G28 + G11 seems broken
 

As currently written, what's to prevent me from blocking a capture/challenge/scaling by parking sideways in front of a segment of my BATTEN with my hands off the sticks? If you hit me, you're trying to draw a G28, and you get a foul instead. I'm guessing they'll need to re-write G28 to, unfortunately, add some causality in there. Or maybe add impeding BATTEN access in the last 20 seconds to the impeding match flow rule. Unless they want to go meta and declare the blocking team broke G11 by trying to draw a G11 of G28. Which seems like too much interpretation to put on a ref in the last 20 of a match.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

We'll have to see if this comes up in Q&A or in ref training. But until then, this is my opinion.

The defending robot (in it's own COURTYARD) cannot contact a robot from the other alliance. But there is nothing that says the attacking robot cannot initiate contact. So if you are not driving your robot in your COURTYARD, the other robot can attempt to push you out of the way. I would not interpret that to be attempting to draw a foul.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

The intent of the rule seems to be to keep the situation above from happening. Basically, when that 20 second mark hits, you need to be doing everything you can to be getting away from the opponents in your courtyard.

And at any rate, why are you not headed to the BATTEN on the other side of the field?

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

No reason to head there if the tower is not weakened.

I think you are being too generous with the term contact. Remember it is a one way verb. If my robot is not allowed to contact yours, that doesn't mean I will get a foul if your robot contacts mine.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

That's not how I read G28. The defending robots cannot prevent the attacking robots from reaching the tower.

In order to not be in a position where you might violate G28 all you have to do is exit your own courtyard before the last 20 seconds. Which is when you should be trying to scale the castle at the other end anyway.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

Nope. If RED is minding its business in the RED courtyard in the last 20 (for whatever reason), and BLUE drives into RED, BLUE should get a G11, because it's trying to create a G28 foul that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.

Gary's interpretation is one possible fix, but I'd want it spelled out in the rule or a Q&A, because right now G28 only specifies contact, with no clear mention whatsoever of who initiates it. Yes, you can read "contact" as being an intentional action, but you can also read it more like "comes in contact with" something that happens with no respect to intention.
Example: If I poke you with my finger, I contact you with my finger. But you also contact me through my finger.

So I think it's something to bring up in Q&A and have clarified and addressed.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

There are two reasons to head to the TOWER even if it is still standing! From 3.3.1, there are 5 points for a CHALLENGE and 15 points for a SCALE! Now, there won't be any CAPTURE points, though.


My google definition says contact it is a noun, with the definition reading as "the state or condition of physical touching".


Definitely a question for Q&A.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

If contact is a noun than G28 is not a proper sentence.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

If I'm understanding this correctly - at this point there's nothing to prevent a red bot in the red courtyard in the last 20 seconds, running into a bunch of blue robots and give them all G11 violations? Seems like a tough call to make - figuring out whether Red is fishing for G11 or Blue is fishing for G28.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

If you're parked in front of the batten, and I'm trying to get to it, my strategy is aimed at getting to the batten, not at drawing the foul.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

Your situation would be pretty obviously g28 on red, since blue doesn't sound like it's forcing red to get a g28. G11 pretty clearly requires intent to force a foul on blue's part for g11 to trigger. G11 would be if blue goes out of its way to run into a fleeing red robot. The grey area is if red is stationary but clearly in blue's way.

Also I can see lots of reasons for doing this. Skeptically if you're not going to get capture or scaling points even with the defending bot, then preventing a scale or capture is a net gain.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

This is a valid point. I think you guys might have some experience arguing valid points with refs without q&a backup, though.

Certainly the "correct" answer here is either no foul or foul on the parked defending robot. I'd just like the gdc to agree with this interpretation on the record.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

I'd add in the Secret Passage contact rules to this.


Just for grins, does G11 seem familiar to the 2011 rule with a similar subject? The one that had to be revised to death?

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

There has usually some form of G11 in past games.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

Zing.

I will admit that, in the past, they have ruled it the way you outlined up above, but it's wrong. The rule says "solely aimed at".

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

If I hit you on my way to getting to the Castle, and I did not go out of my way to hit you, then it is not a G11 violation. The purpose of the action is to push you out of the way so that I can get to the castle. The purpose of the action is not to cause a G28 violation.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

I think the possibility of the "Running around to intentionally cause other robots to get penalties" is explicitly banned in the rules. So no, two or three red robot's in blue's courtyard wouldn't be able to run around intentionally bopping the defender in the last 20 seconds for points.

That being said....the parking strategy is interesting.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

From my opinion, the spirit of the rule is (you have to let your opponents have unfettered access to attempt to capture your castle. So if you see an opposing robot coming at you, and you know that contact will give you a penalty, you have to move. This could be clarified, but to me the intent seems clear.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

This game again...

IMO, red isn't mind its own business.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

I'm not seeing the issue here - this reads, to me, like the GDC saying "don't plan on running into a defending robot during the last 20 seconds for the purpose of drawing a penalty per G28, as doing such is a violation of G11."

However, it says/implies nothing at all about contact with a defending robot in pursuit of a legitimate game objective. From the way I've seen these rules called before, there's no way doing that would be ruled a violation of G11 - if anything, the defending robot would likely still receive a G28 as, even without explicit action, their positioning forces robot-robot contact with any robot attempting to challenge or scale.

Yes, this is a judgment call by the refs, but I don't think it's a difficult one to make and am not worried at all about it.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

I believe that with that way that the rule is written: G28 During the final twenty (20) seconds of TELEOP, ROBOTS in their COURTYARD may not contact an opponent ROBOT. If a robot is parked then and they are subsequently moved, then they are not in violation of G28 because they were not the ones who made contact. And in that scenario there would also be no G11 penalty because the intent of the robot who moved the other was not to draw a G28 but rather to gain access to the Batter.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

2012 bridge rules come to mind.

I did not FORCE you to commit a foul by me running into you. You were inhibiting my playing of the game and you had the opportunity to move and chose not to.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

The wording of G11 is important; BLUE's goal in this scenario has to be to draw the foul. The specific phrasing of the blue box seems to suggest that BLUE would get a G11 if they hunt down RED for the sake of contact in the last 20 seconds. Ultimately, whether G11 or G28 should be called is at the discretion of the REFEREES, as all potential G11 cases are. If RED decides to park in front of the BATTER (which is the proper spelling, not sure why this whole thread decided to go with BATTEN), and BLUE very carefully attempts to drive around RED to make their climb but ultimately bumps RED anyway, I don't see how you could call a G11 instead of a G28. Similarly, if BLUE attempts to shove RED out of the way, that would definitely be a G11, as I interpret it.

However, it is evident to me that the manual doesn't make this as clear as it could; this usually ends up being the case with subjective rules. A Q&A submission should definitely clear things up.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

the only reason I would see the point to block a batten would to be to stop 1
of 3 robots that can all scale from scaling. Stopping a scaling bot will -15 pts other alliance + no capture pts for ether team. Rather than gaining 5 pts with a challenge bot

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

Contact is a noun, and you are correct in saying that G28 is not a proper sentence. It should read "come into contact with".

As much as I agree with this sentiment, it should still be officially be cleared up. Less mess later on.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

The argument that G11 doesn't apply because "We're not trying to draw a foul, we're trying to achieve [some other game objective]" is certainly persuasive, but it's just not as solid as I'd like something to be in this case. It's a defense that could be used for hitting an opposing robot almost anywhere in the courtyard. "We were trying for the drawbridge to finish off the breach and they were in our way, but then we realized we couldn't and went back for the challenge instead." That's probably a little too Machiavellian to actually turn up in a match if it's not true, but still.

Anyways, I feel like it leaves too much guess work for the referees, when you could cover it by adding a line to the match flow rule about impeding access to the tower in the last 20. But the GDC has been opposed to overly specific wordings recently, so they may in fact leave it as is and go with the intent-heavy ruling of G11.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

I see what your getting at now.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

And there's the two meanings that are relevant to how G28 gets ruled.

Also defense makes perfect sense if the defending alliance is already not going to get a CAPTURE and wants to deny a CAPTURE to the opponents. Or if the defending robot can't cross DEFENSE and can't even CHALLENGE, then denying even a CHALLENGE would be a net benefit.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

I understand the concern but don't think it's such a problem, especially since situations like this have cropped up in lots of recent games.

In 2013, for example, according to the equivalent rules it would not be legal to push a robot that was over the height limit out of their defensive zone to force them to incur a penalty. However, I saw several instances where that precise thing happened because there was no way to proceed down-field without doing so, and not once was the pushing robot called for forcing the opponent to take a penalty. Similarly, nudging an opposing robot into your pyramid in an attempt to get in position to climb was never called a foul, either.

There are other examples from other years, all along a similar line. I think a good way to parse it is to just apply G11 recursively - forcing an opponent to take a penalty is a violation of G11, but then so is forcing an opponent to force you to take a penalty in the course of valid gameplay. I doubt they'll change the wording of the rule, given that it hasn't been a problem in the past.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

Speaking as your friendly Defense expert, I'll say clearing this up is VERY important. The rule now can be read to allow a robot to park in front of their tower, take their hands off the controls, and not incur the penalty. If GDC intends this to mean that you cannot impede the movement of a robot to the tower in the courtyard in the last 20 seconds, then they should say that.

Clarity is important on rules. Anyone remember that q&a last year that really restriced helping other teams under material usage rules? Anyone remember the debates about how to reasonably interpret that? I do. And I also remember GDC clearing it up a few days later with relatively few changes to wording.

Doesn't usually take much to make the intent clear.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

But if Red is there trying to force Blue to cause a G11, doesn't that mean Red gets a G11?

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

Apparently you've not read many Q&A answers. :D

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

Better?

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

No.

It will take a minimum of three updates, at least one of which will be in the middle of competition season, to fix. Each update will result in at least two more Q&A questions.

Maybe you should just jump into the Chasm of Despair before the old man starts asking his questions three. ;):p

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

Is that for an African or European Swallow?

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

The first words of G11 are, "Strategies aimed solely at" - the question is, what is a strategy?

We don't know that definition yet. It comes up in head ref training each year. And you won't know what is decided until the drivers meeting at the events.

Unless Q&A becomes much more transparent and gives some definitions. But I doubt that; any answer would probably be along the lines of the standard, "We don't comment on hypothetical game situations."