![]() |
Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
After just seeing 1114 and 1024's amazing hybrid modes illegally impeded, i have to post this.
CMON! If you are going to call high speed ramming in hybrid, at least be consistent and call it when teams make their hybrid drive 3 feet forward to blatantly impede in hybrid. I've seen 1114 lose multiple matches because impeding was allowed. Even with the 10 point penalty assessed, it is cheap; 1024 and 1114 could've easily scored another 12-20 points in hybrid there. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I believe an update allows impeding in hybrid mode.
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Okay, based on update 2 and 5, I see that no mention of impeding exists in hybrid mode.
Still, I don't like that high speed ramming is called, when it is clearly an unintentional act, and impeding is. Also, I will be very upset to see any team get called for ramming in hybrid after they hit a robot that drove 3 feet to impede traffic in hybrid (that would not be illegal, as the 3 foot drive is attempting to get hit, and you can't draw penalties). It's a shady strategy overall. I understand it is legal per the rules now, I'm just venting. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
The rules used to prohibit impeding all the time, but were changed in team update 2.
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Teams that have high-speed hybrid modes that can get far enough to be impeded likely also have the talent to have a 'stop' command that they can give in hybrid. If you see your team is going to ram another, it's your job to stop it, not their job to get out of the way.
And getting penalties for high-speed in autonomous isn't new. Back in 2006 when drive-straight blocking was all the rage, teams that were deemed too fast would get stern talks from the refs. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Slow down as you enter their zone, or use a different technology than IR, or have a command that says "warning: the opposing team is blocking us, slow down when you enter their zone", and give it as soon as you see that the opposing team is trying to impede you. You don't have to give a real-time command to stop. Actually, aren't the robo-coach stations for your alliance located at both ends of your home zone? That means as you enter the most likely area for impediment entering the opposing home-zone, your robocoach is just feet away. I don't think there's been a year where high-speed in autonomous has been A-OK. If you're going to go fast, there had better be some form of safety for other teams, whether it is a robocoach stop command, not going fast when you're likely to encounter others, or active detection like ultrasound or cameras. The alternative amounts to: "I want 120lbs of metal to go as fast as possible in hybrid, and if another team gets damaged by that, it's not my fault: it's hybrid mode" |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
1114 in specific was yellow carded for ramming an opponent. Their autonomous is clearly not designed to hit other teams to interfere with them. It;s designed to go around the field and score points. This is a crucial difference. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Yesterday morning at the drivers meeting here in Portland, the question came up. The head ref said impeding was illegal during hybrid, intentional or not. However, I have never seen them call it, though I have seen them call ramming, even though it was unintentional.
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
how about this: you are not allowed to intentionally impeed robots in your home zone, so basically you are not allowed in that zone to drive 3 feet and stop, but otherwise its allright. Because if there isn't going to be rule change here, its going to become common place for teams to drive 3 feet to stop the good hybrid bots.
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Quote:
It seems to me the entire point of G37 is to keep robots as it says, from pursuing strategies involving intentional damage or destruction of opposing robots. It clearly makes reference to accidental collisions at high speed being expected, and the necessity for teams to make robust robots due to such high speed interaction. The only mention of handing out a penalty for high speed ramming is when the offending team intentionally does so. I will admit that intent is nearly impossible to judge normally, but I think during hybrid intent is quite clear. For example, a robot with an excellent hybrid mode who nearly always crosses 3-4 lines is not going to collide with a team on purpose. That would be totally counterproductive towards their own scoring. Therefore if they collide with another team, I would assume it was incidental. My concern lies almost exclusively with teams who have the intent to block the lane in their own home zone. I guarantee that with certain teams very effectively shutting down all traffic in their home zone by parking 3' out in front of the lane divider, this will become a prominent strategy by many teams who have weak hybrid modes. If this becomes common, sooner or later some team with a good, fast hybrid mode (such as 1114, or 1024, or others that we saw this weekend) is going to collide with the blocking team at high speed. Is the team who is trying to score points in hybrid by effectively completing the task at hand going to be penalized for ramming a team that quite clearly intended to do nothing more productive than ruining the hybrid routines for the other alliance? If so, I will be extremely unhappy. As long as the GDC wants to let teams impede others in hybrid (which seems to be what update 2 and 5 are saying), it seems entirely unfair to punish a team which may collide with them. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
We thought about using this strategy in some of our matches but did not have the opportunity. I see this being addressed in the next update
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Quote:
Joey |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I will not name names. Anyone who watches the matches will see quite a few teams, and a very low number team in particular who should know better, blocking in quite a few hybrid modes.
I'll say it again. These teams should know better. I will have our drivers bring it up to the Wayne State folks during the drivers meeting, and they will be ready to talk the refs after EVERY match that they see this strategy in. Hybrid mode is something that is very difficult to do, and good ones should be celebrated. Not stopped by a clearly illegal tactic. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
If your robot was not able to circle the track, or at least not able to circle the track as many times as your opponent, are you going to let them drive around untouched? Isn't that just giving up before you've even started? In an ideal situation, of course everyone is crossing as many lines as they possibly can. Unfortunately this is not always possible for all teams, so they are forced to adapt. If a team cannot cross four lines, then is it not equally as beneficial for them to stop their opponent from crossing four lines? Is this not the kind of situation that teams consider at the beginning of the season? Do we want to try and do the scoring, or do we think that we are more suited, more capable of building a very good robot that can limit the number of points our opponent scores? Offense tends to look more glorious on the field, but it is often a defense that can give teams an edge. This year, the rules seem to be written to provide an advantage to the robots that are out to score. Despite this, teams that were not so adept at scoring showed this weekend that there are ways to play defense. Although, impeding seems like an ideal defensive measure, the rules seem to indicate that the action of impeding an opponent is illegal. So what does that leave teams that are not able to lap during hybrid to do? What does that leave teams that are able to lap far fewer times than their opponent to do? |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I saw a lot of impeding today, in hybrid and in tele. I saw robots blatantly
tipped, some while hurdling. I saw very little in the way of penalties for the teams attempting these, and no yellow cards. The yellow cards that were handed out seemed very trivial. That said, this is week one. Perhaps now that there have been some regionals, the refs at the others will get a feeling for what the real problems are. This is a tough game to ref, considering in previous years, defense such as this has been a viable strategy. The definition for impeding is a tough nut to crack. Even cracking down on hybrid mode impeding could get tricky. If a team drives forward at 1ft/s could they claim to have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it was an "accident" when they blocked the path? I would hope that no teams stoop to this level, but it's bound to happen some time. (Hopefully they wouldn't also claim that they were rammed during the same maneuver....) |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
In other words, it's not getting called because the referees don't think that simple defence in hybrid mode is necessarily egregious. On the other hand, <G40> makes it known that "ROBOTS shall not intentionally IMPEDE the flow of traffic around the TRACK." This statement is part of a rule, but disobeying it carries no specific penalty. Despite the lack of a penalty, it ought to be followed by teams preparing hybrid mode routines. Of course, the trouble with <G40> is that it doesn't make a clear distinction between intentionally taking an action which might possibly impede an opponent, and intentionally instructing the robot to act an impediment. (And I realize that that is a difficult distinction to express in an enforceable manner!) For example, if Redabot was programmed to advance 1 m and do a series of doughnut maneouvres during the hybrid mode, would it be be intentionally impeding Bluabot, which just happened to want to pass through the same area during its hybrid mode? It's a judgement of intent, and as noted before, those tend to favour the alleged offender, simply because it's too hard to know for sure. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I feel that any team taht's intentionally obstructing in autonomous should not only get a penalty, but they should lose protection under the highspeedram rule. I mean... If you move into the way of an autonomous robot that's laping, it's your fault. You cant say they intentionally rammed you. If given the choice, of course they'd rather get the 8 or 12 points for the lap than take you out with an autonomous hit.
I have a feeling there will be a team update on Sunday/Monday/Tuesday that puts a rule simular to what's above into effect. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
See the problem with this argument it the fact that the refs have to assume things.. which they aren't going to do. You can't assume they are blocking on purpose, as was said (wrong place at the wrong time). and you can't assume that the speedy bots aren't trying to hit people (they only do laps cause they "miss" the opposing robots). So if you leave it up to assuming they you will get bad calls.
Better to make sure your robot doesn't travel a billion mile an hour around a corner or, like was said, in the opposing zone. And as was said a billion mile an hour auto mode has never been allowed, why should it be now, whereas defensive autos have always been allowed. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I just dont think impeding during hybrid is wrong, if the GDC decides not to call it and its "legal."
HOWEVER, if the blocking robot gets hit, that's their fault and the robot ramming into them shouldn't get penalized. BUT, this whole issue is hard to prove which is why I dont think they will change the rule. What if a team is using a remote, but loses range, and it stops? What if a team doesn't even move from its starting position, but has an opponent ramming into them in the process of trying to do a lap during auto mode? Should that be penalized also? Its tough. The game calls for scoring more points if you can lap, hurdle and herd faster, yet, if you go too fast and bang someone, its a possible penalty. No referee or game is perfect and there may be conflicting issues concerning game play. Its just tough. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
As for 1114 case I say why should they be given a yellow card because they can race around the track 16 feet per second. It’s not like they have control over where teams go. Especially when teams started to pick up on how they can ruin there lap. I could understand if they hey guys why don't you tone done the autonomous a little bit but giving them a yellow card right away I think that was a bad call. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Furthermore, a "billion mile an hour" automode has been allowed. Teams have had extremely fast autonomous modes in 2003 and 2004. I saw some extremely violent collisions in both years. I don't ever recall seeing a DQ or penalty for such. Your point about defensive automodes always being allowed is kind of moot, as the Q&A referenced above clearly prohibits it this season. If there's no way to determine intent with respect to blocking (and I think there very clearly is. It was 110% clear who was attempting to impede other alliances, and who was trying to run laps), then I think there's no logical way that you can penalize/yellow card/dq a team that happens to hit such a team who may or may not be impeding the track intentionally. If you penalize the team trying to navigate the field, then the impeding robot has scored a double victory--they have avoided a yellow card that I believe they certainly deserve, and they have given their opponent a penalty/yellow/red card. How is this fair? I think a yellow card is a totally justifiable penalty. With teams like MWR had, two good hybrid bots on one alliance can score between 24-32 points in lines, and 8-16 points in balls, plus whatever the third robot can do. With teams impeding at the far lane divider, the most these 2 teams can score is 16 points in lines and 8-16 points in balls. Even if the offending team were assessed a 10 point penalty, they have effectively negated up to 24-32 points for the other alliance. Without the yellow card, it would be totally worth it for everyone who did not have a great hybrid mode to just camp at the corner and take 10 point penalties all day, to keep more than 10 points from being scored against them. Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
From the webcasts, I didnt see this being called either. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Remember that per <G40>:
Quote:
On the whole, I don't like the idea of being penalized for what happens in autonomous mode. There are so many things that can go wrong, and the only way to stop the robot is to E-stop - which disables the robot for the rest of the match. Perhaps there should be an autonomous-only E-stop. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
After thinking about this problem for a while I think MWR refs actually did a pretty good job. One of the things that I think is most important in a ref crew is consistancy, basically, dont call a penalty on 1 team and not call it when another team does the same thing. The MWR called the penalty on the robot moving, and not on the team impeding. I dont think this was the right call, however after the first incident, all teams knew the risks of autonomous mode. I would have liked to see it called the other way, however they took over a problem that wasnt braught up before and remained consistant with it. I dont think the yellow card had a large impact on 1114, however I may be wrong.
Joey |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Secondly, I don't think ethier should get a yellow card simply cause you can't penalize a robot that doesn't move. A lap bot takes a wide turn and crashes into a robot without an auto mode and that bot gets a yellow card for impeding?? Is that fair?? Ethier way no yellow cards should be awarded, not right away anyways. It was a little unfair, but when 1114 got a yellow card, they didn't hit a "drive 3 feet and stop" bot, they hit a bot who had crossed one line. So I believe a warning would of worked.. but I'm not a ref. It comes down to what people assume, and unfortunatly that changes from person to person, and bad calls will always be called, and some people won't think they are bad calls, and some people will. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
As soon as the robot makes a turn, your IR board becomes somewhat useless.
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Joey |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
There's no crying in robotics!
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
In the above situation, you could easily tell by assessing whether it stopped short of the divider, hits the divider and keeps spinning it's wheels, starts madly spinning in circles, etc. -To anyone playing devil's advocate, an impeding team could certainly have their robot do the above things to mimic a hybrid mode gone bad, but seeing as impeding teams is already illegal, I should hope nobody would stoop to such lows. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
As the robocoach of one of the teams(along with 16, bombsquad), who impeded 1114 and 1024's hybrid mode in the semi-final matches of Chicago, I would like to say, that there was concern about the legality of the strategy. We specifically asked the refs if that would be called a penalty.
Saying that a low numbered team(team 16 bombsquad) should have known better is ridiculous. The rules allowed it and it did not cause any excess risk of damage to robots or humans. Honestly I would be fine seeing this change over to a penalty, but don't rip on us for playing with some strategy. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Just so we are clear on what we mean by 3 feet and stop, look at what 48/16 did to 1114 in quals/elims.
They were probably under the influence it was a legal move, as this is a grayish area in the minds of most. I believe it should be illegal, because of the Q&A ruling that states it is. However, it seemed liked very few people knew about it. And, this argument isn't even for our own benefit; 973 has yet to run a hybrid mode on our competition bot. We have some decent modes for past robots (so were not all that behind). |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
What if a team is just beginning to develop their autonomous? If they had something that told the robot to go forwards x amount of feet to cross the first line, but somehow came out as x amount of inches, it might be seen as a "defensive autonomous" when it wasn't. If a robot hit them the first time they tested this and they didn't know it did this, should they be given a yellow card?
If they were, that would really discourage teams from attempting to write and autonomous mode in the middle of a regional. Writing code halfway through Friday is a time honored tradition, and I'd hate to see it go away. :rolleyes: The point being, until you see the team do this multiple times in a row, don't assume anything. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
It sounds like there may be some confusion about what actually constitutes an impeding penalty. Please, before complaining any more about this, reread <G40>, and then review a few videos on TBA.
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
They simple say strategies designed to block traffic will not be permitted. In my opinion, this has no relevance whatsoever to <G40> furthermore <G40> applies only to teleoperated mode, not hybrid. They do specifically mention that "The purpose of these modifications is not to permit the intentional blocking of the Track during Hybrid Period.", after saying that <G40> does not apply. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I don't think there will be any rule change about the blocking in autonomous. It's kind of obvious when people are doing it on purpose and when they arent, but I just don't think there will be any kind of rule against this.
However, to deal with blocking robots, 1024 is possibly going to hand shifter control over to RALFF (our autonomous driver). In this case, if an obstruction is detected by the forward ultrasonic sensor array, our robot would gently (2 ft/sec) approach a robot which 'accidentally' got in the way, shift in to low gear, and push whatever is in the way out of the way with our 299lb pushing force (sustainable about 5 seconds at this 299lb level). As usual, as soon as the traffic is cleared, the robot will continue on it's usual course. If for some reason the robot does not slide away from the front of our robot, ours would continue to push the robot at the 2ft/sec speed until the end of the hybrid period. The thought of doing something like that never occurred even as a thought to our programming team until a certain 'explosive' robot continually blocked our autonomous. Don't take that as me complaining, I understand there is no rule that says you can't, and opposing robots have the same right to win as their opposition does. See you all at Boilermaker! -q EDIT: While the drivetrain can produce 299lbf, I'm not 100% sure what exactly the tires can put to the floor. This has never been tested. Nope, we don't have any supersticky materials or anything. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I am of the firm belief that if impeding is allowed then high speed (autonomous) ramming should also be allowed. The IR is simply to flakey to ensure consistent commands and it would take an amazing team to program a robot which reliably avoids other robots. If impeding is allowed and ramming is not allowed autonomous will be limited to two line crosses and one trackball down for fear of penalties. The two rules go hand in hand--either both should be allowed or neither should be allowed.
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Really, even though it doesn't make me happy when i see our robot defensive autonomoused (it's so much fun to watch when it isn't!) by the way the rules lie right now, it can happen. So, instead of begging for a rule change, we'll hope for one, but as with most things in engineering, there's almost always another way to solve a problem. (i.e. what I mentioned above). -q |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I like your above solution to the problem and as we have a spare ultrasonic it might be worth a try.
A note to the person who said such a pushing force was impossible I don't believe that it is. http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tab...efficients.htm lists the coefficient of friction of rubber on solids as being 1-4. That is for a smooth rubber strip on a smooth solid. A coefficient of friction of 2 on carpet is highly possible. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Attaching the negatively-connotated words "shady" and "blatant" to any hybrid blocking strategy is going a bit far. NO alliance is OBLIGATED to give ANY team a huge advantage in hybrid just because their robot is "cool" and can cross 48,000 lines in auton. Blocking in hybrid is a smart, effective, legal (??....sigh), and SIMPLE strategy. I do believe you should only employ one bot for this effort (1504 did it expertly), as blocking the entire lane seems to bring the bump to pass rule into question. If there's a lane for the oncoming robots to move around the blocking robot, they have no beef. There is nothing wrong with simple - I feel people tend to glorify the complex and put it up on a pedestal a bit too emphatically sometimes, at the expense of the more "boring" strategies. There is a place for both in FIRST. And if the uber-hybrid bots don't like being blocked, they are welcome to use their programming expertise to add some collision avoidance code and move around the obstacle. Use it as an opportunity to "wow" people even more with your adept engineering skillz. Qbranch and 1024 already outlined a constructive way to respond to this new challenge with additional strategic programming. I see this as yet another instance of "raising the bar". Quite literally getting a "free pass" does not accomplish this objective nearly as effectively. DARPA Grand Challenge planners don't dilute the accomplishments of event participants by telling big rocks and obstacles to get out of the way of an oncoming autonomous vehicle (there's a funny thought). It's fairly safe to say we are amazed at the way that event "raises the bar" - why can FIRST not employ and permit similar tactics in their challenge design - the addition of defense simply adds "unexpected" disturbances for which robots must compensate. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Ah I made the mistake of not actually viewing their robot before posting. As IFI wheels have a coefficient of friction of 1.2-1.3 their pushing power may be lower than the posted figure. However teams have also designed their robots in creative ways such that when pushed from the front a fraction of the force is transmitted to their rear wheels placing much more weight on them and allowing for stronger pushing. (6 wheel drive with lowered centered wheel can achieve this effect).
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Travis I would agree with most of what you are saying however the issue becomes more prominent when the team with the autonomous is penalized for "ramming" a blocking opponent as has happened already. I will stand by my earlier statement that if impeding is allowed then ramming must also be allowed. If a bot chooses to block then it is knowing putting itself into harms way.
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Quote:
and... Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
And for the second part... we'll see what happens at boilermaker. There is rudimentary recovery code in the robot as of now (you can tell in the multiple times our robot weaved through traffic), but I'm hoping that our drivetrain people will be ok with us adding the autoshifting code in to push whatever is in the way out of the way. If you all didn't read the edit on my post about 299lbf pushing, I do not know exactly how much pushing force we can put to the floor. All that is is the maximum 5-second-sustainable force at the tire. Also, I know that 1114 and us (1024) have fast autonomous modes, but who else does? -q |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
The short actually occurred within an ultrasonic sensor, thankfully, that's on the front of the robot. -q p.s. Wish you could have seen the smoke swirling under our cover panel before we turned it off... all the victor fans were blowing the smoke around making these awesome swirly vortexy thingies... |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
For example, and I love examples: Team A might not have any mentors who know anything about code and are relying entirely on one self taught student who hasn't been able to touch the robot because it was still being built all season. They don't have many resources, especially no big sponsors who can machine things for them. Most of their code was tested on Thursday and they are still working out the kinks. Team B has many mentors. They've been around for a little while and know all about what makes FIRST tick. They've got a couple of decent sponsors, and even have their own practice field and practice robot. They've been able to work on the code all build season and beyond. Their hybrid mode has been tested time and again, so they are able to lend a hand to Team A. Should these two teams be judged the same? One of them has the resources, the other doesn't. This isn't a case of failure to prepare and consequences for something that you cannot change is unfair. You can hold up a bar yes, but every year FIRST has rookie teams who don't have the same advantage as the rest of us. Some veteran teams don't even have some of the resources that the rookies do. FIRST is so diverse that no one standard can encompass everyone. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
To continue, I should also point out that teams who block typically do so by moving to the same spot every time. It would not take too much for the "elite" teams to add code which adjusted how far they drove straight before turning left, effectively avoiding the obstacle. Of course then, that would be countered by oscillating defensive autons or perhaps even defensive modes which detect oncoming robots and adjust position accordingly. Sounds pretty cool to me. If we all just got out of the way (or were forced to do so per the rules) and let the best of the best do their thing without resistance, they wouldn't be challenged to push the envelope and create "the next great thing". I appreciate complex bots that can do amazing things on a field by themselves. But I truly am amazed by those bots who can do the same under defensive pressure. This IS a robotic sport, is it not? I think the only people who enjoy watching the New England Patriots wax the dregs of the NFL with overwhelming offensive firepower are PATRIOTS fans. On the other hand, I believe EVERYONE, including casual observers, enjoys watching closely-contested battles such as those between the Giants and Pats this past season, where strong offense and defense were on display. Now I gotta be honest, the level of intra-quadrant bumper zone D and "impeding" at Midwest this weekend seemed to go beyond my original interpretation of the game rules' intent (which, of course, counts for squat). We contributed to this. However, that's the way the referees called it, and it's their interpretation that ultimately sets the tone. Now, as a spectator, I enjoyed watching these matchups greatly. Watching the defensive alliance strategies set in motion and the resultant response to such pressure by the skilled drivers of the best offensive bots at Midwest made the scores that much closer and the spectacle so much more interesting. And, oh by the way, with all the blocking/defense being played at the event, can anyone tell me who still came out on top at Midwest, when it was all said and done? If, in the journey to that victory, the matches were closer and the losing teams felt like they kept the victors honest, is that such a bad thing? Congrats to 1114 and 1024 for persevering with their fine machines and even better drive teams and pit crews. With very few alterations, I hope the way the game was played at Midwest is permitted to continue throughout the remainder of the season. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
We had a discussion with the head ref in Midwest concerning this very topic, due to the alliance we were up against (the 1114/1024 dream team who eventually won) we asked if we could intentionally stop a robot in an area with the intention to block an opponent's hybrid operation. Per him, this would be fine if there was a passing lane around the blocking 'bot (ie, we couldn't line all three of our alliance up to completely block the corner). So, in the nxt match, we prompty sent a partner out 3' and stopped, which seemed great until 1024 ran him over and continued on its way! :(
My .02! |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
However, due to a ruling at GSR that our dual-configuration drive base robot was not legal, our "speed racer" configuration only participated in practice matches. (We used the "hurdling" configuration during the elimination rounds instead -- the hurdling configuration only crossed 3 lines.) |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
On January - 5 of this year every team was given the same opportunity. What they did with it was up to them. Should the rules be applied differently based on the ability to follow them? Should a team be allowed to go over the weight limit because they had no way to weigh their robot? I don’t think so. The failure to prepare in your scenario could have included the failure to test in the designated practice area. They could have chosen to try it out first. They may have chosen instead to just put it on the floor in a match and make their problem a problem for everyone else. Not one team goes out there looking to get penalties. Should FIRST conclude that, due to lack of intent, no rule will be enforced? What we need here is a clear ruling on the matter; one without any mention of intent. IMO, if you block that far turn for any reason, you are not playing the game the way it was designed to be played. Imagine what would happen to NASCAR if they allowed roadblocks. // OAO |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Please stop using the word "Impeding" when talking about a single robot. Just stop it!
When 1 robot stops anywhere on the track and does not extend to make themselves bigger, it is not impeding! Therefore, they cannot be breaking the impeding rule. I would agree that they are impeding and a rule is being broken if 2 or more robots formed a line across the field. So, a single robot can "block" part of the field. "Blocking" is the right word to use! And that is completely legal. Qbranch (aka Alex) has it right. I am sure that they and 1114 will come up with a way to go around the blocking robot where there is room to do so. Or they can choose to push them slowly out of the way as he said. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
The definition of impeding you are refering to, <G40> only applies during teleoperated mode. The real definition of impeding is Quote:
Here is a quote from the Q&A Quote:
Oh yeah, Raul, sorry your son beat you in the finals. I guess he has the bragging rights for a while.:D Joey |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
i lol'ed soo hard watching the simulcasts online, and this rule. hahaha wow, it was great. I couldnt stand watching teams lose because of this...
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
What happened in those matches was illegal no ifs ands or buts about it, There is absolutely 0 question in my mind or any one of those involved minds that what they did was illegal. Should it be legal I guess that could be a question, but why they heck are you guys trying to defend yourselves. Those specific teams, and you know who you are, should have been disqualified on the 2nd offense. I understand you may have asked the refs and they just didn't know I gave those teams a pass yesterday. But now that you do know its illegal just flipping apologize, and get on with it. I'm not upset with the teams for doing it especially because you got clarification, but I'm set with you guys coming on to these forums, reading the rules and still trying to defend yourselves, your flat out WRONG. What ticks me off even more is I thought FIRST was taking great lengths to train their refs properly, this should have been addressed as it is such an obvious strategies. Teams would try to block other teams, and its stupid to think there wouldn't be someone who tried it. I've gone to great measures to defend refs in previous posts, but something so blatantly missed in a dozen or so matches really gets my blood boiling. I hope this problem is rectified before next week, week 1 always finds many problems, and this is surely one of the bigger ones. Ohh and for those of you saying " You have to figure out there intent " thats absolute bull crap. If a team crosses a line or trys to every single match they compete in, and then all of a sudden " Whoops I guess my autonomous doesn't work it only went out 3 feet and it happens to get in the way of 1114 and 1024.. Oh whatever am I going to do..." Give me a break, you broke a rule, you didn't get caught, you may have asked for clarifications and the refs were blatantly wrong, stop with the excuses, say your sorry. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I feel no need to apologize for strategically using what we confirmed with the refs was how the rules were. The fact that these refs were wrong is IN NO WAY OUR FAULT. I completely agree, they were incorrect, but it would be wrong to blame us, heck apparently the other teams didn't even realize it was actually illegal.
Just calm down everybody, nobody did anything with any ill intent, we were simply competing in the way to give us the best chance inside our understanding of the rules. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Well, on the subject of impeding, all I have to say is that team 1741 (yes, i'm on that team, and i know because I gave this idea out!) used the great idea of stopping early in hybrid mode so that team 148 could not go any farther than where we were (brilliant, right? ;) ), and from what I know, another team did the same in the final matches in the elimination! YAY for my idea! :cool:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
The Q&A is quite clear that the GDC intended for teams to not be allowed to block in hybrid. Due to the fact that the Q&A response was not added to a Team Update, it's easy for me to believe that the referees were not aware of it. Furthermore, as Joey pointed out to me yesterday, and I now seem to recall this being the case, that in the case of a Q&A response disagreeing with the manual, the manual/team updates take precedence. I'm not sure where this was stated. Can anyone else confirm? I think we all just need to chill out and wait for a team update to clarify this situation. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I agree 100% with Raul (and Travis .. which never happens). Those of you that have made an auton (hybrid, whatever) that can do laps, stop whining. It is quite ridiculous. We have a hybrid that does laps and we have been stopped by 1 robot moving to block us. 1 robot can't stop the flow of traffic ... period.
This is not a science fair. Being able to complete a lap in autonomous with no one on the field is boring. Being able to complete a lap with others in your way is exciting. People tried to do this to us in hybrid all elimination rounds. The risk that they are taking is to not get any points in hybrid. 45 tried to do this in finals 1 and 148 went in front of them and we went behind them. The result: a 36 point deficit after hybrid. One robot moving 3 feet and stopping will not be called impeding this year and we all better stop complaining and get used to it. I can't believe the amount of whining already, especially from teams who haven't even played yet. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and I agree with Tristan on 1519's robot. Unless both parts together violated a rule (weight/size), it should have been allowed to play as is. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I believe the situation has already been clarified--that is what the Q&A is for. It is simply a matter of the refs not being aware of a preexisting rule.
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Right now, it is not clear if the Q&A can override the rules when they contradict. Usually this isn't an issue because Q&As that change the game substantially are quickly incorporated into the team updates. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
(On the other hand, running into a stationary robot at high speed is likely to deserve a penalty for ramming.) |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
I hate that this thread makes me disagree with people I respect, but; based on the wording of the Q&A, it just says block traffic. So, I would assume any intentional traffic blocking, whether or not it blocked the whole lane, is illegal. [quote]However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.[/[quote]] |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I suppose the issue here is what the definition of blocking traffic is. The GDC in Q and A says that strategies designed to block traffic are not allowed. Some here are interpreting this to be in conflict with the manual. However consider the idea that they are in perfect agreement. The manual says that a robot is not impeding if there is a passing lane. Phrased another way, a robot that is stopped (whether in hybrid or teleoperated mode) is not blocking traffic if there is a passing lane. A strategy that involves blocking traffic would require a concerted effort to block all lanes. Therefore a single robot driving forward and stopping in the known path of another robot's hybrid is not blocking traffic as long as there are other avenues to travel. This is simply a good idea, not an illegal move.
During Aim High I was very impressed with various team's strategies during autonomous to block the shooters. I was even more impressed during elimination rounds at the ever evolving auto modes where a shooter was blocked, then the next round the blocker was blocked to free up the shooter. I have to believe that any team clever enough to drive laps during hybrid mode can counteract a simple parked robot. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
And regarding the order of precedence of rules, it has not, to my knowledge, been stated anywhere official this year. In the past (not necessarily last year), there was a communication from FIRST that said rules, team updates, e-mail blasts and Q&As were official, and that in case of conflict, the most recent revision of the rule (i.e. from the latest rulebook and/or latest update) was binding. Q&As and e-mail blasts were interpreted as being clarifying statements only, but could not change what was in the rulebook. I've personally continued to operate under the assumption that that hierarchy is valid, but I make sure to take account of whether an official order of precedence has been issued (and therefore if a team should have been expected to follow it). |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Although this may sound lawyer like I believe there is little conflict between the manual and the Q&A. As many teams have pointed out the impeding rules in the manual do not apply to hybrid period.
The Q&A makes not mention of impeding. It only mentions blocking. This word choice is highly significant and would indicate that their intent is to allow no obstruction of the field. Part of the problem in discussing these issues is that first has taken common words such as impeding and given them very specific definitions. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
You are looking at the impeding RULES not the definition. The rule you are talking about only applies in teleoperated, it means nothing in hybrid. The real definition of hybrid is: Quote:
Quote:
Also, I dont think that the Q&A is conflicting. If the manual has nothing about impeding/blocking in hybrid, how can the 2 be conflicting? Joey |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
Just to make something clear, 1114 is in no way upset at any team who tried to block us in hybrid mode. These teams were making the strategically smart decision, and we would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed. We don't expect teams to sit by and let us score points. We went through this in 2006 in autonomous mode, and as we did then, we're going to make every effort to adapt. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
1024 is developing multiple strategies, ranging from brute-force to elegant. We'll put them all in the robot and toggle-switch-select them at match time. See you in atlanta, simbotics! Everybody else: see you in Boilermaker! -q |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
This challenge translate well into most engineers daily lives as well. Our customers do not just accept what we give them and change thier needs ("rules") to make it easy for us to do our job. Nor does the competition step out of the way to allow us to be the market leader. It is only by challenging each other do we all grow smarter together. It is only when you are challenged that you can find your flaws and be motivied to fix them. I think this year's hybrid mode is outstanding. There are so many options for teams work together, complement each other and adapt to the competition. It allows for a lot of creativity and a wide range of unqiue solutions in software, very much like we have had for years related to the mechanical and electrical design of the robots. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
First off let me say that I'm glad you are not mad at us. Next let me say that a strategy that was thrown out was to make a wall that would block the way needless to say we did not do this because we took the rules into consideration. We made sure that a path would be available so we would not be obstructing traffic. This same thing happens every year. We have been blocked in auto many times in previous years. This is a valid strategy that we decided to use, and it paid off. We won the first match that we played against the alliance of 1114 and 1024, but lost the next two. One difference in this year and previous years when it was allowed is that this year everyone can control their robot using their hybrid controls allowing them the chance to adapt and go around any robots in their way. If they were to make a rule against doing this then we would not do it again, although I think that they will not and should not do this. That being said I would like to say we lost to a great alliance and the entire team agrees with me in saying that we enjoyed the hard fought matches.
|
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
First off I would like to congratulate the referees at the Midwest regional on a job well done. Their job this year is difficult to say the least. Their interpretations of the rules were communicated very well at the driver’s meetings. It was always known how they intended to call things.
My understanding of “impeding” has changed after week one. The key part of <G40> that I did not fully understand is the following: Quote:
In the case of the elimination rounds at the Midwest regional, the closest any robot could have been to impeding would have been team 16. With there flop down style there robot was close to 5ft long when in it’s playing configuration. With 13.5ft between the wall and the lane divider there would be 51 inches on either side of them, worst case. Our measly 34” wide robot had a lot of room to get around. The way the rulebook is written the lack of impeding calls in hybrid mode was justified. My feeling on the subject is that one robot should generally not be called for impeding in hybrid. The only case I feel should be called is if the robot is continually moving back a forth to block all lanes. I also believe that two robots that work together to block traffic should generally be called for impeding, even if one of the robots has not moved in hybrid mode. A 44 inch robot on the wall with another robot pulled out 7 feet could create a condition where there is not adequate room to pass. As for the question of ramming, if a team is purposely putting their robot in harms way then there should be no ramming call on the opposing alliance. |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
I enjoyed watching 1114's high speed autonomous runs, but safety should be paramount. A safer, more easily refereed approach than the yellow flag treatment that 1114 received would be the imposition of a speed limit, but I doubt that 1114 is lobbying for that;) . I believe that another robot at MWR was penalized for a high speed autonomous collision that knocked down 111's operator controls, so 1114 does not appear to have been singled out for this policy at MWR.
|
Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
Ok, I need to say this again. As of now there is no such thing as IMPEDING in hybrid. People bring up rule <G40> and are saying that what they have seen in hybrid is not impeding. Unless they make an update about it, <G40> means nothing in hybrid mode. The only thing said in the Q&A is about blocking, not impeding. I do feel that driving out and stopping is blocking traffic.
Alan, I agree with you that 1 robot isnt preventing access around the track, however I feel it is obstructing. Obstructing in my opinion doesnt mean no access, it just means that there is something it the way. I dont care which way this goes, but people have so many different opinions on what this means, it needs to be clarified. Joey |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
But seriously. In response to those that think moving 3 feet and stopping is illegally blocking traffic... What if the team instead was constantly driving forward at a slow rate? The Sim-o-byte robot would still be moving in the direction of traffic, albeit slowly. What if a team is attempting to remove a ball when they're hit? What if they're attempting to remove a ball but have ended up in the wrong place? What if they get hit by the dreaded 8.2V bug? What if they just set up the wrong auto mode? Do we really want to require teams to fill out sworn affidavits and submit to polygraphs to decide if they're getting a 10-pointer? |
Re: Impeding in Hybrid
Quote:
The problem is if you want an impeding penalty, then those robots trying to knock off balls get it, those robots who cross one line a stop get it, those robots whos auto mode doesn't work right, or misses there trackball with vision or whatever, all get penalized as well. I for one think its fine to block, learn to get around it, there is plenty more space on the track to drive! |
| 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