Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

I am just now reading this message and I am in Jack's corner on this one.

I don't know what the rules say now, but by the time Atlanta rolls around, the rule should not be that both reds count and blue does not.

If both red tetras count, then it will be a trivial matter for any number of teams to do just what Jack shows on many goals. I can list 20 teams from memory that I think could do this intentionally if they want to.

If both red tetras count, in effect, this not only scores 2 tetras for the red alliance but it also means the following two things:

1. red owns the goal for the rest of the match
2. the goal is out of scoring contention for the rest of the match because it is almost impossible for blue (or anyone for that matter) to score on top of the 2 reds and they cannot be descored.

This is a non-trivial change in the game, one that I believe it will be a change for the worse.

Thoughts?

Joe J.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Someone talked to me about this and thought that stacking two tetras sideways would effectively score the goal for you and give you possession of that goal. They thought that they would use this strategy to win matches. However, I do believe that it would be a waste of time to stack two tetras sideways. First of all, the robot has to be able to carry two tetras, and they have to be sideways at that. Many robots have one tetra on their manipulator and it just swings around, how are you going to balance a second one in the side opening of the first on one their? Most teams will be unable to do this. Next, you will be placing two tetras, but only scoring one. And a lot of matches are decided by only a few points. It is easier to defend against a sideways double stack also. And my last point will be that to make this move worth while, you will have to do this to at least 3-4 goals, which will take a little bit of time. 3-4 goals means 6-8 tetras, which most teams can't even accomplish in a single match putting them on straight, much less a sideways double stack. I only see this happening by accident again and I do not think that any team will start stacking like this to use to their advantage.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

If they only score one of the two tetras, fine, but that is not what they did in this case if the reports are to be believed. They scored BOTH tetras.

If they score both tetras and it make scoring more tetras on top of that goal virtually impossible, then why is it not an advantage to score this way on as many goals as you can? If it is one, fine. If it is 3 better. If it is 5 I can hardly see a way that you can loose.

Let me list just a few the teams I that I have seen first hand that I think could do this WITH THE MACHINE THEY HAVE NOW using a simple double load from there player station (load, back out, re-load in this goofy manner, then go score pretty much as they score now.).

33
47
67
85
201
217
245
302
322
573
910
1213
1596

This is just a list off the top of my head of teams I have seen first hand that I think have grippers that could do it right out of the box in Atlanta.

I am sure that there are more that I have seen but can recall right now and even more still that I have not seen from other regionals and even more STILL that could do it with simple modifications to their loaders.

I am not trying to be an alarmist, but if it is legal and it works as advertized, why wouldn't a LOT of teams do it?

Joe J.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

We considered this a possible strategy at one point, because we could do it. We figured that even if both were not scored, it would have at least been an effective way of locking down the home row. In fact, for us to convince ourselves that this could even come anywhere close to legal (or at least near the spirit of the game), both tetras could not count; that would allow the opposing alliance to dismount the tetras in an attempt to score.

We successfully did it at PNW during a practice match. I wasn't present at the time, but I am told by one of our drive team that she asked a referee for clarification on whether it would be scored. The head ref returned to her and said that it will be disallowed and asked us not to do it again (or face DQ), because it prevents opposing robots from scoring. We decided not to push the matter after.

In short, it is possible, I don't think it was intended in the game design, it didn't seem to be ruled out by the rules (unless I missed something), it is bordering on being un-GP, and it was disallowed by one regional's referees.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

If they score both of them it is a different story, but I do believe that only one of them will seat properly to score and that the other should be disallowed. And at the two regionals I attended (VCU and UTC), I do not recall any robots that would be able to do this, however, there probably were a couple that would be able to.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

Joe: what does it matter if they score both or only the bottom one? Either way, the team scoring the nested tetras own the goal for the remainder of the match.

I don't think it would be an issue to score more tetras on the top of the nested tetra. There are two fair ways to handle this situtation: 1) score them both and then allow the other alliance an opportunity to over-cap the goal to take possession, or 2) don't score either tetra and call the goal "dead" (not capable of further scoring). Just scoring the bottom one results in the nesting team possession of the goal for the remainder of the match.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

I agree with you that 1 is bad too, but it is not AS bad. The main reason is time. The number of teams that could get 4 or 5 of these STJB's (the Stack That Jack Built) is a much smaller number than the number that could put up 2 or 3. If you count only one tetra, then the incentive to make STJB's is considerably less (you've wrangled 6 tetras only to get 3 goals and 9 points -- 18 points is much more attractive).

But you are right, once teams get the idea, a single, well placed STJB can be devastating to your opponents.

I don't like either of your proposals to address this by the way. If you can score on top of them, then it is Katie Bar the Door for all kinds of weird stacking arrangements. If you call the stack dead, that allows a team to safely own a goal by making an STJB on top of a goal you already own.

I argue that they should either
#3 the tetras are not scored, period.
#4 a team that is ruled to intentionally make an STJB is disabled and DQ'ed, the tetras don't count and the stack is owned by the opposing alliance.
#5 30 point penalty for intentionally making an STJB, tetras don't count, the opponents own the goal.

#3 allows either team to remove them without penalty. While this is sort of lousy and may effectively make a goal "dead" it is not officially so. This is no different than a tall stack with a vision tetra on top hanging by its finger tips. In most cases, teams from both alliances leave the goal alone fearing the vision tetra will slinky the entire stack off the goal.

#4 is the "death penalty" but it makes it clear that this is not in the spirit of the competition to intentionally attempt to own goals in this way.

#5 gets to the same point as #4 but is less punitive.

I'd vote for #5 if anybody asked me.

Joe J.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

I think #5 would be a good solution.

Edit: I've changed my position. I'm fully supportive of Joe's suggestion #5 above.

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

haha!!! ...thats what i thought the first time i saw that pic. i thought that a tetra broke or something, funny stuff.

then reading through the thread i realized that this was actually a serious issue. my opinion on the ruling: neither should be counted... if a team does this on purpose a 30 pt penalty should be rewarded.

i still think the picture is funny. :ahh:

Re: pic: Midwest Regional Capping Incident
 

This happened at SoCal. The blue was nested further down (within six inches I believe) and blue was counted as owned, as I understand it. I was not a ref, so maybe someone who was can clarify it; I'm just saying what I remember.

-Daniel