|
2x multiplier removal secnario
Okay, scenarios I just realized.
Lets say one blue alliance caps a red alliance goal by shoving the 2x ball all the way down into the bottom of the goal. Now, as per the updates, any ball thrown into the goal that sits ABOVE the 2x ball is legal (correct me if im wrong). Now, red alliance moves to uncap that goal, a legal process. There is NO way for the red alliance to uncap said goal without removing those small balls in the process. Is it therefore at this point illegal to uncap this goal? Interesting scenario... If I've overlooked something, by all means correct me. I don't have access to the Q & A question posting system, so if no one can come up with an answer, can someone with an account ask FIRST? Thanks! EDIT: okay, update, I just found this on Q & A: Quote:
I dont know about everyone else, but I see from this a system in which teams will shove the 2x down, then later remove the 2x to descore an opponent. Thoughts on the subject? |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
a few of us on our team were discussing this very topic sunday the way we looked at as long as the descored small balls don't touch your machine this sounds like a legal way to descore balls.
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
I had this exact thought earlier in the season, and proposed the scenario to my team during a brainstorming session.
Me: What if you shove a 2x ball WAYYY into your opponents goal, they score small balls ontop of it, and you unscore the 2x ball, *accidentally* removing small balls from your opponents goal. Everyone: Then there'd be another update! It seems to me, however, that this might be the only way to legally descore a small ball. I think it is both gracious and professional, despite the array of claims that you will get on this thread otherwise, in due time. It's a smart strategy, and a robot that can exert enough force to get the ball all the way into the goal and then exert enough force to get it all the way out, along with some small balls and the pressure from the goalposts, is well-deserving of recognition. |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
It definetly doesnt follow the intent that robots should not be able to descore, but its definetly an issue.
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
Guys... the intent of the FIRST rules is that "any small ball, once in a goal, shall remain scored". If a robot intentionally, or unintentionally de-scores a small ball, it will be penalized. |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
but the issue arises, does that mean you can no longer uncap a goal? The object of your goal is to uncap a goal, not to descore an opponent. See where the fine line comes into play? How can you tell someone what THEIR intent was when its impossible to decipher. |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
umm...i have a quick technical note...has anybody actually tried cramming the ball down, putting balls on top of it, and then removing it? it's quite difficult for a human to do, let alone a robot (despite the intent.) just mentioning it...
i wonder if this will be the death of the thread... :confused: |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
its not really hard to cram the ball all the way down to the 4 ft. high goal... but i am not sure about the stationary goal... it might be hard to cram the 2x ball down to that stationary goal...
"Mike M.: a few of us on our team were discussing this very topic sunday the way we looked at as long as the descored small balls don't touch your machine this sounds like a legal way to descore balls. " as somebody already pointed out in this thread that the 2x ball becomes your extension of the robot... that means that when you are pulling out the 2x ball from the goal and there are small balls inside of it... you are using your robot to take it out... meaning that you are descoring the small balls... please correct me if i am wrong... |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
<G21> While a ROBOT is holding a LARGE Ball, that ball will be considered an extension of the ROBOT. --- Section: 4.4.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/28/2004 "...As long as the descored ball was not touched by the opposing robot, there would be no penalty..." --- It seems to me FIRST is making a distinction between a robot holding a ball and touching a ball. The question becomes, what defines holding? Using some common sense (as Dean has reminded us to do), the distinction seems clear in most cases. For instance if someone asked you if you were holding or touching a tennis ball, I think you'd be able to give them an easy answer. Apply this same reasoning to a robot and a big yellow ball. |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
This is also very true. Now this brings me back to another point of mine (those of you following my posts are probobly wondering where my stance is by now. I have none, I keep pointing out the other side because I don't think its clear). If the 2x is an extension of the robot, then when you move to uncap a goal, a legal operation, you're robot will interact with the small balls. As Jeremy pointed out, this is illegal. Now, however, you've made it illegal to uncap this goal. Dilemma again! |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
We did some testing of the ball-smashed-in-goal theory, and found that depending on how far it in it is, it's hard to get out. But, in order for the ball to be put in, the robot would have to exert lots of force just to get it pushed in, which is more likely not to happen than trying to get the ball out. Simply put, the force to push a ball down will cause the bot to tip forward and loose stability. Now, for lifting, that can be avoided.
In conclusion, while possable to smash the ball into the goal and get it out, it's hard to get it out, and VERY hard to push it in with a robot. |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
It seems to be a total contradiction on FIRST's part, but then again, they did say "as long as no other rules are violated" or something to that effect. Descoring with the large ball in the robot's possession will violate the descoring and/or goaltending rules, so those should apply, therefore making this move illegal.
Have your human players actually tried shooting into a goal that has a large ball stuffed in it?? Try the ball at different heigh levels and see what happens.... |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
-ball thrown straight down don't go in. -the PVC slows down the balls to let the score -the gap between the PVC and ball can stop the small balls The best type of throwing motion is a basketball throw with a big arch that'll hit the PVC, and that will slow down the balls. |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Will smalls balls stay in a goal that has a large ball smashed in it. It would seem that the PVC would bend far enough that the gaps between the poles would be larger than the small balls. Therefore you would not be able to score small balls on top of a large ball. Has anyone tried putting small balls on top of a large ball already in a goal? If so, please comment on how it worked out.
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
I think it's an interesting idea, and I don't think anyone has the real authority to make a ruling on it except FIRST - since it does fall in a VERY grey area of the rules.
I personally would like a definitive answer, since it will determine how many teams with large ball capabilities play the game. Here's another question - if the enemy team throws balls at your robot while you do this, would it be considered "goaltending" and give a -10 point deduction per ball that hits you? This is precisely the reason why FIRST should make things spelled out and black and white. |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
Q: While trying to put a 2X ball on opponent’s goal, will this be considered goal tending ? A: Yes, if it interferes with a thrown ball with the potential to go in the goal (referee's judgement). See the definition of GOAL TENDING. |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Heh, so I guess it is safe to assume salvo after salvo of ball being intentionally thrown at your robot while you are capping or uncapping a goal.
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
I think this whole thread is arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
cramming the 2X ball down into the goal just aint gonna happen besides, if you cram it in your opponents goal, why would you want to take it back out again? |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Hey look this year your score is based on the loosing teams score. if your robot is good enought to cram and remove a cramed ball the obviose solution is the direct the ability toward increasing your score.
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
sorry i didnt know 7 was so big HAHAH
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Okay, to recap this, let me explain two different scenarios that are based on the situation I see.
1.) FIRST keeps the ruling they have. Red alliance shoves ball down Blue Goal. At the end of the match, Red alliance uncaps blue goal, descoring all the small balls. Legal way to descore. FIRST Intent: Unacceptable 2.) FIRST updates the rule to make it illegal to remove small balls from the goals even through uncapping. Red alliance jams 2x multiplier to bottom of goal. Now they have a guarenteed 2x because blue may not uncap that goal anymore. The only possible scenario I see, which is insanely hard to referee, would be to count any small ball that went into the goal to be counted, and if it is removed by action of uncapping, it will still be counted towards final score. This raises another problem, but is less major. (The problem of, for every ball removed, theres space for another one yadda yadda yadda...). My dilemma continues. |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
I smell a lawyer! :c)
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
This year's scoring is based on wins and losses. Loser's score is only important if there is a tie. Defense is a perfectly viable strategy. This is a good defensive move, if legal (which I think it isn't). Read, learn... THEN post an opinion. JVN |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
Neither of my situations should be legal. Catch 22. ...and ken, thats my dad you smell. |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
The way I see this is that FIRST has said you may uncap a goal and any balls on top are incidental as long as your robot does not touch them. If the robot grabs the 2x ball (instead of simply pushing it out) then the large ball will be part of the robot and in contact with the small balls, therefore ensuing a penalty. So the small balls that come out of the goal without being touched by your robot will not count towards the score. All in all, I think FIRST says you may remove a 2x ball that has small balls on top of it as long as you do not touch those small balls. But how many balls can you really have on top of the large ball? The PVC will bend out of the way.
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
I'm not worried about this "scenerio" one bit. This whole thread is a big "what if". im not critizing the posters but the idea is a bit out there. I liked the idea of the rules being intrepeted by the intent of the rules.
Small balls get in a goal, they stay there. put a big ball on top of your goal get 2x small balls Hang off the top bar get points so some people try to think of ways to get around the rules (ie. skepticizing the rules like a lawyer). Dean himself said that he didn't want this. So now we have to find LEGAL ways to descore. theres plenty of ways to stop scoring this year. They are very obvious to me and within the rules. But if everyone wants to argue about how to get around the rules and still get penalized thats fine with me. Just don't approach my drive team starting with "first we're gonna jam that 2x ball hard in the oppenents goal" |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
This is getting ridiculous. I think FIRST should clarify the difference between grabbing a 2x and touching a 2x in order to push it out of a goal. They seem to be contradicting themselves, and that isn't a good thing. Let's see how many unfortunate teams go to their first regional with an illegal robot because things weren't spelled out black and white. |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
JVN |
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
Quote:
|
Re: 2x multiplier removal secnario
In my opinion, the 'ball is part of the robot' rule was intended to prevent teams from using the ball to block the other team from scoreing.
They responded to this, and the implications were not completly thought out. Wetzel |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi