Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65301)

Laaba 80 03-03-2008 22:54

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

Stu Bloom 03-03-2008 23:33

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 !)

Cascade 03-03-2008 23:38

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.

Jeff K. 03-03-2008 23:54

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.

Cory 04-03-2008 00:58

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Laaba 80 (Post 712232)
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

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.

hillale 04-03-2008 01:05

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

David Brinza 04-03-2008 01:17

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cascade (Post 712265)

We shall see how FIRST responds this week, especially in light of the fact we have teams admitting to intentionally impeding in HYBRID mode.

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.

AdamHeard 04-03-2008 01:37

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Brinza (Post 712309)
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.

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)

Dan Richardson 05-03-2008 00:07

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 712071)
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

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#

Quote:

Game Q & A System

FIRST Robotics Competition Question & Answer System

This system is used to provide teams with answers to questions about the rules of the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition.

To proceed, please click on the link below.
The question as posed was:
Quote:

Is it legal for 1 or 2 robots on the same alliance to block traffic, preventing any scoring for the opposing alliance? Or would they be penalized for it?
The answer is as follows.
Quote:

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.
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.

Paul Copioli 05-03-2008 00:14

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.

Dan Richardson 05-03-2008 01:38

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 712938)
When the GDC uses the word block, they seem to throw in "the entire track" or "the flow of traffic."

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.

Quote:

v. blocked, block·ing, blocks
v. tr.
4.
1. To stop or impede the passage of or movement through; obstruct: block traffic.
2. To shut out from view: a curtain blocking the stage.
3. To stop the passage of (a motion or bill) in a legislative assembly.
6. Sports To impede the movement of (an opponent or the ball) by physical interference.
v. intr.
1. Sports To obstruct the movement of an opponent.
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.

CraigHickman 05-03-2008 01:42

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.)

Matt H. 05-03-2008 02:48

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 712938)
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.

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.

Travis Hoffman 05-03-2008 07:26

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigHickman (Post 712956)

(I think teams need to shape up, and not mess with the high power team's hybrid/auton.)

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.

Jimmy Cao 05-03-2008 07:44

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:49.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi