Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 

In an ambiguous case, no penalty.

When it is as blatant as some of the cases I saw this weekend, It should be a penalty and yellow; A yellow should be assessed as I see teams taking the 10 pt penalty to prevent the other alliance from scoring 10+ points.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Adam,

Please prove that it is actually the rule, using only the manual and official updates as your sources. In no way, shape, or form do the Q & A supercede the rules or updates. If a clarification in the Q & A warrant an update, then the official updates are released.

-PAul

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

First of all thanks to 1114 for being a great alliance partner and they did a
great job helping 2014 to get ready for the finals. See you in Atlanta!

I have been mentoring at 1024 for 3 years now in Software. The 2006
Shooterbot became notorious for scoring points. After a while we would
have blocking robots coming after us. We countered with variable delays.

Its a game! Play it well and win. 1114 and 1024 got a chance to show how
to lap the field. The Gyro Code is posted on Kevins site at NASA/JPL. He is
a great guy and wants to help everyone have autonomous. QBranch always
helps anyone that asks. GP is all about this.

Now the first week has been played we all know what to expect. As fast
as we were packing the crate we were figuring out how to thwart the
deadly CAD ( Corner Autonomous Defense).

Heck if our Gyro breaks you better believe we would consider it too.

P.S. 1024 now is very skilled at getting smoke back into the Robot!

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

That's why I'm confused, Because people I respect are both telling me it is now enforceable because it is in QnA and doesn't contradict manual, but others (such as yourself) are telling me it isn't because it hasn't been added to the manual.

What is more confusing is the QnA provides no ambiguity to the intent, making you think they would add it soon after; but they have not.

At this point, I am fine with it being legal or illegal; just give me a firm answer. For now, I'm assuming 100% legal because it is not in manual, but the wording of that QnA is bothering me.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Upon further concideration and reading, I think that teams should be permitted to block in autonomous, but by doing so, they forfeit protection from the high-speed ram rule. I mean, they know they are going to block a robot from lapping, and it's expected that they'll get nailed. If teams cannot take the blow, then dont drive forward 3 feet >.>

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

For the people who are saying you should be allowed to block and that teams with good auto modes should "deal with it", could you please tell me why you should be able to? If you arent able to obstruct during teleoperated, why should you be able to in hybrid? I dont think you should be able to block in hybrid. In teleoperated mode, if someone is in your way, you can bump to pass. Robots arent going to respond to that in hybrid. So how can they allow teams to block. I'm not just saying this because our team has a great auto mode either. I havent gotten a chance to work on auto mode at all with the finished robot. If we have anything, I will need to do it on thursday at the comp. I really dont think teams should be able to block, however whatever the GDC decides I will be ok with.
Joey

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

For those of you so intent on quoting the Q&A as your reason for insisting that hybrid "blocking" (note that the term blocking is not defined anywhere in the rules) is illegal, PLEASE consider this Q&A, and LACK of direct answer by the GDC. The scenario put forth seems to be exactly what you are all complaining about - It seems that if the intent of the GDC was to dis-allow that specific strategic hybrid defense they would have made it clear in an answer to that question.

Note, in fact, that the only time ANY form of the root "block" (non-electrical, non-hotel) is used in the rules is in section 7.3.5.2, rule G43, which refers to "effectively blocking the width of the TRACK", and NOT just a single robot blocking a path. (THANKS team358.org !)

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

From the Q&A:

GDC GDC is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,411
Default Re: Hybrid Blocking
Rule <G38> and Rule <G40> were modified to remove any concerns that teams may have about inadvertently impeding robots during the Hybrid Period. This was to avoid an unrealistic requirement that the robots be able to autonomously recognize and respond to "Bump To Pass" signals or identify and steer around stalled robots on the Track during the Hybrid Period. The purpose of these modifications is not to permit the intentional blocking of the Track during Hybrid Period.

The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized. However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.


We shall see how FIRST responds this week, especially in light of the fact we have teams admitting to intentionally impeding in HYBRID mode. On the other hand, this is a great strategy to use against great hybrid mode robots.

We shall see.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

This is going to be hard to rule. Teams that move, but do not move out of their first quadrant should be excused from the high speed ramming rule, meaning if they are in there, they better expect consequences for their choice to run that auto mode. Having to make the more capable teams give the right of way to the teams that impede traffic goes against the regular match play. These rules seem to become more complicated for reffing as these updates come out.

I do agree it is a great idea for them to do as a defensive strategy, but penalizing the other person for falling into their trap isn't right.

It's like a person parking their car in the middle of the freeway...try explaining to the auto insurance why you caused the 5 car pile up and how it's their fault for you voluntarily parking there.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I think your terminology is a bit off. In Teleoperated you can obstruct the field. You cannot impede it. Obstructed being sitting in one spot doing nothing. Impeding would be if you sat in one spot doing nothing, with no other space open on the track for opposing teams to pass you in.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

In my eyes the high speed ramming is still a very plausible call in autonomous/hybrid, even if the robot intentionally moves into the way to block said rammer (intentional/unintentional potential damage to a robot is a very serious problem and should merit a warning on first offense). Our team received a warning the first time, and a yellow card the second, for entangling other teams in our accumulator (very unintentional). Also, the idea of intentionally moving into possible lanes of traffic is a very legitimate strategy (as long as there is still a lane wide enough for a robot to fit through as far as the track is concerned). 1024 has a very very well thought out completely autonomous mode that will slow down to "gracefully" push obstacles out of their way (or attempt to avoid them in general). 1114 has the advantage (disadvantage?) of using the robocoach to tell their bot when to turn (brings in human error and field of vision). Finally, I feel that all of the matches were spectacularly played by every team on the field and I can't think of anyone better to lose to.

Thank you for your time,

Alec Hill

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Per <G40>, a robot is not impeding traffic if there is a clear passing lane around the robot. So "getting in the way" or otherwise interfering with an opposing alliance's robot path around the track is not necessarily impeding. Alliance #2 in the MWR specifically asked the referee for clarification on this point before they successfully employed this strategy in the semifinals. It may seem as though I'm nit-picking, but the terms used in FIRST are carefully defined intentionally.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

The QnA makes no mention of the word impeding; The QnA also makes you think it would be made into an update, but that never happened.

Please, for the sake of a decent debate, no longer use the word impeding, it is not what this debate is about anymore.

(That is not a personal attack on you David, just a request to everyone)

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Paul ( and others who have made the same claim not just Paul he's just the most recently quoted),

I really don't follow this logic, the Q&A section is listed within the 2008 Competition Manual and Related Documents, It has a printable export file that coincides with the manual that could be represented and read at competitions or before hand.

Tho the quotes we use do not have an R# or G#

The question as posed was:
The answer is as follows.
If FIRST calls this their official interpretation of rules <G38> and <G40> why does it need to be taken further? At the very least I'd believe you'd have to agree that this is an answer to an intent to the rules ( of the multiple intents they actually have ), I mean I don't see how it gets any more clear. Now I've had a lot of correspondence with people about the official status of the Q&A and its FIRST's fault for not updating either the role of Q&A or this specific update which is why in my first post I outlined giving people and teams pass. I may have been a bit rough on the refs, when I should have been more frustrated with FIRST as a whole, which is nothing new for me lol I usually find at least 1 thing to get frustrated about each year, however usually you and I are frustrated about the same thing.

That said, I still don't understand how people can shrug this off as at the very least an official interpretation, regardless if it has any official weight during the matches. The question is direct, and the answer is even more direct, I guess you can argue about whether teams meant to block ( keep in mind it doesn't mention impeding ), but most have openly stated it was their strategy.

Honestly, as I watched the matches I thought the same way as most of you, but after reading this Q&A I just am having trouble seeing the otherside of the argument at all, and trust me, I've thought about it possibly more than any of you because of the responses that I got on my last post. But baring an official interpretation, I can't possibly see how any of the teams I participate would use this strategy until its officially cleared up. Call me a Moral Crusader, but I don't like to tread too deep in the Grey Areas, because the black just creeps up on you to quickly.

I really could care less which way FIRST decides, but I'm pretty sure my head will explode in this quagmire of ambiguity if they don't decide soon.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Dan,

We agree that it is clear, but just not what is clear.

The rules and updates are official. The rules and updates provide a clear direction that one robot can't possibly impede. The Q & A are irrelevant on a rule that is clear in the manual and update.

When the GDC uses the word block, they seem to throw in "the entire track" or "the flow of traffic." Look at St. Louis finals match 1 where 45 blocked by driving 7 feet and stopping. They clearly did not impede as both robots passed by them just fine.

One robot can't impede unless it is weaving back and forth, which is also specifically called out in the rules.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I guess I can understand the ambiguity of the statement because "Block" is not specifically defined, however niether are the words traffic or entire, I don't mean to be sarcastic but I guess it seems to be a bit of lawyerisms, from the other perspective I would believe that many people would just assume, unless previously redefined, the definition of the word would reflect either colloquial or dictionary definition.

Dictionary.com ( because its easy to cut and paste ) makes three references that I would assume to be relevant in 4, 6 and v. intr 1.

Ironically, the word Impede does show up, which I'm not even sure who that helps, but these are the definitions. I know this doesn't really further the argument, because we both agree on what its saying, we just don't agree on how its applied. It bothers me that the rules are unclear, because the place where they clarify intent, specifically states blocking, by anyone of the above definitions, would be illegal.

Really I guess I can only see two ways to address this problem, Update the purpose of Q&A or update a bulletproof clarification with no vague answers on the Q&A.

For the Q&A's sake partial applied weight doesn't make sense to me, either make it equal to the updates OR get rid of it as a public forum. I realize at a competition this is kind of what a referee group does by specifically clarifying intent in driver meetings and by established a precedence in their calls. This all comes by what was handed down to them by FIRST. But to have one FIRST document say one thing and one say another is ludicrous, its wishy washy, it creates confusion, and those who can't adapt to the clarification at competition suffer greatly, when they did all they could to prepare before they got there.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I'm not a physics student, but maybe someone can help me out with a bit of math... Say we've got a 150lb robot, moving at 20fps (a high speed hybrid/auton mode). It impacts another 150lb robot, square on. That has to be a HUGE amount of force. What I think needs to be implemented is a new mode for robots: If you detect a hit on someone who impeded your auton, back up, and ram repeatedly until the time is over. All you need to do is take one penalty for intentional ramming, and NO ONE will get in your way for the rest of the season. All it takes is one frame being reduced to scrap metal to send a clear message, right?


(for those that don't get it, that was sarcasm. I personally think the issue is near impossible to definitively rule on, and won't really be solved. I think teams need to shape up, and not mess with the high power team's hybrid/auton.)

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Where have you found this hierarchy of power which you reference? I have found no statement which says the manual supersedes the Q&A and it would seem much more logical that the Q&A supersedes the manual. Similarly the rules you mention only refer to teleoperated mode so the manual is not clear on the subject.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

It's like Prometheus stealing fire from the gods and handing it down to the peons, right? :rolleyes:

Here's my contention - people can suggest you read every last bit of the Q/A and say that such rulings are official, but I live in the real world, and in the real world, teams and individuals barely have enough time to finish their robot, let alone spend hours reading hundreds of Q/A responses TO QUESTIONS THEY DIDN'T ASK and comparing them against the existing rulebook. Judging from this past week's events, I'd say the VOLUNTEER REFEREES also have difficulty finding time to perform such analyses. If someone feels a Q/A ruling is important enough that everyone and their brother should know about it, PUT IT IN A TEAM UPDATE, SEND IT OUT IN AN EMAIL BLAST - do what Woodie Flowers endorses and COMMUNICATE.

As far as I am concerned, NO Q/A response involving an important rule clarification is official until FIRST ensures it is properly communicated to everyone via appropriate and logical channels. Expecting everyone, including referees, to unearth the answers for themselves only unleashes the three-headed dog of inconsistency, confusion, and anger we are witnessing here in this thread.

Now I know there are teams out there that read this and go "Wah. We have Q/A Rules Compliance Officer Steve who spends half his life refreshing the Q/A every 2 minutes so we are always in compliance with every last response." You may feel pretty darn proud of this fact, and indeed, I commend thee for being so meticulous, but please don't stand up on your pedestals and look down with scorn upon other teams who may not be as efficient as yourselves or have the people or time to devote to such endeavors.

Thoroughly reading the manual and team updates is the responsbility of all teams. But sifting through the mass quantities of debris in the Q/A trying to glean the few true nuggets of gold among the miles of redundant and unimportant rulings is just asking too much.

Please, cut the teams some slack and COMMUNICATE with them. I think $6,000+ buys them at least that. A simple Team Update blurb and/or Email Blast would have alleviated all this controversy.

Once any official ruling on this matter is communicated to all, my team will abide by what is decided. Until then, since it was permitted in the *real* *world* at numerous Week 1 regionals, we will continue to use hybrid blocking at our discretion.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

With team update 14 released, and no mention to this rule in it, it's probably going to stand. Odds are that impeding will be permitted in future competitions =O

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

FYI - I submitted a request for clarification to the Q&A Forum. Let's see what comes out of it.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Hopefully it comes out before regionals start this week.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

It's not in the manual. But Paul is basing that order of precedence on the one which was circulated a couple years ago, and which is generally used by the officials to this day, in the absence of an official statement.

But like Travis says, FIRST is doing a poor job of managing rule changes and updates. Effectively, officials need to be aware of two sometimes-disparate interpretations: what the most recent rules say, and what the Q&A says. (And before someone cops out with a comment about how FIRST is not composed of awyers, and therefore can't be expected to spend time on minutiae like this, I'll just point out that managing rule changes is just like version control—which is typically an engineering function.)

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Clearly. True.

Ugh... team 292, who played you guys in the quarterfinals, told us to go out 8 feet and stop. I looked at the corner where we were planning on stopping, and figured that 7 feet was a better number.

Low and behold, 148 missed our front bumper by less than 1 inch, and 217 missed our back bumper by the same amount.

For match two, we changed our position to 8 feet out, as our friends on 292 originally suggested. That worked and held up 148. 217 hit the wall, so they didn't make it to the corner.

Since only one team on our alliance had a blocking position, there was obviously a clear path around our robot. From a design perspective, the blocked robot could do a variety of things to adjust to our blocking position and continue on their goal of crossing lines in hybrid mode.

Andy B.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Dan (and others), I respect your opinion and your right to voice it, and VERY MUCH respect your desire to "avoid the gray areas". However, since you continue to use the Q&A as the basis of your disdain for this strategy, how do you explain this apparant inconsistency WITHIN THE Q&A ITSELF (as referenced in my earlier post):

This response was issued more than two weeks after the one that is causing all of this "heartache", and the question describes a much more severe case of "blocking" during hybrid - using TWO robots. While I agree the addition of all of the detailed scenarios in this question somewhat complicates things, would this not have been a perfect opportunity for the GDC to clarify their intent/position with regard to "blocking" in hybrid mode if they intended it to be illegal? They chose NOT TO.

And - also from my earlier post:

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Until it's deemed illegal, I think it's a perfectly valid strategy and we'll probably have this option in our back pocket, just in case. One robot blocking another robot's selected path isn't blocking the entire track. I guess it's an 'if you can't beat them, stop them' sort of situation. It's interesting how defense can still be a part of this game even when the game's goal was to essentially take out any form of defense this year.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

We don't plan to do this, but....

What if the blocking robot used robocoach controls for forward and backward movements, and then actively tried to block (intercept) oncoming opponents?

Someone is sure to take this next step.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

If someone did that, they'd probably get called for impeding. That's part of the definition of impeding--one way is moving back and forth across the track with intent to block. Active blocking would get that penalty probably 90% of the time.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Stu, the GDC never examines specific hypothetical situations that teams lay out in Q&A, from my experience following it (somewhat) closely. I don't think we can read into their lack of a response meaning consent.

You can'it impede in hybrid. It only counts in teleoperated mode.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

You better believe that I darn well hope this "blocking" thing doesn't become illegal in hybrid mode. What a downer to not be able to do ANYthing about watching the powerhouses drive laps around you and get a huge lead in the first 15sec of the match. The defense has become just about ZERO in this game, and by negating any possibility of putting a damper on the hybrid awesomeness just plain sucks IMO. If the hybrid is that awesome, they can find a way to go around, or use their robocoaches. To expect everyone else to sit idly by and wave as they fly past you in hybrid, is sorta ridiculous.

So.. let's see.

We have "blocking and obstructing traffic". If I were on 4 lane expressway and stopped in one lane - it will suck for whoever is behind me, but they have 3 other lanes in which to get around me. I may be slowing them down a bit, but I'm not "preventing" them from getting around me (see reference to preventing below).

We have a definition of "impeding" - which we should logically carry it's definition over to whatever mode we're in... so again, preventing or obstructing an opponent robot's abiility to get around the track. One robot in it's way doesn't prevent it from getting around the track in another lane. Even if you want to argue that it IS impeding, then as long as there is 6sec left on the clock, there's no impeding penalty...... but it's not impeding.

"During teleoperated mode" you'll be impeding if you're "preventing" a team from going around the track (Update 2). Moving back and forth to prevent them from passing you could be considered "preventing" and "impeding" but that hasn't been specifically called out yet. But regardless, if there's a lane around you in which a robot can maneuver through, you're not "preventing" them from going around the track - you're just in their way in that particular spot.

Yes, 45 blocked 148 in the finals at St. Louis. But in the match prior to that, they went around us. So... in both cases, we moved out XX distance and stopped hoping to get in the way of one of those beasts. In one case we got in the way, in another we didn't. So because we happened to get in the way once, as opposed to not the other time, we should be penalized for that? We got lucky and they ran into us the second time - so we should be penalized? They could have changed their automode to go around us the next time after seeing what we did. Why do I have to change mine? One could argue - by them not changing THEIR automode, they ran right into us hoping to draw a penalty on us for impeding - which is also illegal in the rules....(I'm not arguing that though - just devil's advocate).
We had trouble with our automodes each day - so except for us, who's to say it didn't simply move out and stop with no particular intention? Maybe we wanted to drive past the finish line, but due to an error in the last modification, it stopped short..... I won't debate the intention thing - it's been beaten already.

Anyway, maybe I repeated a few things, but I for one hope they don't make it illegal unless it blocks the entire track, just as in tele-mode. With virtually no defense in this game, this is one little glimmer of possible tactics that can work. Just because you have an awesome automode doesn't necessarily mean we have to allow you to repeatedly crush us with it, right? Those who have already mastered the automode need some sort of added challenge, right? :)

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

As Vogel said earlier, we did ask the refs ahead of time to see if it was legal or not. In previous years, it has always been a legitimate autonomous strategy to block the opponent's robot. I remember quite a few robots last year who circled around behind the rack and blocked the robots trying to score. For those of you who don't know, Bomb Squad's robot is MASSIVE. I believe on it's longest axis it is 56 inches long. This is why when they start the match, they lean up against the rear wall, and during autonomous, drop down onto the flat.
As for the pushing approach 1024 talked about earlier, that's a nice idea, but a 4 wheel robot with tractions also facing perpendicular to where you want to go really doesn't move. Believe me, we've tried on last years' robot. The conveyor belting almost acts like velcro on the carpet of the field. We got hung up numerous times on the carpet where it was taped down on the field. When we would drive over it, the carpet decided it was going to try to come up with the wheels.
All in all, it was an awesome regional, and some very exciting eliminations, and had the opposing robots not run into 16, we would have lost that first match as well to the 30+ point autonomous.
Malhon

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I have to admit that I thought the GDC’s definition of impeding defied intuition. But today I noticed the following signs on I-75:

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

lmao.... its about time humor got into this thread!

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Can we PLEASE stop referring to "IMPEDING"

you CANNOT impede in hybrid mode. Team Updates have modified <G40> to specifically state that they apply to Teleoperated mode only

This round and round discussion of whether you can bump to pass, or impede as long as there aren't more than 6 seconds left is totally irrelevant, as you cannot impede in hybrid in the first place.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

How ironic... http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/member.php?u=4068 :D

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

...and the other half, he spends coloring his hair....:eek: :)

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Well played indeed Diriye... :D

But to Steve's credit. The questions in this thread about order of precedence of rules, updates and Q&A were asked by none other that Steve W a few years ago.

Again rules, updates and Q&As from prior years do not apply to this year's game, but to add perspective:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=737

This quote in particular is salient:

Given that, in 2006 a Q&A interpretation of the rule would have set precedence.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Allow me to make myself widely unpopular for a moment, perhaps even with my own team.

Let me begin by saying two things I understand as of right now:
1. "IMPEDING" - there is no such thing in hybrid mode
2. "Blocking" traffic, the way it's described in the 45 vs 148/217 example is not currently in violation of any rule that I know of at all and is currently a legal strategy.

Here's the very unpopular part. Suppose through some clarification in a team update this "blocking" in hybrid would be deemed illegal? This would not be the end of the world, nor would it be a bad thing given the fact that we have a game that limits defense (Yes, it does this on purpose. Can we get over that notion, please?) and promotes offense and scoring.

I would propose that any team than can plan a hybrid routine to potentially block, could also plan one that crosses two lines to score 8 points. Why not go score? Have we all read Wayne's hybrid challenge thread? Isn't it cool to have all teams moving forward in hybrid and putting points up?

If we all share code starting on Thursday, by the elims even the weakest alliance could cross 5 total lines and maybe even take a shot at one ball, right? So, that's 20 points for the five lines and if you're fortunate enough to swipe a ball it's 28.

Now, take the most dominant hybrid alliances from week one. 148, 217, and 830 could do 10 total lines max for a total of 40 if all of the planets lined up. The 1114 alliance at midwest was doing 8ish regularly with a ball sometimes for nearly the same top score as the St Louis crew.

So, would you be down to these powerhouses after hybrid, yes. Would it be tough to come back? Sure. Is it impossible to win? No.

But, even though I know that currently under the rules that these strategies are legal, I would ask everyone to think about the greater purpose of why we all are in FIRST. In fact, I'd ask you to think about the words of our Chairman of the Board, John Abele. In my humble opinion no one in all of FIRST deserves more respect than Mr. Abele. His words, which he has uttered many times, are found here in paragraph 3.

FIRST espouses values that are clear. We're supposed to be changing the culture. Winning matches is only a very small part of what we do. Go use any viable strategy you want to under the rules, we're all cool with that. But, I urge you all to also think deeply about why we're all here, especially when we're on the field in the spotlight and others are looking at us as an example for the future.

Enjoy the remaining weeks and change as many lives as you can for the better. Namaste.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

If blocking is made illegal, would that mean only bots that can run for the full 15 seconds would be able to leave starting blocks? Would you still be able to come to a complete stop to nock ball off? where do you draw the line between blocking and a short auto? seems there might be a whole can of worms opened with a no blocking rule. i would love to see a bot zig and zag and nock a ball or two down.
last year the team challenged itself to make two ringers in auto. this year, the zig , zag and balls down sounds pretty tuff. lets thruogh in a hurdle too,just to make it fun.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Uhm... this thread has an astronomical post count, and if you ask me, I don't think it's gone very far past where it was yesterday. (imho)

Are you guys arguing this for the sake of arguing it, or are there teams actually confused/angry over this? The thread started because (can't remember who) didn't like seing 1114 and our (1024) autonomous modes stopped, and I believe both of us have already stated we would have done the same thing, situations reversed.

I think the best thing to do is wait to see if FIRST has any updates on this. If they don't, there seems to be little reason to continue arguing this.

just my 0.48rubles

-q

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Then what else will we complain about :-(

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Why would there be another update? The GDC already commented on this. Many of the arguments are based on interpretations of that comment. The problem seems to be that some people are fixating on the word "block" without noticing that it goes along with "the track" rather than with "a robot".

To "block the track" is not the same thing as to "block a robot". The GDC says the first one will not be permitted. Nothing in the rules or in the Q&A responses makes the second one illegal.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Another Update :)

Team Update #15

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

It looks like the GDC disagrees with your interpretation of their words Alan.

(Added bolding for clarity)

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Well I didn't see that coming....

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

me nethier... lol What a shame...

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Fantastic news! Lets see a 150 point match this weekend!

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

150......to 145?

or

150......to 27?

Sadly, I think the latter will be more frequent.

Let's all revel in the humiliation of the opposition! YEAAAAAAAHHHH WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. :(

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Tom,

Don't get too excited. All this does is move the line. Let's say all three robots move out 30' and cross the scoring line. They scored 12 points in hybrid. This effectively blocks the other alliance from doing more than 2 lines in hybrid.

This above scenario will happen this weekend, I guarantee it.

-Paul

P.S. - If anyone posts in this thread and states "I told you so" or any other form of I told you so, then my respect level for you will go to 0.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Its just nice to see people who designed to play the game the right way not get scorched like years past. While blowouts are unfortunate, high scoring matches sure do create buzz, which is exactly what is needed to gain exposure.

To your comment on hybrid: that is a possible scenario. I can see merit due to the fact that by the time most teams hit the 3rd line, there is less than 6 seconds left in hybrid, eliminating bump to pass and impeding penalties.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I TOLD YOU SO!!! Wait, I was wrong wasn't I?

I guess our fix-it window plans have changed.

If my interpretation is right, this would not only be a yellow card offence but would earn the alliance a 10 pt penalty for impeding.

Of course I've been wrong before. Just read by previous post in this thread, watch match 13 at the MWR or talk to my wife.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I don't think so, Derek. I think the necessity of "bump to pass" and "6 seconds" would still apply before a 10-point penalty would be applied. Since that was the intent of last week's update - to remove the penalty in Hybrid when the robot couldn't respond to a bump - I would think there would be no penalty in the home stretch either. The Yellow Card is for going against the spirit of the game. Or as we say in soccer (*), for bringing the game into disrepute.

Of course, I thought the "move 3 feet" strategy was legal as long as the whole width of the track wasn't blocked. I guess I can be wrong too.

* - who is the soccer ref on the GDC? Yellow and red cards last year, impeding this year. Maybe we'll see prohibitions against deliberate handling in some future game - or penalty kicks. :)

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Just because a team blocks in auton doesn't mean they aren't GP or they aren't playing by the rules or spirit of the game, it just means that defense is their strategy. When John Abele says we should push ourselves to excel and not drag down our opponents, i don't think that he's saying, "defense is not GP" or "if your strategy is defense, you are unsportsmanlike", it means it in a bigger sense, like helping other teams out in their pit or numerous other things that are bigger than the competitions themselves

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I'm not too sure about the distinction between "illegal" and "will receive a yellow card". It sounds like moving to get in the way and stopping is still legal according to the letter of the rules, but it has been explicitly declared to be against the spirit of the rules. So it looks like yellow cards are given for "undesireable" behavior; "illegal" behavior is apparently still associated with point penalties.

I'm surprised by this update, but I understand it and I accept it wholeheartedly. (This is in contrast to the 1519 decision, which I do not understand and which I accept only grudgingly.)

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I think that perhaps the phrase "designed to play the game the right way" is a bit overzealous.

We have to remember that we have many teams that don't have the resources in either EXPERIENCE, mentors, or money to do what some of the other teams do.

I would never tell a team that was trying to block when it was fully within the rules as we knew them, that they were doing things the WRONG way.

Last year, the spirit of the game was to try and get as many rings on as possible so was playing defense the :"WRONG WAY" to play the game.

I believe that in most games, the spirit and intent of the game is to score as many points as possible... so does that mean that defensive players are playing the game the wrong way?

In FIRST, as in life, there is no WRONG WAY to do anything... when you play within the rules and you do your best you are playing the RIGHT way.

The rules have changed now... so yes teams that used a simple autonomous command to travel a few feet will now have to write one that goes further..

If the RIGHT WAY to play the game is to out score your opponent by many points .... then why are the tie-breakers about keeping the games close?
At least during the qualification rounds...

There is no ONE Right way to play this game....
I applaud teams that have great hybrid modes....
I applaud teams that find simple ways to stop great hybrid modes....
I applaud everyone.... for just having the guts to step up to the challenge of being in FIRST....

If it were easy.... everyone would do it....

....
stepping off the soap box...

B

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

According to the rules, that is the wrong way.

There has been a trend in the past for teams to play "defense" every year, which realistically turns into them destroying other robots.

Do no automatically assume teams with more resources do not feel the hurt as much as teams without them. How do you think great teams are created? Thousands of hours of work. Getting your arm ripped off (and season ended) because a team wanted to play "defense" is probably just as disheartening as the situations you stated above.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Let me open that can of worms. How about this as a new auto.
wait five seconds then move. how would ref call that?
I saw our bot do some strange stuff last year to the point that i asked,"Where the heck did that come from?"

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I still have a question about the ruling, it is clear that a task such as knocking a ball down or passing lines counts as "completing some other action" but say my robot had to go straight forward then suddenly stop in order to fold out our arm, or like 16 had to had to get themselves in some other configuration for the rest of the match. Would completing a task like that count or not?

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Ok off thread topic, but during Aim High our robot stunk. Our auto never worked right. One round, inexplicably, it took a long slow left turn and climbed right up the ramp and stopped. Our drivers were never able to climb the ramp by themselves. Of course, they managed to drive the robot off the ramp with two seconds left in the match :confused: Anyhow...back to topic, it's hard to tell what a team meant to do during hybrid vs. what actually happens. The update makes it fairly clear, though, that regardless of what a team means to do, if they happen to drive forward a few feet and end up disrupting the other team's hybrid, then they are in BIG trouble!

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I will make this one further comment.
Blocking the path of a robot in hybrid is not "tearing their arm off"

Trying to intentionally damage another robot is completely outside the scope of this argument. That is, most definitely, outside the rules.

My comment was related to whether things that are done within the rules are to be considered the WRONG way...

I, too, have distressed over the apparent increase in violent contact in the game over the years. I have respected the GDC's efforts to reduce the effects of possible contact between robots (bumpers and penalties).

I am speaking of the use of tactics that will negate other team's abilities to score.... tactics that are well within the scope of the rules.

I remember teams trying to stop other teams from hanging on the bar in the game in FIRST FRENZY... these defensive tactics varied from stopping and often tipping robots that tried to climb up the stairs to covering up the bar or just fighting it out on the platform...

Where any of these tactics WRONG? The spirit of the game "RAISING THE BAR" was to score points... some teams had very elaborate and wonderful technical answers to these challenges.... some did not...

IF the GDC wanted this to be a game in which contact or defense was not allowed, it would be simple enough to make rules that dictated that.
OR the game could be played with one robot on the field at a time....OR 3 robots from the same alliance playing at the same time...

That is not what the game is about. Robots must meet the challenge of overcoming the other alliance as well as just accomplishing the scoring goals.

I share in the anguish of a team that has an arm ripped off... or an electronics board damaged by an errant appendage... or actuators bent...
I have seen all of these things happen... both as a result of actions by the other alliance as well as "friendly" alliance members. I have also seen it happen to robots reacting with game elements. All of it is unfortunate and our team would be one of the first to jump in and help to fix another team's robot.

I don't want us to become ROBOT WARS.... competitions that are designed to destroy things are quite against my nature...

Blocking techniques, innovative defensive actions, and other tactics that enable a team to score MORE points than another team by limiting the other team's scoring are just as much a part of the game as hurdling or hybrid actions. The rules are there to prevent what the GDC and all of us want to prevent which is turning the game into Battle Bots...

I share in the anguish of any team who sees their best efforts squashed in the competition. Most teams put thousands of man-hours into the game.

We must keep our eyes on the prize. And the prize is really in the doing ....
Coming together to figure out simple answers to complex issues, working as a team, joining together with other teams to help them become competitive...spreading the word that everyone is capable of doing incredible things....

When I see a simple solution negate a complex, well-thought out plan I salute both teams... I also want to see the complex team come out in the next round and figure out a way to overcome that simple obstacle...

thank you for being passionate....
passion drives the world....

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I hope it takes more then just disrupting to get penalty. I guess if your not sure your bot can atleast get past first line you better not move.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Well I personally am disappointed with the update. It takes a whole other dimension out of the game. It almost seems like nowadays many is against any kind of "violence" or defence at all, in games or in the real world. Everywhere people are worried about hurting people's feelings, and sadly now FIRST's seemed to stoop to everyone else's level. They wanted a high scoring game, well they had one with what little defense was in the game, but now, they'll get their high scores, but as Travis said, it will be complete and utter domination of another alliance. That makes for just plain old boring matches. I know everyone would rather watch a super close high scoring match versus a high scoring match with no opposition.
Just my $.02
Malhon

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Watch the hybrid in this match. With no changes to hybrid mode whatsoever and without using the IR controller 2 robots managed to dodge the parked robot that drove 3 feet. So if someone does something that hurts your strategy, revamp your own strategy rather than try and blame them for not "playing by the rules". This video proves that it isn't that hard.

Edit: make that 3 if you count the other team on their own alliance.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Grrrrrrrrrr. I was planing to have offense and defense hybrid at the flip of a switch. Anyone at Florida or Palmetto last year remembers "342's distracting autonomous dance":cool:. But with this latest update, it looks like that is dead:( . This is my least favorite update/rule.
I mean how exciting would it be to see a team narrowly drive around a blocker bot in autonomous!

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

This update could spell real trouble for No Robot Left Behind - Hybrid. Say I'm a rookie or other under-mentored team and am having trouble getting my robot to move straight ahead in Hybrid but wanted to try to at least get to the 4 points for crossing our finish line.

Before this update I'd keep plugging away at it and if the robot only moved out to the end of the divider in one match, I'd say "well, we're half-way there" and keep plugging away at it. After this update, however, if we unintentionally blocked the opponent with this move we'd draw a yellow card. Do you think our robot will move in any more Hybrid periods? Not likely.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

So, you start on the right on the angled part of the wall,
so you are out of the way, and you spend a few minutes
coding an autonomous that pulls sort of straight forward
for a few seconds, stopping on the other end of the track
before you hit the opposing alliances wall.

It is not so hard that you would not want to take the risk
to get the four points. The issue at hand is relatively clear
and unambiguous obstruction from teams that are placing
their robots quite accurately.

Even with this ruling, there is opportunity for obstruction.
It would appear that you can pull just past your finish line
and stop, possibly preventing a robot from the opposing
alliance from coming through and bumping a ball. Teams
will just move where they obstruct, working a little harder
at it to do so. Where the rules allow defensive tactics,
defensive tactics will be employed.

Eugene

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

This makes me a sad person. I understand not damaging a robot, intentionally doing so is always out of the question, but one of the most fun things to see is two robots duking it out to try to accomplish the same task. Doing something isn't impressive, doing something with someone else trying to stop you is. What would have been more impressive last year? Robots just filling a rack up with tubes, or a robot pushing another robot out of the way, and then turning around and scoring where the first robot was planning to? What was more exciting in 2006? Seeing a robot drive out there and just pour balls into the target, or drive out there and pour balls into the target while being pushed by another robot?

If the GDC wants to encourage others to watch, removal of defense is not the way to go. Who cares about the score? The score is just numbers on a board, the exciting part is watching the robots interact and seeing robots( and more importantly, people) do the impossible.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Well, I guess this issue has been mostly settled....

I dont know what to think of the final answer though. IMO, it's good and bad. Good in the sense that it gives teams that can do a successful autonomous much more ability to score, and bad in the sense that it gives the elite a bigger advantage than before.

I guess it's effects will be felt in week 2 regionals, and after then, we'll be able to properly evaluate how well this new standard works....

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I complete agree. Think about this if you will; how interesting would football, soccer,or NASCAR be with out defense? Many like to see others achieve high scores. But most like to see those battle for their points and even fail time to time. If you knew Jeff Gorden was going to run the fastest laps, NASCAR would be pretty boring. The reason people watch it is to see Jeff in the wall or just barely avoid it. NASCAR fans like the bumping, scrapping, and blocking .

Which sounds better?:
"team 1114 just scored their 6th hurdle of the match."
or
"team 1114 just gained the lead with another hurdle despite being bombarded with heavy defense by those two red robots!"

My 2 cents boil down to:Defense is fun to watch! and it seems that the GDC is trying to take it away.:mad:

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

For those of you concerned about your hybrid mode and not having the mentors or resources to make it work correctly, please stop by our pit. One of our students would be happy to come to your pit and work with you to find and code a solution to create an effective autonomous mode. We are happy to teach anyone willing to learn.

For those you you that are concerned about it being "easy" on those that have a good hybrid mode, I think you are missing something. If blocking was allowed in the corner, it would be much easier to figure out where the robots were going to be and avoid them (drive long around the corner). However, now the robots will be scattered all over the field, which makes it much more complicated to avoid the obstructions in the field. This will require a different approach to overcome consistently. This update may have just made it more difficult to get around the field.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Please see rule update 15. If there are any questions after this update, we all need to go do something else.

Enjoy

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

just cuase i like to argue,why didn't 619 get a yellow card first match of the day at richmond? what if he was in second lane? what if a robot ran into him? and remember this is just for argument sake.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

You can still bump and scrape. Also blocking is completely different from nascar to FRC. Nascar you try to stay in front of a car. You wouldnt just set your car out in the middle of the track for someone to hit you. That would be a huge waste of money. Also, it never said you cant touch other robots, it just says you cant drive out and sit. I agree with this. I dont like seeing the teams that put large efforts into their auto mode get defeated by those who just drive forward. I like this update and think it was the right move.
Joey

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

The outcome of the game this year shouldn't always be determined by autonomous mode though. Don't get me wrong, those teams who figure it out should definitely get a few points head start when teleoperated mode starts, but often-times, with powerhouse autonomous teams, the match is decided before players get a chance to touch their controls.

Alec

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Usually those powerhouse auto teams are overall powerhouse robots. Even if they can touch controls odds are they wont win anyway. To beat one, you either need to have another powerhouse on your team, have an amazing match, or have the powerhouse tip over. Also, the match really isnt decided in auto mode unless there are 2 great auto teams.

Lets look at this for a minute. The most I could ever see a team POSSIBLY getting is 32 points. I dont think we will see that happen very often. If I knew I was playing a team that could do that I would make a defensive auto mode, without just parking in the corner, but for this situation, we'll say I didnt. If all 3 robots on my team can cross 2 lines, and maybe knock a ball off. Thats 24 poins for lines plus 8 for a ball for a total of 32 points. Thats the same as the power house auto mode, with 3 fairly simple autos. Now lets say the other alliance has the power house and 2 bots that can cross 2 lines. They are getting a 16 point head start over the other alliance. Thats not too much, only 2 hurdles which is very possible to come back from.

Not to be rude, but everyon needs to stop complaining about the rule. Its here, move on, its done with. Work on some legal auto modes because they didnt rule out defense completely. They just want to make people think a little because anyone could say "Just drive 3 feet and stop". Think outside the box. There are legal defensive auto modes, you just need to think. Also if all teams can get at least 2 lines, which isnt TOO hard, you will never be completely dominated by a powerhouse auto team.
Joey

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Im glad to see this update. It gives the chance for people to show off their programming skills.
What would you rather see in a match?
robots crossing one line? Or robots crossing 5+?
Id have to say that the 5+ is the fun thing to view.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Well... when facing said robot, I'm sure that you'll find 1 line is plenty (much as I do). Let's just put our differences aside and play the game. Good golly.


Alec Hill

I personally don't agree with the update and feel that it will separate the tiers of competitive robots to an insurmountable clash of titans with the peasants onlooking...

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv...p?matchid=5361

40 points for one alliance in hybrid. Yes, thats the finals, so you know that both sides have very decent teams, but still. Just wanted to get that out there. :)

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Did u see the tight spots 148 can get into?
No wonder they are the only undefeated team in FIRST right now.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Even higher - Qualification Match 58 at the New Jersey Regional had 52 points scored in the hybrid period. 1 robot passed 5 lines and knocked down both balls (36 points) while the other two each passed two lines (8 pts each).

The SOAP video doesn't show much of the field - I'm working on getting a copy of the video that our scouts took (static whole field view).

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I think it was a 1114 alliance that scored 50 points in auton. With that kind of auton, there is no use even going to the controls, the match is decided:( .

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I said TEAM not ALLIANCE. They are 2 very different things
Joey

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I think you might have missed my last post, where I mentioned that a team did score over 32 points alone: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=180

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Is there a better video. It never showed 1 ball get knocked off.
Joey

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

We're working on getting the better video. The first ball was actually knocked off second, after crossing our alliance's finish line for the second time.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

i just watched that match. How is it that the one member on the blue alliance with the really thin arm/claw is compliant with the 80" measurement? The ball when grasped at least 2x looked to be a minimum of 15" from the front of the robot. I can't see it exactly but pretty much any measurement that goes over 50% of the ball length is going to be very close to that 80".

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

if(robot_with_really_thin_arm/claw.team_number == 1024)
{

printf("Yes, it is within the 80" requirement, but only just.\n\r");
printf("Autonomous only gets faster from here for 1024.\n\r");

}

//-q :]

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

(one more quadrant of) FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:p

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Actually... being the one who instigated the original William Wallace post, I know that it was meant to be historically significant. William Wallace did not settle for the false freedoms pressed upon him and his people. He fought for what was fair and just 'til his dying words... a coup d'etat, if you will.

RIP William Wallace (you will always be remembered)

Alec Hill

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Your tribute to a historical figure notwithstanding, comparing stationary robotic obstacles (and the refs who permitted the strategy in Week 1) to the oppression levied by Edward Longshanks against Scotland is just a wee bit excessive, I would think.

Anyway, as I said, these robots will still have to come to rest somewhere, and most likely, the bulk of them will stop one quadrant further than they had previously. Those who profess to have "uber" hybrid modes will still have to navigate a stationary traffic jam of uncertain configuration - don't toss your keyboards into the garbage can just yet!

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I know, lol. just having a little fun with it.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Qbranch,

I would like to suggest that you freeze frame the video
when the robot has its arm outstretched horizontally holding
the ball. Measure the horizontal distance from the end of
the arm to the back edge of the robot. Then measure the ball
diameter, take the appropriate ratio, and then multiply by 44
inches.

Eugene

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Furthering 1 quadrant is a 12 point potential difference, and a big part of the difficulty in this years task. Also, there aren't many people who profess to have "uber" auton modes, most teams just display it like 25, 1114, 1024, 148, 217 etc.. The proclaimers are those who are slack jawed after their performance.

Regardless it would be nice if people started looking it at from a different perspective. FIRST struggled last year during autonomous, it was very difficult while I was announcing last year to get the audience motivated in a 15 second period where almost nothing happend. FIRST gave us a very simple task, and a very hard task this year in autonomous, why not try to complete those tasks, it is after all a robotics competition.

Of course there are gonna be teams that can best you but take the challenge, do your best and get it done. The odometry or dead reckoning isn't too difficult to complete the easy tasks, there are many teams that would be willing to help you. Many teams have taken the hybrid challenge and hope to see every robot moving out crossing one or more lines in auton, it will be great to see more teams doing the same. Lets make Hybrid exciting, teams flying around the field scoring dozens of points narrowly avoiding disasterous crashes. Last year FIRST seemed very dissapointed with the lack of participants in autonomous, I mean IRI excluded most events really did not have much autonomous capping. It seems like FIRST tried very hard to make it worth something again, and to also make an easy tasks and hard task that teams can complete, much like in '06.

I've already seen great autons out of some teams that aren't what you would call perenial powerhouses, and nonexistent ones from teams you would. I don't buy the powerhouse argument, I think hybrid can be more of a field leveler ( except maybe in the cases of like 1114, because, well their just rediculous.. but thats not the point ) an average team can show up with a great autonomous this year and take home the competition against traditional powerhouses. Also most people get ignored when they complain about "fairness" in capabilities of super teams who can have 600 hours of machine time and 5 engineers, why is that any different than a team that can score a few points in autonomous. FIRST's intent was to make this a high scoring challenging game, Woody said it at kick off that people who think this game is too simple just havn't thought about it enough.

Take their challenge, a negative attitude towards it won't get anyone anywhere, but a positive outlook on hybrid may produce some spectacular performances, and I applaud the teams who try.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Furthering one quadrant for the short distance movers furthers the long distance movers by at least one, perhaps two. The majority of the time against strong hybrid players, net gain for short movers is, at best, zero.

Positive, negative, or neutral.....there are going to be a lot of teams who will end their autons, voluntarily or otherwise, one quadrant further down the pike than they had ended them previously. Except now, instead of meeting these obstacles at a relatively slow speed as they made the lane change, oncoming hybrid modes of those successful enough to program multi line crossings at rapid speeds (we will be one such team, although we only program 60% of full speed currently) will be contacting many of these obstacles after having half a field of acceleration time. You cannot possibly guarantee that 100% of hybrid routines will "narrowly avoid disasterous crashes". Bad luck will dictate that some will not be avoided. I'd have preferred retaining the low-speed collisions of Week 1 but now we must all be concerned with this new risk. So again, I caution, be careful. Dare I even suggest, slow down.

Driving (relatively) straight forward and stopping is basic enough to implement for teams who have never done it before, but there are still roadblocks to meeting this goal. I can realistically see this as a solution for most teams who do not currently have a hybrid mode. I've got code handy to help them with the task. But there are still roadblocks to this effort that must be overcome at events. I attempted to help one rookie team out at Midwest, but their programming mentor was absent at the time, and I wasn't going to commandeer their laptop and force feed it to them. I left the code in a text file with my phone number and encouraged them to call me later on when they had time to receive further assistance. Heck, some rookies don't even have access to a laptop. I don't feel putting the code in there is worth the time and effort if I can't realistically explain it to the kids and get them to understand it. In the short amount of time we have at an event, this is a true roadblock.

Driving forward, turning a timed 90 degrees left, and changing lanes is much more of a challenge than even driving straight. A lot of repetitive trial and error is involved when implementing timed turns and moves of varying distance. Many teams are more concerned with passing inspection and being able to drive at all during practice matches than they are getting a 2-3 line autonomous to run. At some venues, there is no room for a team to tether up somewhere and verify how far their timer settings make them go and turn. So what happens when those teams program too long of a turn, point their machines CLOCKWISE down the field, and let er rip? What happens when delays are not sufficiently programmed between alliance partners, and collisions between teammates result in robots driving the wrong way, increasing their risk of damage? Are we all comfortable with such risks? That is a true risk of any hasty hybrid programming push.

One thing that aided us in autonomous tuning was videotaping our practice matches. Based on the replay timings we viewed in our pit, we were able to extrapolate the correct timed values we needed for fairly consistent turns, and a 2-3 line auton resulted. I can offer such a service to anyone who comes asking for such assistance in Pittsburgh and Cleveland, but I will not look to shove hybrid code down the throats of those who either do not want it or are not ready for it.

The build season and offseason are the TRUE times at which hybrid programming education should be promoted. With access to teleconferencing and remote desktop software, there are ample opportunities for veteran teams to reach out to long distance teams who wish to receive autonomous assistance, and there is enough TIME available to all to ensure that the resulting code is functional and safe. Letting an inexperienced team unleash an untested hybrid mode on the field at a qualifying match is a haphazard and careless exercise, in my opinion.

Be. Careful. Let's all merge these idealistic wishes with the true realities of the event venues, then proceed accordingly.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Hey, you never know, they might give you a push! :yikes:

You are right that untested autonomous modes are a potentially dangerous situation, but, well, even tested ones are. (See this shining example of what happens when one of your encoders is just chilling rattling around in you're robots belley pan instead of being coupled to a shaft.)

48: You guys are running a timed autonomous? Wow you all must have some pretty consistent batteries! :ahh:

-q

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

See? All that "newfangled" technology just gits ye young whippersnappers in trouble, I reckon.

The wedged (wait, I better change that to "angled" before some misinformed person complains :rolleyes:) front end does wonders for correcting various navigational errors :p . Most of the time.....we did go clockwise once due to a collision from an errant partner.

One day we may hook up the Super Shifter encoders. One day....

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

ours is timed too. and we can get three lines consistently :D yay for no sensors!!

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Don't bother. At least for our shifters, there was too much runout in the shaft for the open frame encoders to work consistently, so we came up with a more robust replacement setup.

-q

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

At the Kettering Rookie tournament, many teams would either not move at all, or would manage to move at least beyond the finish line and then get hung up down at the other end of the field (if they even attempted to make the turn). We did have a robot or two that managed 3 or 4 lines.

However, we had several robots that might have blocked Hybrid if this was a hard and fast rule. They managed to move away from the wall, but would stop short of the finish line - maybe they just didn't move far enough, or maybe they veered off to the side and tangled with the wall or lane divider. Either way, they fell into the category of, "The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized." (Q&A 1/24/08) No calls for hybrid blocking were made. As Update #15 stated, "We think there is enough distinction between the two alternatives that teams will understand the difference."

The GDC has given their interpretation of the matter. Can we decide to get on with it, live with it, and let this matter drop?