Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

The GLR refs were enforcing a rule that said, "You are not allowed to hit or push a robot that does not have a tube in their possession. You can block their way to a tube, but can't purposely hit or push them".

Just wondering where in the rules this is stated.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Did you search the rules yet and not find it??? The rules are available on line you know....

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Yes, I know they are online...and no it's not in there...

As a scoring robot, I love the rule...although I think it's kinda unfair to make up or modify rules in the middle of the season, let alone in the middle of a regional...

But hey...what do I know?

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

yes, when this rule was said on saturday morning i was completely shocked. they shouldnt change the rules halfway through the regional.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

That’s very odd, at St. Louis, we were never told that, and it happened a lot. :confused: According to Rule G35 you can contact within the bumper zone, anytime. That is as long as your not breaking any of the other instances talked about in G35. Do you know what their explanation was?

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

That referee interpretation of a nonexistent rule was definitely NOT in effect in Pittsburgh. If I ever hear of this at future competitions.......

PLEASE DO NOT REWRITE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SEASON TO FAVOR ONE STYLE OF PLAY OVER THE OTHER!!!

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

At the LA regional, there was a lot of contact when a scoring robot was being protected by an alliance partner - pushing and hitting an opponent's robot to keep them away from the rack.
Team 4 demonstrated that tactic most successfully all the way to the championship.
I think this strategy (running interference for your partner) is as appropriate to the game as is playing defense to prevent the opposition from scoring.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

So you couldn't defend the opposing home zone? If a robot was going to ramp, you couldn't get in its way because it didn't have a tube? That's ridiculous.
I remember playing elementary-school basketball and getting free inbounds passes; now we're beyond that. Happy birthday, here's 60 free points.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

the GLR ref said it was to allow the intent of the game to be played out. that intent being to score ringers. you could get in front of the bots to block them, and you could unintentionally hit them. but if you made a significant attempt to push them or hit them while they did not have a tube, you would be penalized. I was a little shocked at this rule as well, but i did think it made for a more exciting game with higher scores all around.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Then it's not a rule. End of discussion.

The title of this thread says you are looking for a rule. If it doesn't exist, there is no sense looking for it.

Without a published rule or a late-breaking revision published (to/at all current regionals and enforced at all current regionals) by the proper authority; I don't know what the ref was enforcing; but based on what you have told us, they don't appear to have been enforcing a Rack-N-Roll rule.

If this ever happens again, once you become aware of it, I would recommend that you respectfully insist on altering the situation before any more matches are played.

Blake

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

yeah i agree that this does not exist and you could kindly ask the head ref. to state the rule and where he saw it

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

You are missing the point. To ask where to find a nonexistant rule is a GP way of complaining.

"respectfully insist"? If the head ref says it's the rule, then it's the rule. End of discussion.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I feel lucky to have Benji head reffing Boston. All these new regionals mean new refs making interpretations that are wrong. You can interact at any time in the bumper zone.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

A couple things.

Ricksta- Ron Webb is not a "new ref". He has been head reffing for a long long time.
Blake- This thread was created with the intent to confirm that this was, in fact, not a rule.

I am very dissatisfied with the "rule extension". I understand the reasoning, but that DOES NOT make it ok.

As a solution, i'd say that in addition to whatever already happens, there should either be a challenge system or there should be a representativce of the GDC at each regional. That way, when (not if) a ref at a regional skews the rules, that can be resolved.

Lets not let the refs re-write the rulebook

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

The best we can hope to achieve is to make everyone aware of this potential interpretation so they might prepare to argue its impropriety.

Who was the head referee at the event? It's not within their purview to determine the intent of the game and unprofessional to interpret or ignore rules in such a way as to favor their preferred style of play.

Our robot cannot hold ringers at all and it makes absolutely no sense at all that we could not be pushed or defended. A majority of the time, we're the machine that wins the match, not any of the tube scoring designs.

I've already complained a lot that the 15 and 30 points awarded for lifting robots was labeled "bonus points," because it led to a lot of questions by scouts like, "Your robot can't score points?" I don't particularly appreciate the implication that our team and our robot fall outside the "intent" of the game.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

On the contrary, if it's not in the rules, it's not a rule. Discussion on this point seems quite necessary. The head referee should have been informed that he was "enforcing" a nonexistent rule.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I disagree with the "If the head ref says it's a rule, it's a rule." At the beginning of the LA regional the safety guys said -no- shaded or even -tinted- glasses at any time. We kindly went and talked to them, showed them the rule, and the update that said tinted were allowed, and then they made an announcement stating that tinted glasses were allowed. You just need someone to go and talk to the ref for a while. I know the outcome of LA would have been soooo different if this rule was enforced. And I don't think it would have been fair.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

lets not complain. read the thread on complaining. it's near the top now that im writing this post.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

He original poster has a valid point. It is not whining or complaining but rather just making us aware of what could happen at future regionals.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

the original poster no. it sounded as if a couple other people were. but it's hard to tell people's expression on the internet isn't it? =]

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Please don't quote out of context. I was alluding to the futility of trying to "respectfully insist" on a ruling to head referee. <G35> makes it perfectly clear.

<G52>When making a ruling, the head referee may receive input from other sources, particularly Game Design Committee members, FIRST personnel, and technical staff that may be present at an event. However, the head referee's decision is final.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Although it isn't explicitly stated as a rule, I agree with it. It allows the intent of the game to occur, which in this game, is to score ringers on the rack and to strategically place spoilers over the opposing alliances ringers.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

How do you know that is the intent?

The most you can infer the intent to be, above all else, is to score more points than your opponents using the methods described in the rule book. That's it.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I'll go on the record with the "If it's not in the rule book, it's not a rule" crowd. The rule book is there to inform teams of the rules during the design and strategizing phase. Enforcing a rule not in the rulebook and backing it with the intent of the game is simply blindsiding teams that are pursuing a strategy you've suddenly made illegal. Unfortunately, the head GLR ref is not a ref I would feel at all comfortable bringing this up with, so our team simply worked around it. I suspect I know from where this misinterpretation stems.I imagine someone read the first sentence and extrapolated that this was the only time you could defend another robot, thus no defending robots without tubes. I think the section on robot-robot interactions contradicts this interpretation, however.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Here is my concern... I am not complaining... But...

We all have been living and dying the past first 6 weeks with the rule book and the Q&A forum. We all designed robots to play the game within these rules. There has been tons of "Lawyering" which has been frowned upon, but is necessary.

So, now we start to play and a "rule" is made by a local ref to enforce what he thinks is the intention of the game "To hang and score ringers" which could totally either help or hurt certain teams based on their design.

For example, I stated in my post earlier that it helps the teams that are "scorers" by ringing.

But, after thinking about it, it really helps non ring scorers. If you have a ramp bot with no arm, you can't ever have a ring. Which means, nobody can defend you. Ever. Even if you are playing defense against a robot that does have a ring, nobody can hit/push you...because you have no ring...

Anyway... "As the FIRST World Turns"...

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Correct. The referees have the authority and responsibility to enforce the rules that have been provided. Rule <G53> provides them with the final authority on all decisions regarding how a particular rule will be enforced and the applicability of a particular rule to a given situation (i.e. "rulings"). It does NOT give them the authority to change the existing rules or make up new ones.

There is a difference between obsessively "lawyering" the existing rules that have been provided to all FIRST teams, and having someone create a new rule on the spot and expecting everyone at an event to respond. Neither should take place, but for entirely different reasons.

-dave

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

No - I am rather confident that the head refs are not gods or even demigods. They are humans to whom a certain amount of authority has been delegated. Nothing more, nothing less.

Rule <G52> and the rule <T04> that it refers to appear to be designed to avoid looking in a rear-view mirror.

Given an advance detection of a conspicuously obvious misinterpretation of rules that I presume the referees are duty-bound to enforce (and I further assume that they are allowed to "interpret" them only when ambiguity exists), I again would recommend to my team or to any other, that we/they should politely and respectfully insist the referee consult with other experts, and/or that we should play within the published rules (not the interpreted ones) and let the chips fall where they may, and/or that we should not play until the matter is corrected.

Whether this would make me a patriot or a traitor would depend on whether the observer is a rebellious colonist or a Tory loyalist...

Blake
PS: A little rebellion every now and then is a good thing.... :-)

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Our team was a definite benefactor of this rule "change." We can handle defense when placing tubes, but our method of picking up ringers didn't allow for much defense (at least at the beginning of GLR). When the head ref made this announcement Saturday morning, our driver and I were elated-- we knew we'd be able to score more. However, I have to fault myself for not recognizing that this wasn't an actual rule. As a driver, it was my responsibility to have known that this was a mistake. To my knowledge, no one questioned this at GLR. As drivers and coaches, we should accept a little bit of the responsibility here, too.

I understand the frustrations that this discrepancy created, but it's also a perfect illustration of the lessons FIRST teaches us. Everyone makes mistakes and a thorough understanding of the rules can solve a lot of a problems.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

<G52>, but who's counting? :)

Thanks for speaking up here, Dave. Most of us understand that the GDC makes the rules, while key volunteers like Head Referees and Lead Robot Inspectors are responsible for applying them. Sometimes we need to be reminded of that.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

This is just another example of a rule made up by the head ref at GLR. I have been in this for 7 years and this is the forth year that I can remember that he has made up his own rules.

We all put a lot of work into this project and to waste an event to his rules changes is very disappointing. We have never had any problems at other events.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

i'm sorry for complaining, but the refs made this rule, and said that would be strictly enforcing all the rules of the game, but then it seemed like they didn't. In our final seeding match, we were hit, causing us to drop our tube. The opposing robot then backed off, and rammed us again, before we sould even lower our arm to the ground. We tried talking to the refs about it, but they said they didn't see it happen. If they saw it, we would have won because we lost by only a few points, and the opposing alliance would have received some kind of penalty.

About it being a rule, it doesn't matter if its in the book, cause the refs are going to penalize you if you don't follow it, so we followed it regardless.

Edit:This was just the most striking example. I'm pretty sure that they hit us one or two other times when we had no tube, and i beleive that they hit one of our allies, but i'm not as sure about that, because i was more worried about our robot at the time.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Even if it was a rule, sometimes the refs miss a call. Having reffed at an off-season event, I can tell you (even with each ref assigned to small portions of the field), you can't always see everything, particularly when there are 3 or 4 robots in that area. I can only imagined how much worse it is with a giant rack on the field as opposed to the open 2006 field I reffed on. Refs are not omniscient, and shouldn't be expected to see everything. They can make mistakes too, just like refs in any other "sport".

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Well, i would have to agree and disagree with this. While the teams who could score would get hounded by all the defense teams, the defense teams cannot set picks for their alliance nor could they cancel out a defender with their defense. So basically it had to be defenders on scorers. and if it was 3 defenders vs a scorer and 2 defenders, then there would be 3 on 1 and the other 2 would be sitting there

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Since it seems pretty unanimous that this was a misinterpretation of the rules, perhaps a GLR team could bring this up at a team forum in MI. Preferably in a positive way, such as suggesting a GDC or other official be available to clarify the basis of rulings, etc. If there was a good non-confrontational way to address issues like this, at any regional, I think it would be a very positive thing.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Again, it seems like the best thing to do is to have a person at each regional whose job is to be judicial and make sure that all the right rules are being enforced, and that no "imaginary" rules are.

If I can't play real defense, then it can't be a real Midwest regional :eek: :mad:

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Isn't that what the head ref is supposed to be??

Heck, even Woodie himself changed the rules a few years ago at competition. In 2002 there was a very clear rule disallowing tape measures, and many teams had gone out of their way to find alternate ways of solving a problem where tape measures would have been perfect. Some teams ignored the rule, and Woodie liked their solution so he changed the rules at the event to allow them!

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

No, the head ref doesnt have that job. The head ref is executive. The GDC (or representative) is judicial. The ref SHOULD NOT make the rules, they should understand them and enforce. No more, no less.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I'm definitely agreeing with most of this thread right now. The head ref should be enforcing the rules within the rule book, not making up his own. We had some trouble at the Pittsburgh regional, where the head ref suddenly changed his mind on a ruling between Friday and Saturday. As a result, our team had to change its entire strategy, and we ended up placing 15th rather than in the top 8 like we were supposed to.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I understand that's what they're supposed to do, but invariably there is an amount of interpretation and no matter "who" you put in this position they can still make the same mistakes. Why would having another layer in between the head ref and the GDC make things any better? This new person could just as easily make the same mistake. Most of the time something that you think is "the head ref making a new rule" is them thinking they are simply applying an existing rule. This problem of interpretation can occur no matter what title the person holds.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

There already is another appeal layer between the refs and the GDC. That is the event FTA (I am one). The FTA should have an up to date rule book and a copy of the Q&A (all 150+ pages of it). If the FTA can't find a rule, they shouldn't be enforcing it. FTAs also have means to contact the highest levels of FIRST should the situation warrant it.

But believe me, I'd have to be pretty deep into something before I actually used that avenue. More likely I'd ask the Volunteer Coordinator for a new head ref...

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

You're lucky this didn't happen at a New England competition, else you might have a second Boston Tea Party to deal with... :rolleyes:

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

What would you toss into the harbor? The head ref? :eek:

Seriously, Chris is correct above: your event's FIRST Technical Advisor (FTA) is the on-site reference for all matters related to actions by key volunteers. These include the Head Referee, the Lead Robot Inspector, the Field Supervisor, the MC, the Game Announcer, the Lead Scorekeeper, the Lead Queuer, the Pit Administration Supervisor, and the Lead Safety Advisor.So a problem with a key volunteer's actions should be dealt with by the Volunteer Coordinator (acting for the regional planning committee) with the advice of the FTA. And as Chris points out, in extreme cases FIRST headquarters staff or a GDC member can step in to provide resolution.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

The Head ref said at the drivers meeting on saturday morning that this change was to reduce the amount of heavy defense that was being played on friday. I see this as a problem because instead of giving out yellow flags they decided to change the rule. I did not see any yellow flags for the so called "heavy defense". Im still confused.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Dave has already pointed out that this action was outside of the Head Referee's authority. Subsequent posts by Chris and by me were aimed at clarifying how this situation could have been dealt with.

Everyone: please keep in mind that this is ChiefDelphi, not the FIRST Forum. What we post here in all just personal commentary -- and that includes even GDC members such as Dave.

Please watch the FIRST Forum Q&A Responses, and the Team Updates, for official resolution of this or any other FRC issue.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I totally agree with you, but i think the major issue that everyone at GLR had was that this was not enforced anywhere else (to my knowledge) and we were wondering why this was. Off to the FIRST Q&A for me

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I think that rule was unfair because as I recall there were many matches were robots was getting pushed and shoved without them having possession of a tube and there was no yellow or red card given to them and no penalty points I attended that Great Lakes Regional and I truly think this is unfair

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

If it was to reduce the amount of defense played it should have been enforced Friday morning not in the middle of an regional on Saturday im pretty sure many teams (including ours) rankings would have been effected by the win-lose-tie outcome of the games that were played on Friday if the rule was changed or enforced then

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

This puts me in mind of what happened for a short time on Thursday at L.A. Seems that one of the refs used the original keeper rule and was making all the teams start with a keeper. Not only that, but said keeper had to be off the ground where it contacted a robot. I asked the refs about both (Hey, can you show me where it says this, cause I can't find it?), and they had already acted on the first question. The second question was a bit harder--the term was "in contact", so I said, "I'll let you define what 'in contact' is" and let it go at that.

If you think a rule is made up, ask the head ref (politely) to show you the rule. If he can't, but won't reverse the ruling, start moving up the chain of appeals.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I had a huge discussion with one of the refs at SoCal over the same issue. He threatened to toss me out and DQ our team because I told them to put the ringer off to the side and not touching the robot. I quoted the update and everything. I finally asked to speak to the head Ref who calmly spoke and listened to me. He went back and reread the section and agreed with the rule. He even appologized for the other ref. Another great experience of the co-operation and dedication of the volunteers in SoCal.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

Well as many other teams at GLR team 68 was greatly shocked and upset about the outcome of the driver's meeting on Saturday morning.

During match 48 on Friday afternoon, team 68 went into a defensive mode after a portion of its arm broke. The defense was primarily against team 494 and team 326. Towards the end of the match one of these two robots were trying to score on spider leg #2 and team 68 pushed against both the spider leg and the robot attempting to score. After a period of time, team 68 ended up tipping itself over due to push on the spider leg. One of the referees signaled the head referee (Ron Webb) about us having a penalty against us because of this defensive play. After some discussion between the two, Ron instructed that there wasn't a penalty because everything was done in a legal manner. However the referee that originally called the penalty followed us out into the hallway, on the way back to the pits and instructed us that if we hadn't tipped we may have received a yellow card. We didn't argue this because we had not been official warned or penalized.

We were then back up in match 53 and hadn't had time to fix the problem with the arm due to early staging requirements (that is a completely different issue that needs to be addressed). Our strategy going into this match was to prevent team 66 from playing defense against our alliance and not allow them to return to their home zone. Team 66 is a 2 robot ramp bot with no way of handling tubes. While I will admit that we may have pushed team 66 a little more than what was needed; at no time was any pinning or ramming called. I do know that we pinned team 66 against the boundary of the field for a few seconds, but at no time was any counting done by the referees. Speaking with engineers on team 66 the following day, we did in fact damage their tank treads by pushing them side ways, causing their belts to stretch. There were no hard feelings between teams and they were just amazed that a 6 wheel drive could push that well against tank treads.

Then in match 58 our arm was back up and functional; however due to the lack of scoring that our alliance could do and hoping to show our defensive abilities against the first place team, in hopes of getting picked for elimination matches, we decided to play defense against team 1114. I do recall two situations where we pushed 1114 for a while trying to prevent them from moving on their own, but in the end they were able to get away and score. (Watch out in Waterloo Karthik!!! My drivers are having some required daily drive time till we leave!)

During the drivers meeting on Saturday I fed our chassis driver some questions to ask to clarify how defensive a team could be based on this new understanding of the rules. While we weren't necessarily happy, we left the drivers meeting trying to come up with some new strategies to play defense. Our strategy guy in the stands was not happy with the outcome of the meeting. He approached Ron sighting G35, in particular the first bullet. They discussed back and forth for at least 10 minutes. In the end Ron pointed to update 15, section 9, T06. This according to Ron was his way of being able to make the call of a robot needing to have a tube in order to play defense against a robot.

Our last qualifying match was Saturday morning (match 67). Our strategy for this match was to play defense, keeping in mind what Ron had said in the drivers meeting. We may have went with an offensive strategy in this match, but decided that we wanted to test the waters about the outcome of the drivers meeting in qualification matches instead of waiting till elimination matches and getting the how alliance DQed. While we didn't play as much defense as we had in previous matches, a fair amount was played and the result was we ended up winning the match. Ron came up to our drive team as soon as the match was over and told us that we did nothing wrong during the match and had played completely within the rules.

While I can say that team 68 wasn't happy with the "rule clarification" on Saturday morning, we were able to adjust strategies and play within them.

We also need to all remember that these people are volunteers. With out volunteers FIRST could not exist. While we might be able to point our fingers at Ron for being the head referee at GLR and making rulings that some disagree with, we need to remember that perhaps FIRST should do a better job instructing referees about how some rules should be enforced. What is the job of the FIRST Technical Advisors (FTA) at the regional events...?

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

For the sake of discussion, this is the text from the update:

Dave's already mentioned that the referees exceeded their authority in this case, so I hope that means that others have been instructed or otherwise informed that this sort of fabrication is unacceptable.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I think this just gets back to the question I asked in another tread about the yellow and red cards. This will make the FIRST yellow and red card system useless because refs will feel that they don't have the authority even though T06 lists examples and states that is not limited too just the examples given. I believe the yellow and red card system works great for IRI because there is one head ref (Andy). FIRST can never cover every situation that might come up during a regional making it necessary to give refs some freedom.

I also have to disagree that Dave has said that the referee exceeded his authority in this case. Dave commented on "The head referee should have been informed that he was "enforcing" a nonexistent rule." and Dave said "correct". Ron was questioned by my team about where he had come up with this ruling and in the end referred to rule T06. T06 does basically give the head ref this authority to make a judgment about the level of defense. Also G53 gives him final say for any particular regional without any worries. We can't blame a ref that reads the rules and follows them. You need to blame the people/organization writing them.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

This case of rule enforcement at GLR sounds like the team of referees arrived at some conclusions that were meant to benefit teams, but the change should not have been made because it changed the parameters and expectations of the teams that were set at kickoff and through the build season and the first day of competition. I believe that smart defense should be allowed regardless of whether it is a team trying to pick up/score a ringer or lift/get lifted for bonus points.

I can remember one match at FLR where we were against the X-Cats and decided to play defense. I don't remember them having a tube all of the time, but our driver knew not to mindlessly ram their awesome scoring robot.

Re: Looking for a rule - No defense on robots without tubes
 

I think that the text of update 15 serves only as a reminder of situations that may result in a yellow card. It is not a rule, nor a new interpretation of a rule in any sense and conveys no additional or changed responsibilities or powers to the referees. It does not begin with the <xxx> nomenclature and is thus unenforceable, as far as I'm concerned. It, therefore, only explains that referees may look at violations of rules particularly relating to those circumstances when deciding to issue a yellow card. It is not carte blanche to reinterpret or make up rules.

In another thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=19), Dave explicitly said that the head referee exceeded his authority. Sorry for any confusion.

<T06> gives the authority to disseminate yellow cards for EGREGIOUS robot or team member actions. The definition of EGREGIOUS (though not provided by FIRST, despite its capitalization in the manual) suggests that actions that are not specifically disallowed by the rules are not conspicuously offensive or in bad taste. Certainly, precedent from past seasons and, more importantly, the prior week's events suggests that nothing about defending a ringer-less robot is inappropriate. How is that a single ref. made this interpretation to the exclusion of all others? They're certainly not given a rule book and left on their own to decide what the words inside mean, after all -- that's what Aiden is for.