Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

Wow... a first on ChiefDelphi: adoption.

We've had alliances, co-opertition, and collaboration. Now, we have an adoption. Congrats to the McBride and Lavery family.

Does this mean that Dave has to pay Cory's tuition at WPI?

Andy B.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

Hmmm. On more than one occasion we were determined to have "descored" the other alliance even though we were pushed into the stacked tetras (while ourselves trying to score). There are at least two matches we were involved in that were called that way, one at each of the two regionals we attended. From what I have seen, if your robot causes a tetra of the other team to be descored, it does not matter if it was an "unassisted descoring" or if you were pushed into the stack by a member of the opposing alliance. Fair call? Questionable. Consistently called? Yes. Just my observations.

See ya'll in the ATL!!

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

My vote: The tetra doesn't count. But I'd probably be lacking somewhat in congratulations. Winning through a loophole like this is simply wrong.
As much as I hate to say it, there's almost nothing to argue against bluateam winning. We all know that it IS wrong...but the rules don't cover it. The best available argument is under good ol' G25, claiming that bluabot may have forced redabot to become entangled with a field structure through this clearly improper game play, but it'd be quite a stretch to contend that G25 refers to entanglement with field structures.

On a side note, if there were a blue tetra on the goal, and

Winning like this is not proper gameplay. As has been stated, driving your opponents robot with yours isn't what Triple Play is about. There should be a rule to cover this. We do not want to see teams doing it at the championship.

Proposed Rule <G18> (New text bolded)
<G18> ROBOTS can remove or displace TETRAS CONTAINED in a goal, but cannot remove the opposing alliance’s STACKED TETRAS. If an alliance ROBOT removes any STACKED TETRA of the opposing alliance, the TETRA will be SCORED (3 points) and the opposing alliance automatically OWNS the GOAL for the remainder of the match regardless of what color TETRAS are on the goal. There is no penalty for removing a TETRA that is precariously positioned on a GOAL or TETRA, but not fully STACKED. In the case that a STACKED TETRA is removed from the GOAL by a ROBOT being pushed by a ROBOT of the opposing alliance, the pushed ROBOT will not be penalized for removing the TETRA. Any removed TETRAS will be treated as though removed by the pushing ROBOT, and 10-point penalties assigned as appropriate.
I admit, "pushed robot" is not the greatest term. :rolleyes:

Yes, this rule further endangers the strategy of the teams that try to win by controlling these robots. Who said that's a bad thing? Team Update #18 would be happy with it, at the least.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

The blue robot was not defending against seating a tetra, merely bashing another robot to no purpose. In fact the contact could serve no defensive purpose; defense in the rules is clearly conceived as impeding or blocking. One robot may not pick up and move another robot. That's the clear intent of the rule. Hence one robot may not position another robot either.

If the red robot's arm were contacting the tetra stack, and blue then blocked the red robot, preventing it from moving away, then that would be defensive. Forcing the other robot against the goal is not blocking or impeding. That is the same as picking up and moving the other robot.

The blue robot pushing the red robot against the goal for the purpose of positioning it against the goal is purposive, not accidental.

Contact which is not defensive or accidental cannot be justified.

Thus the blue robot's action should be considered in the same light as if the blue robot had grabbed some other object and placed it against the goal tetra. The other object effectively becomes an extension of the blue robot. This is forbidden.

If the blue robot, ramming a red robot, caused the goal to fall over and spill tetras, the red robot would not have "descored" the pile even though the red robot would have been the only robot contacting the goal. The penalty would go to blue because red was not the actor.

If anything, blue should be penalized.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

Can you point out where it says that (or makes the intent clear) in the rules? I've looked, and I can't find any such referece that limits "defense" to just "impeding or blocking."

-dave

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

I'm having a hard time reading this thread without noticing several codescending and dismissive remarks.. I'm kinda shocked.. or am I just dreaming...

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

If I recall, it doesn't say defense is just impeding or blocking. But there is clear evidence that we want the game to be won through offense... and moving other robots around isn't Triple Play's meaning of offense.

Pushing a team onto one of it's stacks is a single maneuver that can swing the score of a game massively. It does this without the team gaining the advantage even touching a tetra. That's quite possibly the most aggressive defense possible. We clearly don't want teams to win through such methods. Regardless of offense, defense, and intent of the rules, this is a gamebreaking method that can have one robot shift a game's score as many as 30 points. It must be taken care of, unless we want to see teams winning with it at the championship.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

I have to say, I completely disagree with you. I WANT to see teams fighting down to the last second, playing defense and trying to score the best they can. Not only does it make it interesting, but it makes the drivers have to think on their toes. It makes them have to be aware of everything that's going on right until the buzzer. It makes for a stronger, more intense competition.

Granted, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm entitled to mine. I don't think the red tetra should count because, even though blue pushed, it is REDS fault for not being strong/fast enough to push back, or move away at the end. It is NOT blue's fault, but rather a weaker robot. Yes, it is hard to make a competitive robot, but that's the point of FIRST. You win some, you lose some.

Redabot obviously wasn't fabricated well enough, wasn't strong enough, wasn't fast enough or didn't have a quick-enough thinking drive team. How is that blue's fault when all they did was try to defend the center goal?

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

I think that what you are seeing is a couple of people working together to make a point. :)

Long-time participants in this forum have learned that one of the wonderful traits of these discussions is that things are not always what they seem. Yes, some of the participants like to play with our heads! There are messages within messages, and subtleties that have to be pondered to be uncovered.

-dave

p.s. for those that know me, yes there is another "when I was little, I learned something from my Grandmother" story coming along in the near future...

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

see this is why I have a problem with this.. It's reds fault because they played the game better than blue team ( when I say better I mean achieved the offensive objectives) yet they will lose because of a loophole-
I think FIRST has realized.. defensive machines attract more viewers(which some become sponsors)... but we promote teamplay and cooperation.. and they are balancing a strange middle ground - FIRST could easily say.. only unintetional contact is allowed.. and you are allowed to play interference.. but not defense-- but that might lessen an audience or disable robots that have no other purpose but defense(usually because they didn't have the resources/interest/time to get the objectives) to be useless

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

Reading the rules as written this year is often an exercise in futility, at least when it comes to finding anything that resembles the essence of law in its purest and most concentrated form. One such case in point is:

<S05> A ROBOT may not impede the placement of TETRAS on the
loading structures or the hand-off of a TETRA by a HUMAN PLAYER
to a ROBOT. No HUMAN PLAYER or field attendant may be
accosted by a ROBOT while placing TETRAS. Violations will result
immediate disabling of the offending ROBOT, and disqualification of
the alliance.

I have a problem with the part that mentions a human being accosted by a robot. My problem with it stems from the definition of “accost.”

Main Entry: ac·cost
Pronunciation: &-'kost, -'käst
Function: transitive verb
: to approach and speak to often in a challenging or aggressive way

While it may be that machine vision has been added to this year’s game, I have yet to hear one talk. Should we then seize upon this loophole and take it to mean that we’re free to drive our robot into the opposition’s zone and use it to beat the tar out of their human player? Of course not! We are not barbarians!

We know, or should know by now, darned well how this year’s game is supposed to be played. We should not seize upon the fact that a particular Q & A did not address every possible twist and turn. We should either follow the spirit of the ruling, or start downloading the rules for next year’s game tomorrow. I expect it would take that long to fetch the rule set needed to counter every devious scheme that you all may come up with.

And you don't build a robot that powers down when the clock strikes zero?
And you do build a robot that defies Newton's Laws?

Sorry for changing the $0.02 at the end of the quotes to $0.01. It was the only way I could make it add up. :)

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

If you were to steal candy from a baby, would it be the baby's fault for not having a good enough grip to hold on?

This isn't a case of playing defense and preventing them from scoring. This is a case of using their robot to descore their tetras. The rules don't cover this as written, but they clearly should. Defense shouldn't be able to take away 30 points in a matter of 5 seconds.
If their robot is so weak, then push them away every time they go near a goal. Having a weak robot should earn you less points, not earn you more then have them taken away.

Edit:I'd also like to make a slight note about the rule I suggested before. It's not meant to apply when defense is being played on a bot trying to score, as Team Update #18 explained. Contact on a robot while they're trying to score is all fine and dandy, but once that tetra falls on and the bot backs away...move on.

According to team update #18, you're responsible if one of the scoring team knocks off one of their own tetras while being pushed by you. I feel that results of legitimate goalline defense should never be penalized.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

Dave, I have to disagree with you (nothing new I guess). I voted blue to win but have since changed my mind. According to the rules if a robot causes another robot to descore then they are at fault. Descore has already been quoted from the rules. If blue robot pushes red robot causing red to descore (not count the tetra) then the goal belongs to red and the descored tetra counts. The red robot had scored and was moving away from the goal and then pushed back in. If the red robot had not let go or stopped touching the tetra you would be correct but once they had left the tetra and met the conditions of a scored tetra then the only way that it would not be counted was to descore. If done by themselves the tetra would not count but the fact that blue caused the descoring the goal should be awarded to red.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

If you don't want to be pushed into your own stack of tetras while scoring, don't build a mechanism to score them! :)

Blue caused the de-score. -> Red tetra counts, red owns goal.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

I have seen this situation happen twice. Once at the NJ regional our robot had made a back row, but one of our allaince partners touched one of our tetras and we lost the row. Also at Philly we were in the semi-finals and the opposing alliance was placing a tetra on their home row, time ran out they were still touching the tetra so it did not count, also we had a tetra underneath that goal, and our tetra was higher then the tetra which they had under the goal so our alliance got that goal.