS the opponent's ball). If the refs start handing out FOULs like candy, I for one will be happy, because under the old rules, every single one of those would have been a TECHNICAL FOUL.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

Ahh ok after reading it a few more times and discussing it with others over lunch we came to a similar conclusion.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

This update is interesting. There was an instance during the semifinals at Orlando where we were playing a blockade style of defense on 1772 and 744 to prevent them from intaking the ball, they both then preceded to push us into their ball and into the wall which caused the ball to momentarily pop up onto our bumpers.

While I thought it shouldn't have been a T-foul becuase the opposing team obviously pushed us into thier ball. We were given one anyway. We won the match regaurdless so I didn't press the issue.

Would incidents like this now be accessed as a foul by this rule change?

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

I think this example displays that the onus will be on the offending team to ensure that the action is viewed as inconsequential. What you will see when reviewing the infraction is that even if it was deemed unintentional, the robot then (possibly unintentionally) drops the ball in such a way that their robot is positioned in between the ball and the incoming robot. They also then proceed to play active defense (the correct move given the rules at the time).

However I view any possession that significantly slows a cycle as consequential, regardless of the score. I would argue that going forward, it may be in the best interest for the robot causing the infraction to actually step away from the play to ensure that the ref sees that the unintentional possession of the ball did not give them a competitive advantage.

You are definitely still at the mercy of the ref.

Here's a link to the video at the time of the infraction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...vxVzpyfks#t=95

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

I don't think it was a possession at all. The G12 update doesn't really address the key issue of how to call possessions. I saw the ball jump up on your bumper a bit. I don't believe it should have counted as an assist if that was your alliance's ball, so it should not count against you as the defender in this case.

Bottom line, the G12 update is a net negative to the game.

David

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

That's certainly the way I read it and I think it's intended, but I've watched some inconsequential/unintentional G12s go uncalled that refs might now think they need to call. I see why people are concerned.

Q466: Does TU 3/18 lower the threshold for G12 (a no-call in Week 1 could be a call now, for the identical situation), or raise the threshold for receiving a G12 tech foul (a tech foul in Week 1 could be a foul now)?
https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Questions.php

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

To paraphrase and try to put it in context:

They have merely reset the severity of the G12 penalties.. If your act is an inconsequential or unintended action, but, still manages to keep the opposing alliance away from their ball (not a bad thing in this game), but, if your action is deemed to appear or be intentional or worse absolutely deliberate and strategically planned by nature of appearance...They can raise the severity back to where it was, and even higher.

I say don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Some of those fouls now won't necessarily flat cost you the match...But some still will. Try to be nice.;)

Play your game, don't attempt to run or ruin theirs. This is a 1 game piece per Alliance, work well together, inbound get 3 assists / truss/ catch/ score fast cycle game. (And it is really exciting to see it played to full complete high scoring fast cycles by both Alliances at the same time (especially w/ occasional zone defense, when not on the ball right then, added). Not so much, when it instead reverts to just a battle bots type show).

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

It actually sounds like you were in violation of G25 -

G25
ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. This rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-ROBOT interaction.
Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

I like this update. I think it keeps serious offenses as a Technical Foul (50 points) but moves minor infractions to a Foul (20 points).

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

The rule is for multiple robots, they were solely playing the defense on those 2 teams.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

One robot blocking a team from getting to a ball isn't truly blockading the field. Since it was my team's robot against two opposing robots. G25 is and always has been aimed at strategies pertaining to multiple robots. I remember because last year my team asked several questions about G25 to the head ref at our regional.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

My interpretation error. When you said "we" and "blockade" in the same sentence I assumed that the "we" meant "alliance" on the defense side.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

What qualifies as 'strategic' possession? If I bump the opposing alliance's ball to keep them from getting to it, does my team receive a DQ?

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

By my understanding (which could be wrong) that should only be "deflection", unless you bump the ball repeatedly. Then that would be considered possession.

Re: Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18
 

My understanding also, but I'm glad someone could confirm this.