Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Rosie stuffed Thrust into the goal at the CT Regional during semi final match 3 (which tied at 6-6).

A triangular robot into a triangular goal...let's see if it fits! Easily the most talked about play during the elims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhzVK20i5uo

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Interesting, was the red alliance robot disabled by mechanical issues or by default for unsafe play?

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

if it was legal, why were they going to red card you?

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I really don't know how to feel about that statement....

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

im not sure how i would feel about it either

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Up until CT this weekend, I'd never seen Rosie play defense....and I'd hardly ever seen a team play such aggressive defense...

I'm not calling anyone on Rosie out, and getting into the game is always a good thing, but remember GP, and always treat other robots as you'd like yours to be treated.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Add me to the club. Isn't there rules to allow tipped robots to get up? I feel this is very similar to that.

I will add that if my team did something similar, I certainly would not start a thread about it. I don't want to draw attentions to actions that cause red cards.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

well, especially since it was so blatent, i would say that it should have been called excessive pinning. either way, not in favor of the move. its one thing if it happens on accident (which i have seen a good bit) but its another for it to be that blatent.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I really questioned the legality of this move, and was a bit angered to see it. It would be one thing if Thrust has driven themselves in the goal and you had just sat your robot behind them to hold them there, or even if you had just further nudged them in, but consciously pushing them in and knowing that they could not drive out of the goal is an entirely different matter.

Also, I'm not entirely sure that the move in itself was legal:

I would consider that strategy aimed at entangling the robot in the goal so that it cannot get out.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

No ref saw the penalty @ :33 in the video so they couldn't count it.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Reading this I was reminded of 494 in 2004. Their defense was legal (except when they hit 1501 when they were trying to self right) but a little more aggressive than most.

I agree it wasn't the NICEST move but it was effective and didn't damage the robot in any way correct?

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I agree with thefro, that was obviously intentional entanglement.
Earlier in the video, I also saw them trying to tip 1501 over, which would also be a violation of this rule. If the refs didn't call it, then you guys (1501) should have talked to them after the match.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Rosie played excellent defense at WPI and CT. 2791's robot received several tears in bumper fabric as well as a completely destroyed pneumatic solenoid with their high acceleration drivetrain (6 motor?). But there were instances in that video of red card worthy action.

When they tipped 1501, then 1501 activated their righter, Rosie pushed against them so they'd stay tipped. Watch the video 2 or 3 times, they CLEARLY saw it start to right and hit it again.

In addition, the goal thing could be considered a violation of intentional entanglement, as that is exactly what it was.

I hope the GDC adds a rule prohibiting such a move explicitly. That you can take a robot and goal simeltaneously out of commission like that is insane. If that's 100% legal, I guess I'll tell my drivers to shove robots into goals in the offseason.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

we are questioning whether the robot was actually ok... we are questioning the legality of the move and why they were so proud as to put a video up of it.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

After watching the video again, I believe you are absolutely correct.

Aside from the intentional tipping attempts, 1501 should've been given 10 seconds to attempt to self-right before anyone could've touched them again.

I did like how 1501 played dead once they realized that even their attempt to self-right would be defended.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I was there, and i saw it as a clean hit and move and a good strategy and i dont know why they would get red carded for it. They were not pushing thrust into an illegal position:
<G22> ROBOT Range - ROBOTS must remain within the FIELD perimeter and asymmetric funnels
of the GOALS during a MATCH


If I have read that correctly, the funnels before the ball counter are considered in bounds, so I believe rosie's hit was legal and they shouldn't be penalized for it, if the robot fits inside the goal, its a risk they have to take whilst scoring that they might get stuffed

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

That part of the hit was legal, but that rule is meant to apply to offensive robots shoving balls into the goal. The parts that aren't legal are that the hits were made with the intention of entangling and tipping over the robot, and for not allowing a 10 second grace period for the tipped over robot. Those parts are illegal, and should have resulted in a yellow card or a red card.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Now I could be wrong, but I do not think there was intent to entangle the robot nor tip it by stuffing it in the goal. I do agree that they may have violated the grace period after Thrust righted itself over by the bump, but I stand by my belief that everything involving the goal was a legal and strategic move

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

There's intent to tip it when you rush to keep it on its side as it falls back down.

There was a robot that wasn't attempting to self right at WPI that was "tipping back" that 2791 got in the way of (sorry about that :() and we got a penalty and yellow card.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Did the refs call it? Then it was legal. Was it a NICE move? Probably not. But they did not intentionally destroy 1501's robot. I have heard their defense in other matches was less nice but regarding the issue at hand I feel that since the refs did not call any penalty they felt it was within the spirit of the rules.

EDIT: I do agree that they should have been called for tipping

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Judging by the hit, I would say the intent was to shove Thrust in the goal so that they could not get out, or so they'd at least struggle to get out.

I would consider that entanglement.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Intentional tipping is pretty much impossible to prove, with the elimination of contact outside the bumper zone there is no reason a robot should tip because another bot hits it onflat ground.

As for the legality of pushing THRUST into the goal, I can't see why it would be illegal, quite frankly had they not lost power they should have driven in front of the other goal and prevented all goal scoring the rest of the game.

I have been impressed by THRUST's robots since they started in this competition but quite frankly it doesn't make sense to design a bot that can get pushed into a goal but cant drive out.

As for the entanglement rules, I have only seen them enforced when a robot entangles another robot (i.e. if I have a net on my robot then I need to make sure your robot can't get stuck in it.) It is the responsibility to the team to make sure their own robot can't get entangled with field elements.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

but i dont think that you can automatically say that just because the ref didn't call it that it was legal. refs miss calls all the time.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I don't see that as entanglement, but I could be wrong, it depends on how exactly you define entanglement. If they did something to say get them caught in the netting by the goal or stuck on the chains, I would say that is entanglement because they are caught up on a field element. But being stuck on a lip, I wouldn't call that entanglement. But I haven't gone through referee training so I might be wrong on what the FIRST definition of entanglement is, and if i am, then I apologize, but I liked the hit and the strategy from a defensive standpoint(still citing that the goal is considered in bounds)

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Really? I can see a ref missing a touch that lasts a second but when a robot ends up in a part of the field most robots avoid with another robot in front of them it is pretty obvious what happened. There are calls that are easy to miss (intentional tipping/carrying) but there are calls that are so obvious that the ref is either blind or completely inept. Since I highly doubt that all of the refs at the event were blind or inept I have to go with it is legal.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I agree with you, intentional tipping is very difficult to prove.

Except when a team contacts a robot multiple times and the offensive robot almost tips, and the defensive robot continues to do that until the offensive team actually tips, and then the defensive team prevent the offensive team from righting themselves.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I do not understand the logic. Refs cannot possibly make correct calls in every possible situation. Just because a ref doesn't call something doesn't mean that it's legal.

<G36> outlaws any "entanglement" hazards. I would definitely consider a robot wrapped inside the chains of a goal to be an "entanglement".

When Thrust was trying to right itself at :33 and Rosie pushed it again, Rosie was, in my opinion, in direct violation of <G38a>

With the wording of this rule, I think that Rosie intentionally contacted Thrust outside of the bumper zone, meaning that this play should have resulted in at least a penalty. Whether the contact was "egregious" is an entirely different matter.

I know that during the Finals Match 1 of Palmetto, a team on my alliance (343, actually) accidentally tipped a robot, causing it to become off-balance, and then accidentally bumped into it again below the bumper zone, causing it to fall over. There was a two-second delay in between the driver's commands and the robot's actions. It wasn't even intentional, but it sure looked that way. We were red-carded for this play.

With all this being said, I am unsure if this was an entirely fair and legal play and I am even more unsure as to why this team would want to post this proudly.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

if you agreed that the intentional tip was a missed call, look at the ref in the video. he is watching at that time. missed call. im not saying its terrible that it was missed, im just saying that they CAN be missed.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

The real time scoring did show the score being blue (thrust) up 6-5, i went to the ref station (i am 1501's driving) and asked the ref to call the penalty, he said that they did not see it, even though there were two refs watching very closely.

Note* I talked to the ref BEFORE ELIMINATIONS and talked to him about robot righting and penalties he said "The robot will not be called for a penalty if they are trying to right the overturned robot"... and i said "So if our robot is over on its side, and they contact us from the underside, then it will be a penalty?" and he stated that i was correct. Clearly we were hit on the underside while our robot was tipped over, and the penalty wasnt called. Rosies driver was also in the question box ready to dispute any penalty that would have been called. (None were called)...

In the end, 1501's alliance did eliminate Rosies alliance after a gruesome 4th match. The robot does have some damage, the base plate has been bent and the bumper bolts have sheared through some sheet metal, but its still functional.

I did talk to some members of Rosie after the finals, and made sure everything was ok between our teams, no fueds or anything are held between our teams.

Was it legal? Yes i guess.
Would i do it to another team? Never in a million years
Do I hope the rules change for championships? Deffinately

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Ok, here we go-

All of the contact with THRUST was legal bumper to bumper. The bumper zone this year being higher and the fact that 1501 has a triangular robot makes them easily unstable. They know that, that's why they put on the self righting arm.

The push into the goal is perfectly legal and within the rules. Ref <G22>. Triangular goal mouth, triangular robot.

Our style of defense during both regionals we attended was to disrupt the opposing teams aim, keeping them off the ball and denying access to a ball.

At no point during ANY match were we intentionally trying to destroy the opponents. What people do not realize is that after all of our matches we would congratulate out opponents and ask if they were broken or damaged. None replied they were, including THRUST. See the picture I posted of the two drive coaches shaking hands AFTER the match! A well fought semi final match.

Edit: Our driver was not in the "question box" to dispute any penalty. He was there to clarify a real time scoring issue. A ball was not counted that should have been.

We posted the video because I was asked numerous times after the play if I had video of the match that could be posted.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Entanglement refers to the state of being entangled.

Entangled can be defined as: to make tangled; ensnarl; intertwine

I would say that according to the above definitions, Thrust was entangled in the goal, with no way of getting out.

As a person coming from a driver's background, I look at the game in a certain way. I look at pushing 1501 into the goal as an easy way to remove them from the match, because I know that they cannot get out of the goal, because I saw that they cannot even navigate the ramp going up to the goal. I would say that most people were aware of this when playing defense against Thrust.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I would agree that the intent was to force 1501 into the goal, but I would disagree that that they intended for them to stuck in the goal. There was no way for Rosie to know whether Thrust would have the ability to remove itself from the goal or not. I do not think I would have had my drive team do something similar, but when playing such a high caliber scoring team (like we did at BMR) you try to find anyway to slow their scoring (we just parked in front of the tower keeping them from their near zone). The tipping and then the contact afterwards was aggressive and not within the spirits of the game/rules/FIRST in my opinion, but it happens and I've seen worse.

In short, the tipping and following contact deserves the red card. The pushing into the goal, a grey area.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

(this was after they tipped over, you can see their righter open)

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

However, as evidenced by :33 in the video, not all contact was within the bumper zone. Several teams in both regionals I attended, including mine, were penalized for contacting robots (intentionally and unintentionally) outside of the bumper zone. Sometimes, in very crucial matches like the finals, they were red-carded.

While the legality of pushing 1501 into the goal can be debated, surely the legality of bumping a robot in the act of self-righting cannot.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I like that style of defense and was exactly what this game called for in my opinion, and as you stated, it was a legal clean hit and I was surprised we didnt see it happen earlier. Great Job

We are just going to have to agree to disagree: you say illegal and entanglement, I say clean hit and design flaw

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Awesome defense... probably the best I have seen. Will Rosie be at the Championship this season?

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I agree that at the time it is difficult to determine intent. But when their driver says "i went back and hit them again to make sure they would stay in" I think the intent is clear.

I'm just glad this gray error did not affect the outcome of the event.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I have one thought - pinning against the goal is a commonplace occurrence this season. If the pinned robot is small enough to fit entirely inside the goal and ends up there as a result of said pin, I would think the defender should not be held responsible for that result, as that is a natural risk of pursuing a smaller, more mobile design.

The act in the video appears more aggressive than simply pushing 1501 into the goal after they score a ball, but I don't believe what they did was illegal. Unfortunately, the video gets jittery right when the "stuffing" occurs, making it hard to see exactly how hard they were pushed into the goal. A gentle escort would be far more appropriate than a full force slam dunk.

Relating to the tipping and subsequent extra nudge that happened earlier in the match, I actually feel the initial tipping was incidental (look at the angle Rosie contacted 1501 - it wasn't head-on contact). I would not qualify that as a penalizable offense. The subsequent contact could be flagged, but...

...when does the act of "completing the righting operation" (per <G32>) end? When at least one robot drive wheel returns to contacting the ground? If so, then Rosie violated the 10-second protection rule. If self-righting is defined as extending the self-righting mechanism, then Rosie contacted 1501 again after 1501 deployed their mechanism and started to fall back to normal orientation. I imagine the GDC prefers the former definition, but that's just an assumption. Someone might want to ask for further clarification.

I second the playing possum strategy as a smart ploy to get heavy defenders off your back...even if you aren't tipped. Add histrionics behind the controls to express puzzlement and anger over a faux communication issue, and see if you can dupe your assailants into leaving or at least giving you more room - can you tell I've been watching "Life" on the Discovery Channel of late? :-)

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I do not think the refs can threaten a red card if perfectly legal actions are done again.

I'm not sure if the actions were legal or not. But when the refs say 'if you do it again, it will be a red card,' I wouldn't feel confident calling the actions legal.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I figured it ended when the robot was righted... Isn't that what righting aims to do? I mean, robots tip onto 2 wheels a lot, are they banned from righting?

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I think you're right.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

At what point does awesome defense end and ridiculous violations of the rules begin? Unfortunately, I missed this match, but this video confirms our thoughts of Rosie being too aggressive defensively the entire year.

Regardless of weather the self righting period wad ended, Rosie made contact with a robot outside of the bumper zone.That is a cut-and-dry violation of the rules and deserved a penalty. As for stuffing the robot in the goal, it was clearly intentional, because if you look Rosie was touching the bump before they started pushing 1501, and they didn't stop until they were completely in the goal. I would not call the play entanglement, as our robot got caught on the ledge multiple times, but it may be the most un-GP play of the season.

839 is not attending the championships as of now, they could be on the wait list.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Ok, you got me. That play should have been a penalty.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

When the robot has righted itself and has returned to normal playing configuration. There shouldnt be contact while the righter is engaged

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I think we all agree that the hit during the self righting mode aka contact under the robot was a bit shady/very illegal...

My question is why is everyone giving so much flak about pushing THRUST into the goal? THRUST designed their robot so that it was a triangular robot... which was small enough to fit in the goal........... AND their shooter was on one of the points............... to me... they're asking for it are they not? in my mind it is obvious that a simple push from behind sticks the triangle which is point first into the perfect little cubby hole for it... the goal... It's like when a mechanum robot would play defense on us... are we not supposed to take advantage of their design? we had plaction wheels and pushing gearboxes... we literally back into one defender and moved him across the floor... we got no criticism for this because we were simply trying to do our role as best we could while taking advantage of any and all possible facets of the opponent's design... if we were a smaller robot/a triangle we would have been stuck in the goal many many times when we scored and our defender hit us from behind, except we shot down both those ideas quickly for stability's sake and for the fact that the goal is a perfect fit for storing our robot during the match if we use a triangle frame

All in all my $.63 adds up to a penalty and a yellow for the tipping issue and a pat on the back and applause for Rosie for taking advantage of an aspect of THRUST's design.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Accidents happen. If called for incidental contact, it's a one point penalty. I'm sure they stopped more than one point from being scored.

If I didn't want to get stuck in a goal, I wouldn't build a robot that could get stuck in a goal. I don't see how this is an issue. Looks like smart play to me. Can someone cite a portion of the rules that proves me wrong?

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

All legal robots should have at least one side that can fit in the goal. Which means that for all of our sakes we should be asking whether or not this is a legal move. I have my team drive into the goal all of the time, does this mean that a team is allowed to push my team into the goal in such a way that we cannot get out? This is a question all of us should ask.

And, a large portion of this debate stems from a post that was subsequently deleted, stating that the intend was to shove 1501 into the goal and have them stay there.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I agree 100%. We never got pushed into a goal but I am fairly confidant we couldn't get stuck there if we were. This was something that was thought about during our design process.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I totally agree with everything here, and as a driver I would have done the exact same thing provided I was in this situation. THRUST was pushing a ball into the goal just before they were pushed in, which meant that they were already driving in the direction of the goal. It would have been a different situation if the robots were driving head to head against each other and rosie forced them in the opposite direction, but from what I see in the video it didn't take much effort by rosie to scoot them the rest of the way into the goal.

Reasons why I don't have a problem with this play:

1.) The THRUST Driver obviously was aware that the robot he was controlling could fit into the goal. The defensive play that Rosie played on them was commonplace throughout many regionals this season, and ultimately it was their robots design that trapped them inside the goal.

2.) The goal is part of the field. Robots can drive inside the goal. Getting pushed in the goal and becoming entangled is in essence the same as my teams robot being pushed up the ramp by a defender and being trapped in a way such as this.


(if our frame touches the ground in the back our wheels become lifted off of the floor)

Would you think this is illegal?



.02

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

being with gaelforce...one of their alliance partners...
-it was good defense, you gotta give them that(slightly biased i know lol )
-they did threaten a red card(i do recall hearing)
-and you have to remember it is a new england regional... these regionals are known to be aggressive and destructive...last year we were the victum of some aggression when our robot was drilled in the front destroying our front wooden bumper and bottom two rollers. nothing was given for that. but we all knew it was new england where defense is everything. the only reason we won the ct regional last year was because of defense(thank you 1902:) ) the teams in new england all build very durable robots for this reason.

i do believe their will be a change in rulings because of it though, i dont think the GDC thought teams would build such a small and light robot to be able to get pushed in the goal

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I am fine with how everything worked out in the end, but i am concerned about this... especially since it was an eliminations match...

If a play deserves a red card, then A red card should be called. There is a practice day for calls to slide by, but in eliminations, every penalty fitting should be called.

my $.02

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I know people joke about "New England Defense", but it's really the same as Midwest defense and stuff. Besides, the rules should be the same everywhere, no?

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I would say G36, G37, and G40 for penalties. One of which expressly prohibits the strategy of entangling other peoples robots, and even mentions it being against the spirit of FIRST. I would put this on the border of entangling, and at the very least against the spirit of FIRST.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

thats just what we heard in the stands. and it is also one of those incidents not clearly defined in the rules...and red cards are for those infractions in direct violation of how the rules are written and since this was a gray area it dictated a warning. it may be deemed illegal in the future but idk

the entanglement rule is there for a robot having a mechanism directly designed for disabling another in competition it doesn't necessarily apply to the field of play

with that being said, your robot also scared the crap out of us...it was such a great and agile design. we were very impressed with your team's design. you guys easily could've taken the regional with your alliance(nothing against the winning alliance)

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

i totally agree, that is why i think it will be addressed in an update of the rules

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

While everyone can debated whether this was legal or not. Frankly is ok with me and our team. We shook hands afterwards, joked about it. etc. There are no hard feelings. I am glad the video was posted I certainly wanted to see it again and after the match, I grabbed my Blackberry and snapped a picture of it as well and shook my head. My second thought, was 1024 Kil-o-bytes at Boilermaker joking at me they would do that, and then I see it actually happen.

Samir my driver e-stopped the robot like we were suppose to do, there was no way we can drive out of the goal with memory foam with only 1" of ground clearance. With only 1" of ground clearance, you can not push our robot UP the goal, you can not drive the robot up the ramp. So by design, it wasn't suppose to go up the goalie ramp. There was a gash in the goalie ramp carpet that had to be taped up after the stuffing.

Surely when we designed the robot, we knew a defensive robot was going to be our biggest weakness. It was a risk 1501 took to play the game as we have done. We did not have the self-righter at Boilermaker which was the first time we saw our robot tip and contribute to our upset in the semi's. As you can see our righter was very effective at the CT Regional this weekend and used SEVERAL, SEVERAL times....

GP from Rosie's team was displayed afterwards and we were welcomed by "New England Defense" early in the first quarters match we played and tipped twice in the quarters 12 (seen on our Youtube Channel) as I heard all weekend by various teams New England likes defense. Rosie played the hardest defense I have ever seen in FRC to date. If we could not withstand the defense Rosie was dishing out, then we have not designed a robot that could withstand the defense that probably will be seen in Atlanta. We faked Rosie out several times in the SEMI 1 by traversing the tunnel and playing possum in SEMI 2 which seemed to work, so not all was lost, much needed driver experience was learned from Rosie and how to deal with driving under much pressure.

Our lesson is to learn by these experiences and move on. The most poetic thing was we had a ball in the front when we went into the goal, which was the tie game ball 6-6. Ball first, then robot next.

The triangle design was mostly contributed by the kiwi and 3-wheel drive system along if a robot was pushing us bumper to bumper we would be angled at the goal to make a clear shot anyway. We never thought about fitting into the goal. Small in foot print was by design as we noted Brazil's robot was the best scoring robot at CT we felt and deserved the Gold along with Uberbots. We clearly as a team felt good to be in the finals and wanted to go to Atlanta, put up a great fight with the best team we have ever worked with to date, Gaelhawks 230 and John Niski (230 coach) you are one amazing dude. I appreciated your willingness to work together and you have one heck of a team, we will never forget you. We are certainly honored to meet you and your team. Thanks for the great New England experience.

So before this thread gets too out of hand, there is no reason for anyone to analyze if Rosie did right or wrong, or if we are upset or not because I have written to tell you where we stand.

My students follow and learn from experiences this is how I lead them always in positive ways. They learn by losing, they learn by bad luck, they learn by improving, they learn the dumb FRC rules we all learn to not like, they learn how to cope with defeat, and learn how to overcome. These are all the things this 2010 season has brought us. These experiences can not be learned unless examples like these are set.

I am sure some maybe scratching your heads to my words, but I assure you, all of us Indiana Teams think alike, except some of us Indiana teams have a 5 year head start. The world is never "fair", there is certainly no GP in the real world of competitive products or two companies work against each other to beat up each other to become "king" of the market. That's really the message I want to teach my students to prepare them for college and work. That's the whole reason I do this. Yes ONE blue banner would be nice one of these days, but I've never lost focus of why we as mentors do what we do. It's about preparing the students for "defense" in life, and laugh when your robot gets scored into a goal.

Next time, I'll try and think faster and coach my alliance to use the end of the trident to dig it out of the goal instead of e-stopping and come right back fighting again.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I (personally) don't really care about the legality, we didn't argue that at the time of the match. It was the later comment that has been deleted.... we didn't bring this up.

That being said, I guess I just don't see the pride in beating a team by taking out their robot.... I'd rather lose to a team knowing we both competed at our best than to win by taking them out....

It's how I coach my 5th grade basketball team, how I'll coach my FLL team, and how I'd call it if I were a drive coach. If that's how a team preferred to play, then regardless of how good there bot was, I wouldn't choose them for my alliance.... if you can't win/don't want to win 3 on 3, than you probably don't deserve to win, in my estimation.

Not saying it's necessarily right or wrong, it's just how I prefer to go about things. Feel free to blast me now.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I don't think they are. Some of our referees have been around since the days of the overcrowded Manchester high school gym. The rules might be the same on paper, but the way they get interpreted is different.

In 2007, arms got whacked all over the place at BAE. Not a single penalty was called, but IIRC this was a big source of penalties around the country.

Same thing in Triple Play (2005). There was tons of arm contact, but no (or at least very few) penalties. IMHO, it was a much more interesting game when played defensively.

At least, this was true in Manchester. BAE recently got a new head ref, so this era may be at an end. I certainly saw way more yellow/red cards this year than ever before.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Dana Henry is one of my favorite people in FIRST - a real hero. Chris Elston is one of my newest favorite people in FIRST - another real hero. Great job, mentors!

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I do not think Rosie's move to push 1501 into the goal was illegal. If you look at the greater context of the "entanglement" usage in other rules (and it's roots in the 2002 game), you can reach the conclusion that it's based on entangling another bot with your robot.

It isn't explicitly stated that's what "entanglement" means in <G36>, but my educated guess leads me to believe that's the spirit of the rule.

I would suggest you don't do that, as you'll receive a penalty and become disabled.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

IMHO 1501 was the class robot of the regional. In hindsight, I wish we had built that robot. Fast, accurate and agile, 1501 had all the moves.
It was terrific meeting all of them. We were very happy to have them in the house.
I agree that Rosie contacted the underside, but they backed off. More importantly it was bumper to bumper all the way into the goal.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

By your own definition, they are NOT entangled. They are held in the goal by the lip at the front edge of the goal and 1501s inability to climb that lip. The goal area is legal for robots to enter, and thus teams are allowed by the rules to pin (for up to 5 seconds) another robot in the goal. Thats what Rosie did.

Was it nice? no. Was it legal? Yep. Was it GP? It's within the rules so yes.

As far as contact during self righting goes ... it probably should have been a yellow card, but it's difficult to see what the refs saw. Rosies driver is on the other side of the field and may not have seen the self righting attempt or even the full orientation of THRUST (they are a small bot). I'm not excusing Rosie on that count, but it's a refs judgement call on a split second action.

Anyways, THRUST, welcome to New England style defense :D. I hope nothing was damaged. Your little bot is pretty cool. Good luck and it's nice to see other 4-H teams doing well.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Perhaps I have interpreted the definition of Entanglement wrong. I was looking more towards it's meaning of to ensnare, which I thought could be applied in this situation.

Also, a lot of my opinion and arguments were based on a post that was later deleted, stating that the intent of the defensive move was to put Thrust's robot in the goal and have them stay there for the rest of the match. If this were done again the offending team was going to be red-carded - to me it sounds like this defensive tactic was considered against the rules by the referees.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Anyway, I think I'm done debating this point for now, I think it might get me into trouble. (If anyone would like to continue this feel free to PM me)

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Speaking as a member of Team 230 a partner of Team 1501 in that alliance, I must agree that if it was completely legal they would not tell you you would get a red card next time. In particular it was indicated that the only reason you did not get it initially was because they did not see you do it. This was very much not GP, it made me sad to read the subsequently-deleted post stating that your driver was proud of doing it.

I also hope that GDC clarifies their position on this, the rules should not change in New England because some of the teams are so big on defense.

I also agree with Chris here... and thank him for pointing out that in real life things are not always fair and we all need to teach our students to deal with those situations. There are many, many lessons to be learned in FIRST... often times they are beyond the technical aspects of the competition.

It was great meeting you and working with your team. (I personally noticed and LOVED the fake outs that had the defense confused. :confused:) We were a great alliance - unfortunately just not quite good enough in the end to get you that blue banner.

We hope to see you in CT again... maybe next year??? :)

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

...Neither do I....

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I was watching on the side when our robot was scored into the goal (the flood of photographers was quite amusing). The first thing that flew through my mind was "how in the world is that possible?" Before we started any regional we went and put our robot into the goal to see if it was even possible and if we could get out. We knew before hand the risk. Personally I never expected it to happen (unless 1024 was going to do it for us).

Rosie was a tough defense. We had seen something close to it in our semifinals at Purdue, which was when we decided if we went any further we would need a righter device. Aside from the penalty at :33, I don't believe any other penalty was deserved. As the discussion has brought up, the rules say it is legal to be in the goal. If we had attempted to, I'm sure we could have found a way to have gotten ourselves out, so I do not believe we were "entangled" in any way, just unluckily sitting on our base rather than our wheels.

I personally inspected our robot right after that match and found no major problems with the robot. We had a tough time getting the bumpers off of our robot and a couple of decent dents on two of our sides, nothing that goes to show that they were intentionally trying to shut us down permanently.

I believe that Rosie was giving us a fight for our money and did so successfully. Rough housing isn't against the rules (but I wouldn't mind the high speed ramming rule to come back) and as has been stated, our teams shook hands after that match.

Thank you Team Rosie for giving us the fight of our year during those semifinals. It was great playing against you.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

My thoughts on this are that everything (except that underside blow) they did was legal and fell under the definition of GP.

Being the big defensive robot at Wisconsin, I've found that the community creates a very fine-line between defense and over-aggression that eliminates our ability to compete to our fullest.

Pushing 1501 into the goal was an amazing strategic move. They backed off for a second to make sure they weren't shoving them through to endanger the human player. Then, anticipating 1501 to come back out, they moved forward again to combat them. No different then pinning.

There is nothing wrong with this maneuver. It is just plain, good defense. The way you guys are arguing is telling me that teams that play defense should back off a bit so the offensive teams have a better chance of scoring. We spent 6+ weeks building a robot that directly combats that and we have the right to compete to our fullest within the rules.

If this community allows teams to build offensive robots of the level of those like 217, 148, 1114, and 234, then why aren't we allowed to build and use defensive robots of that level?

And just for good measure, how do we feel about this match? We were in a pushing match with team 2826, and they tipped. Them and 2194, were some of the better scorers up against our alliance with not-so-good ones. So instead of allow 2194 to right 2826, we decided to play defense on them and not let them do that. They wasted the rest of the match, only scoring one more ball after that tip. Defense or overly-aggresive?

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

What I find a bit humorous about this really has nothing to do with the rules or GP. To me what I find funny is, our team had placed a sticker on the inside of our Drivers Station that read "Robots are not Points!". This was placed there as a reminder/joke for our driver this year.
You see, during practice in our lab, her jammed the robot into the goal three times, literally blowing it apart each time.

"Robots are not Points" is now one of our team motto's.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I must disagree. The reason it is not illegal the first time is because the Referees don't expect the drivers to know whether Robot A is going to get stuck in the goal when Robot B pushes him in.

The reason it IS illegal the second time is because the Referees expect you to understand that essentially removing a robot from the competition by pushing them into a goal after you KNOW what the result will be is thoroughly un-GP and can be ruled illegal a couple different ways.

In this case they were playing defense solely to disable the other robot. Pinning is one thing - shoving them in the goal and planting them there is another. There was no ball, they weren't trying to keep them out of the goal. So the second time around, it clearly should be a red card (once they know the result of putting that other robot in the goal).

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I'm proud to say I was part of that flood of photographers. Here are a few of the shots I got-

(Click for larger versions)

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Thank you so much Marc! I was going to hunt some of those down later today. These are some great shots, too! Thanks man!

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Did you get any TOP DOWN views?

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

The camera work in that recording keeps cutting away so it is tough to tell exactly what happened

Did 2194 ever contact 2826 to try to right them?
If so then did 930 contact either robot within the 10 after the righting attempt started?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions then I would say 930 violated <G32> which is a penalty and possibly a Red Card. However if 930 prevented 2194 from ever getting to 2826 to start righting then that is legal (provided there was no other rule violates, pinning, etc...).

It is like tower protection during the finale. You dont have to let a opposing robot get to the tower (or fallen robot in this case) but once they are there you shouldnt be in contact with them. Much like tower defence the defender is walking a fine line and should be aware of the risks of penalty and Red Card associated with their actions (not confused and mad when they violate a rule and get penalised as we have seen on this forum)

I have watched a lot of matches and at most regionals I dont see G32 being enforced. Even worse it seems like most defensive robot drivers react to an opposing robot trying to right a partner by hitting them. That should be a penalty and probably a Red Card. However, if they are not penalised it only reinforces that habit. I hope that <G32> will be a point of emphasis in Atlanta. Also, as a general strategy point, if you are defending and you flip someone (which happens a lot because the bumpers are so required to be so high off the ground this year but that is another rant) leave the flipped bot alone until they are righted, they aren't likely to score from their back. Go defend another bot (that is not righting them) or clear some balls out of the zone. You are only risking penalties by being around the flipped bot.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Tom,

Please quote the "couple" of rules you believe Rosie broke.

*Note: Entanglement isn't one since 1501 was just high centered, not entangled. Pinning isn't one since once 1501 was in there Rosie backed off. Disablement isn't one since the robot was fully functional, just unable to move.*

... and unless you can show a rule then I challange your assertation that it is UN-GP. GP is something you strive to live by, not measure others by.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Unfortunately I didn't, just from the side and front. I'll double check when I get home to see if I have any better perspectives from the side that show how far in the robot went. I believe the bumpers were sticking out no more than an inch, while the base stuck out 3-4".

I didn't want to intrude on the drivers station during the match, and didn't think to take any shots from behind or above after it ended (I forgot there was transparent lexan on the top of the goal). In retrospect, that would have been a great shot.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I have been riveted to my seat reading this thread and looking at all of the photos and the video. 1501 being stuffed into a goal while scoring certainly adds to their wonderful history as a team. I can only imagine the lessons learned on so many levels for the teams involved and it is good to see that the teams involved have such excellent attitudes about the experience. Weighing the pros and cons of a design and making decisions and living with them while continuing to improve during the season - is part of the challenge. Understanding and playing by the rules is another part of the challenge.

Thank you, Chris Elston, for sharing your insight and wisdom regarding the experience. It reflects well on you and on 1501.

Jane

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I have to agree with Daniel here. There seems to be an awful lot of rule inventing in an effort to castigate Rosie. If I build a shoe box sized robot, do I get extra protection from all the mean 120 lbs robots? I hope not.

I will even go farther and say that the ":33 sec" bump may not even be a penalty. I saw Rosie tip an unstable robot on its side then move away. As it moved back, 1501 simultaneously actuated its righter and landed back into Rosie, causing them to retip. Despite the hot air bravado post, I think Rosie's driver played a good and stiff (but measured) defense. Retrospectively he let his mouth (er fingers) run a little too much which is why I assume he took his posts down. If his intent had been to disable 1501, he could have easily continued the tip onto it's back. Instead he left to go play defense elsewhere until 1501 was active again.

I say keep up the good work Rosie. You built a nice strong robot, use it to your advantage.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Daniel, under <T05>, a ref can assign a yellow card for "egregious robot behavior". If you told the team that they shouldn't do something (like push another team up the bump, knowing that they couldn't get off), and they did it anyway, the refs could bring out the yellow--the team knows that the refs could call that egregious behavior, and should try to avoid that.

The contact with a robot trying to right itself is a minimum of a penalty if it's inadvertent and a red card if it's intentional. I haven't watched the video yet, so I'll hold off on making that call until (and assuming) I see it. <G37-c-ii> does not apply if the robot is righting themselves, so that's a penalty and possibly a red card if contact was made intentionally or damages the robot substantially. (From the descriptions, penalty only would be the likely call.)

Stuffing a robot into the goal is less clear. I've seen mecanum robots go sideways into the goal under the influence of another robot and not be able to come out because their wheels on one side of their drivetrain were below the lip. No penalty was ever called. It's possible to get a yellow card, depending on how loosely <G36> is interpreted, specifically the "entanglement" part. Apparently, a robot stuffed in a goal and not able to get out is not considered "entangled", therefore, no penalty. This may change for the Championships, but we'll see about that tomorrow or next week.

In short, there was at least one possible penalty/red card for the hitting a tipped robot and a clean play that should not have netted a penalty or a card unless it was consistently repeated.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I think one of the biggest compliments a team can receive for their robot is the fact that other alliances are forced to change their style of play.

1501's greatest strength is also a weakness. Their small, swift, light robot is just that - small, swift, and light.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I hope the interest in this thread translates into a very full and competitive field next year. It is a great regional. Aggressive and fair. Come to play:D

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

From the video alone, you should be able to see Rosie drive toward 1501 as it began the righting action. I saw it in person too. They didn't "leave to go play defense", 1501 played possum to get them to stop defending.

This is something they agree on and the refs missed. No big deal overall, but what happened happened and it changed the outcome of the match.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Well, if you're going to use this opportunity to drum up some business, you should take advantage of Rosie's annual Ziti Dinner, too.

You could advertise and say:
Come one come all to Rosie's World Famous Ziti Dinner and get stuffed.
--
Sorry - there are just way too many opportunities to pass up here.

Jane

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Good thing it's not a blood drive!

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

This is very interesting. I do not think I have seen something like this in FIRST in a while. Made me giggle a little bit.

Cass

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I'd suggest you watch the video, it's interesting, enlightening, and exciting.

I don't see <T05> coming into play as Pinning a team against the goal is no different than pinning a team against the side wall, with the exception that a team (through design) may not be able to get out of the goal on their own. I've seen much worse hits this year against the walls of the field with not a peep from the crowds here ;).

<G37-c-ii> is not in force because 1501 was trying to self right. <G32> may be enforced depending on if the ref believed Rosie initiated the contact or the contact was initiated by 1501s self righting mechanism, and whether or not the ref beliieved the contact was intentional. I cannot say what the ref was seeing/thinking but from the video I'd say Rosie should have recieved a penalty for inadvertant contact.

<G36> is specifically for Robot-to-Robot contact and therefore should not be enforced should the field entangle a robot. Also 1501 was not entangled, but instead was high centered.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Daniel, I specifically called out the "egregious behavior". If a bully continually stuffed you into a locker, despite warnings from school administration, that's egregious behavior. If Rosie had, in subsequent matches, stuffed 1501 into the goal again, that would be egregious behavior if the refs had said something to them about not doing that. That would warrant a yellow card. It's almost the same as if a robot has a nasty habit of flying off the bump and landing on an opponent on the other side "unintentionally".

I thought that I'd made it quite clear that <G37-c-ii> did not apply because the robot is righting itself. Apparently, some people have a hard time understanding what I write.:rolleyes:

Again, the penalty or red card would depend on what exactly happened. The fact that there wasn't either with the refs watching is disappointing, or it indicates that 1501 initiated the contact (at which point, there should have been a penalty anyway under the rule that prohibits robots from interacting with balls or other robots while righting themselves or a partner, just going the other way).

I stated that it would have to be a very loose interpretation of <G36>. It's one that would be so loose that any ref with that interpretation would probably be overruled by the Head Ref on the spot the first time it happened. Also, if a robot caused another robot to tangle with the field, then that might be grounds for calling it, assuming that it was done routinely (intent to entangle).

Again, penalty or red card possible for the contact with a tipped robot, no penalty for the goal-stuffing unless it was done repeatedly.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

What's something "like this"? I thought everyone going into panic mode with loosely defined factions was normal for CD...

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I completely agree, the more you have to change your strategy, the better the game! We had to change our strategy and play a new way against Rosie, and it worked for a few points until they came back.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I watched the match from the sidelines and was surprised there was no penalty called by the Referees for pushing 1501 into the goal, since at the time it looked to me like the defense crossed the line from "spirited" into over-aggressive. (In my younger years I used to referee a very physical contact sport so I'm familiar with policing that particular line, albeit when player safety was at risk.)

In hindsight after watching the video several times I don't see a egregious violation of any specific rule, so I'm not critical of the lack of penalty. Equally, if a penalty had been called, I would not be arguing that it was undeserved.

Finally, perhaps it's the context of a well established New England team against visiting team from a historically strong region, but the choice of thread title also seems unnecessarily provocative.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

We played with and against 1501 at BMR. They were very quick and quick to score, and we noticed they got very close to going into the goal when scoring sometimes.

One of our alliance partners specifically asked the refs about "what if they got pushed into the goal when they were scoring?". The response was if it happened once it would probably be considered inadvertent contact, and no penalty. If it happened twice, it would probably be considered intentional and a yellow card.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I agree with Gracie, I would rather win a game where everyone is playing than disable an opponent and take advantage of them. My motto is "Do unto others as you would have do unto to you" That's just me.
I feel our team would right a tipped robot after the ten seconds have elapsed. We would probably score a ball (or two) before we righted you, but you would be back in the game. At BMR, Team 292 did but they didn't wit the 10 seconds. The driver was later asked why he did it and he said "It seemed like the right thing to do."
We probalby shouldn't attend the IRI because everyone now knows that we can be stuffed into the goal. Maybe we should make up some buttons that say "I Stuffed THRUST!" Maybe we can get Pizza Hut to sponsor us :D
I saw the video and you can clearly see that Rosie backs off but runs forward as we are tipping back upright. They are clearly trying to stop us from righting ourselves and should have been penalized.
What was funny was after we played dead, and Rosie left, we scored a ball before they could get back to us again.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

So you believe that because 1501 designed their robot in such a way that it will get trapped if it goes into a legal part of the field, that it is "egregious behavior" to push them there? Maybe we should all design our robots to get trapped if we get pushed up against the side rails of the field ;) .

You were perfectly clear, and I was agreeing with you. I was adding that <G32> may have been enforced instead. I'm not always disagreeing with you ;)

Again agreed. I would be very disappointed if it were interpreted that way considering the opening sentence of <G36>.

I'd actually like to know what rule the ref was referring to when he told Rosie that they would be red carded if they did it again. It might give more insight as to his thought process (maybe something I'm not grasping here)

Agreed on the red card for contact with a tipped robot.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the goal stuffing.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I'm thinking this way.

It's not egregious behavior--the first time. It's just strategy. If the same team did it again, then you could argue proven intent to disable and use a combination of <T05> and <G36> (somewhat loosely interpreted) to issue a yellow card. If it happened a third time, with the same team, red card. At the same time, issue a warning to all future opponents that they need to be careful when this team is near the goals and suggest that design modifications be made to the robot that gets trapped to avoid the issue entirely.

That's the way I think the ref was thinking, and the reason that egregious behavior could be called. Because it didn't happen again, no penalty, no card, no foul, no nuttin'.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

I pretty much agree with Daniels post above. I saw this happen in Portland to a team with a 6 omni-wheel drive. They were sitting in front of a goal sideways trying to defend it and the offensive robot pushed it in sideways, it took a bit of time for them to free themselves of the goal.

If you design a robot that can't compete when it's pushed on the a legal part of the field then you may have an issue there. This may not be considered a "nice" move by some, but playing strong, but no over aggressive defense is vital to this game. Should it be red carded or a be penalty called? In my opinion no, although I'll go with whatever the refs say on this matter.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Their robot is designed not to even go up those ramps. It's difficult to push them up, and the carpeting was torn afterward.

Just thought I'd clarify that it's not a robot that is designed that way...

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

So, again, if a robot gets trapped against the side rails due to it's design (is designed not to interact with the side rails of the field), and damages them when it comes into contact with them, then it is a "egregious behavior" to push them up against the side rails?

It's no different than pushing a team over the bump if they are not designed to go there, or into the goal if they cannot get out.

If anything 1501 damaged the field due to their design.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

That's like saying if you flip a team that has a hook and push them across the floor, tearing up the carpet with said hook, the flipped team damaged the field with their design. 1501 didn't do anything, another robot manipulated them up a ramp, so how can THEY have damaged the field?

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

Team X damages carpet because they're doing something they aren't designed to do, under the influence of another team. <G13> is applied. No penalty is given.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

It is my opinion that anything that can be done by simply pushing a bot cannot be ruled as illegal unless of course the opponent is trying to hang but that is because a bot is trying to pull itself off of the ground. All 839 did was push 1501 across the field.

This is the same thing as when teams push defensive bots into goals and trap them there. These teams are doing nothing wrong and 839 didn't do anything wrong either.

I have to admit when I first took a look at 1501's robot pushing them right into the goal was the first thing that came to my mind.

Re: Rosie stuffs Thrust
 

After all is said & done, you have to look at what each driver was going through at the heat of the moment. I was FTAA here & it is impossible to see everything that happens on the field. I didn't see the commotion about the tipping, but the pushing in the goal was really noticed by everybody. You can't say that just Rosie was the only team that did some things that were considered questionable. I saw many matches, but that was just what happens "in the heat of the moment" I only saw Thrust get shoved into the goal once, so in my opinion, they got caught up in the excitement. Thrust was & is a formidable robot, no question about it. Rosie was just trying to defend the goal. I saw other robots get shoved into the goals, it's just that Thrust's design denies them the ability to reverse out. As for the ripped carpet, this happens. The only penalties were called if a robot was spinning it's wheels intentionally & burning up the carpet. This happened at the Suffield Shakedwon & resulted in going through the carpet, plastic tarp & slightly scoring the gym floor.

All in all, I thought CT was a great competition. Rosie has built a robot that can go far in the competition.

To all teams headed to Atlanta, good luck!