YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

You Make The Call (YMTC) is a series of situations where you are the official and make the call. Please reference specific rules when applicable. The results of YMTC are not official and are for educational purposes only.

With only 5 seconds remaining in the Championship Finals, the crowd roars as Redabot cleanly positions a red tetra on top of the center goal to complete the center triple play and move into the lead by 2 points. Since the Blualliance is not in scoring position, there seems to be no stopping Redateam from winning their first Championship. Wait, with only 2 seconds left on the clock, Bluabot bumps Redabot forcing them into the center goal stack at the end of the match. Redabot is touching the tetra that they just placed 3 seconds earlier.

Based on the 2005 Game Rules, YOU MAKE THE CALL!

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

This isn't a YMTC situation. Per the definition of "STACKED", red tetra is descored, and blue wins.

"STACKED – A TETRA is STACKED when it is placed on top of a GOAL or on top of another STACKED
TETRA. To be considered STACKED, the TETRA must be properly seated on the subordinate GOAL or
TETRA such that all four apex connectors are within six inches of the SUPPORTING structure. Due to the
GOAL and TETRA geometries, a TETRA may occasionally not completely “seat” on the GOAL or
subordinate TETRA, and remain precariously positioned on top of the structure. Such TETRAS are not
considered STACKED. A TETRA is not considered STACKED if it is touching a ROBOT of the same
alliance."

Edit: Joe Ross pointed me to update 18, which Im sure will be cited shortly, but I do not think it applies in this situation, due to the fact that it deals with a situation in which red descores blue's tetras, and not their own.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

The cause-of-the-chain-of-events clause is for safety violations only.

Wetzel

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

As long as the Blue robot did not have high contact, I don't see any reason why this defensive strategy would be bad.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

Not sure why this one is even a question.

Cory has it right. When Redabot comes in contact with the red tetra, and maintains contact after the end of the match, the tetra no longer satisfies the definition of SCORED. Thus, it is no longer counted in the Redateam score, and Redateam loses the match and finals.

Update #18 does not apply, for two reasons. The specific question adressed in Update #18 has to do with a situation where Redabot would remove a blue tetra from a goal, which is not the situation here. Also, the update has to do with the specifics of a tetra that is removed from a stack (and therefore, the ownership of the goal may be assigned to the other alliance for the remainder of the match). This example YMTC has to do with an end-of-game contact situation, which is different.

The batter is still set, waiting for the fastball...

-dave

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

yet it is still a very crummy way to win
It's like catching a foul ball near the stands... and a fan taking it out of your glove before the out is called..ohh too bad
well it's not exactly like that.. but I can't think of a better analogy
it doesn't seem like a defensive measure but rather a .. "good job on playing the game better.. but sorry.. I'm going to work a game rule in our favor" type of thing..
blurggg

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

In order to breathe some new life into this YMTC, I'll try to throw in a knuckler.

If Bluabot knocked the red tetra off with 3 seconds, it would obviously be a scored red tetra and Redalliance's goal. An obvious violation of

Therefore, REMOVE is the key word here.

AND if Bluabot just tilted the red tetra with 3 seconds such that the tetra is not scored (not properly seated) and is still supported by the goal and lower tetras, it would probably count because Bluabot DESCORED the tetra. (I may be very wrong about this)

Since DESCORED is not in the rules, then you must rely on REMOVE from <G18> to explain why you give Redalliance credit.

NOW, WHAT IF when Bluabot hit Redabot, the top tetra fell to the ground; wouldn't you say that Bluabot's actions REMOVED the tetra, thereby making it necessary to give Redalliance credit.

SIMILARLY, since in the original YMTC, it was Bluabot's actions that DESCORED the red tetra, would you not consider this REMOVING the tetra thus resulting in the red tetra counting as a score.

I say the red tetra counts ... just because Dave said it didn't and he is probably fast asleep by now ... I hope :)

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

I don't think this changes anything. The update specifically says that blue is only considered the descorer if red is rammed, and knocks blue tetras off.

It doesn't say a single word about a cascading chain of events causing the red tetra to fall off.

Unless blue was physically touching the red tetra and knocked it off, it doesn't make a single bit of difference--red was the one that actually did knock it off.

While it may be logical to assume that this is true, the rules do not say a single word about it, and therefore we have to go by the definition of "STACKED"

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

Once again, Cory is right.

(nope, I'm not asleep!)

-dave

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

This YMTC as I understand it has nothing to do with descoring, but rather simply with contact at the end of the match - as dave mentioned.

Neither robot is descoring or unseating the recently scored red tetra, bluabot is simply pushing redabot in a position such that redabot is still in contact with the stacked tetra and it is therefore not valid for being scored.

Although this could be considered a crummy twist of the rules as a way for bluabot to win I would personally say props to the bluabot drivers and coach for quick thinking and strategy on the fly. This year's game is such that even with an unfair alliance matchup the inferior alliance still has the chance to win by carefully thought out and executed strategy. As a driver I can attest to having won matches in which we were against a much better alliance but we managed to use or resources very well and conquer anyways. This YMTC situation just shows you that bluabot's drivers were well versed in the game and the rules and were able to quickly apply their knowledge and abilities and use the rules of the game to their advantage.

I agree with Cory and Dave - redabot's tetra is not scored and bluabot wins the match.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

Wow, Dave! I find it incredible that you’d take this position. It seems to me that, for scoring purposes, causing a robot to touch it’s own tetra and causing the tetra to be knocked off the stack is a distinction without a difference.
(Definition?) De-scored: When a tetra no longer satisfies the definition of SCORED

Which is it? Are we going to follow the spirit of the rules; or are we going to lawyer-up and pick nits?

"Bluabot bumps Redabot forcing them into the center goal stack at the end of the match." The key words here, in my opinion, are "bump" and "force". When we put them together, we find the cause. More yet, we see that the intent was to turn a ligitimate offensive win into a defensive victory with an act of agression, which is exactly what update #18 intends to discourage.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

While I have to agree that red does not count in this situation, this does bring up some interesting scenarios. I have to agree with Jack Jones that this turns the tide back to the defensive robots.

Example. It is the end of the match and all three redabots have returned to their home zone which has three capped goals. Bluabot, realizing that they cannot make it back to the blue zone goes to the red home zone and pushes one of the redabots into their goal and against all the tetras that are scored in/on that goal.

So this now means that red has lost all the points from that goal and lost the triple play. A mimimum 13 point swing.

Is this the intent?

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

At any rate, I think it's more "lawyeristic" to claim that red should get the win. Reading the rules--as written--leaves no doubt that Team Update 18 does not apply to this situation. When you start to make inferences from it, such as that since they were talking about a similar action, and red should be the winner, you've just changed the rules.

Also, what I really think it boils down to is this is a part of the game challenge. You don't build a robot with a high cg if you don't want to tip. If you don't want to be pushed, you should make a stronger drivetrain. FIRST said there are elements that are part of the game challenge. I would define this as one of them.

$0.02

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

At this point, I think that I am just going to have to adopt Cory (hey Sean! you have a new brother! :) ). He obviously "gets it." Listen to him, he is a wise person (at least this week).

-dave

p.s. Cory, now that you are a member of the family, I need to fill you in on a few family rules. #1: the typical allowance structure you may be used to is different for us. Allowance is limited to $20 per week - but you pay me, not the other way around. #2: Krispy Kremes for breakfast are OK, as long as you leave some for me. #3: Taking the last Krispy Kreme will result in a punishment of double allowance for that week. #4: You can work off your allowance by mowing the lawn, as long as you do not drive through the neighbors fence on the lawn mower. #5: When arguing over who gets to use the computer, Dad's game of Railroad Tycoon III takes precedence over anyone else's game of Warcraft at all times.

Welcome to the neighbourhood.
 

Cory, when you get out here I can show you around the area. :)

Wetzel

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.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

Okay, I'm going to say it like this. Update #18, answers a Q&A that MY advisor posted. That same situation happened to us (1089) at the NJ Regional. Yeah, we lost the match because of penalty points that we didn't deserve. It almost happened twice. I'm not bitter, in fact, I'm glad that my advisor asked so that teams in the future DONT go through that. The fact of the matter is, pushing someone to FORCE them to de-score is wrong (and by this I mean the opposing team has NO control over their own robot). Pushing someone and making them de-score because aren't strong enough to stop you? Not wrong.

Yeah, it sucks that you lost the match because you were touching your tetra, but you know what, it happens. At Jersey our robot got stuck in the center goal. We were touching 2 or 3 tetras. We lost the match. Why? We got pushed into the goal and couldn't get ourselves out by the end. Who's fault is that?

Our team's. Getting stuck was unfortunate but it was because of the team's failure to build a robot that didn't have that problem. Sure, we've done what we can to alleviate the problem in the future, but it doesn't matter. The point is. We lost and it was our fault.

I think the same thing applies to this situation.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

If you're overpowering their robot to the point where they can't control where they're going, what's the difference?

I agree that if you're too weak to fight back, there's nothing wrong with them pushing you around. But using their robot as a tool to do an action that would normally get you penalized, and is in no way part of proper game play...that's not the way the game is meant to be played, and certainly not GP.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

Then "we" should counterract such maneuvers by using our drivetrains to push back. If my drivetrain is too weak to counter a legal pushing maneuver, if I do not wish to run the risk of touching my tetra stacks at the end of a match, then I will keep my robot as far away from my stacked tetras as possible. If I am an offensive juggernaut and am trying to pop that last tetra on a goal, I will be even more wary of a defensive team who knows how to use their arm to block tetra capping. If they use their arm to pin mine up against my stacked tetras when time runs out.....oops!

As long as the pushing team isn't using the goal to rip me to pieces or isn't ramming me from 15 feet away, I'm fine with this rule interpretation.

One thing I've noticed in this thread is the use of so many different words to describe defense - some are more severe than others - push, ram, bump, force, etc. I think a lot of the confusion present in these discussions is a result of using so many different words with different connotations in the rules, related Q/A's, and "why did we do that" explanations in team updates. "Pushing" is used liberally in Team Update #18, but then we see the word "ram" show up in the "why we did that" explanation. That is very confusing. We've got to become more consistent using these words across the board.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

According to Team Update #18 this isn't a legal pushing maneuver against a robot that's trying to cap. Why would it be legal against one that's not?

I feel that blocking tetra capping is the way to play defense. If something like a descoring happens during legal blocking, no one should be penalized. I don't like that update 18 makes it dangerous to attempt to stop a robot as they cap...That's a big blow against the 'right kind' of defense. But if they intentionally are moving your arm to make you descore, that's improper.

That is, Triple Play is clearly not supposed to consist of any intentional tetra descoring. The game is about putting tetras on, not taking them off. They've said this a number of times, and the legality of this maneuver doesn't help reach that goal. Rather than what I suggested earlier of putting the blame for the descore on the pushing robot, it'd be much more appropriate to not descore a tetra solely for being touched by a robot of the same alliance, once that tetra has been properly stacked and the stacking robot has backed away.

Re: YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra
 

So Steve, you actually voted for it before you voted against it?

I think you should run for President in '08'. ;)