Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

For # 3, 469 should have tried to go around the 'pinned' robot. The instant the robot chased 469 to continue blocking, it would (should) have received a red card for tower contact. They were smart for just sitting there.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I'll keep this short since I have already had this discussion for an hour on the car ride home and I always agreed with the call (I expected it before the endgame even started) even though it went against my alliance. I also don't want to completely hijack this thread (although it is related), I just wanted to warn people about a rule they might not think about.

G61 does not apply here for an opponent pushing this dead robot into the tower once the pinning period (back away > 6ft for more than 3 sec) has ended (they are no longer causing it, and there is no rule violation yet). As a veteran of FIRST it is easy to get used to the old rules where you could hit the E-Stop and be immune from further penalties. Those days are gone and you now get a Red Card for hitting your E-Stop unless it is a safety emergency. There is no protection for dead robots or even mention of dead robots in the rules (so there is no way for a ref to declare them dead and exempt from penalties), they are the alliance's responsibility to clear those dead robots or they will get penalties if they sit there until the End Game.

However, the real grey area is if an opponent tips a robot onto the tower, since there are rules about tipping. I say no penalty/red card in this case, but it is open to interpretation.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

WOW. Two events and 80 robots later i have yet to see someone take advantage of that...
I'd been running under the assumption that the hostbot cannot enter the vertically projected border, but it clearly only talks about the minibot. That makes 469's alignment perfectly legal, then.
I'm really surprised more people haven't done this, then.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I had the same mistaken thought as Collin until I re-read the rules recently. The confusion stems from the multiple revisions of the definition of DEPLOY. One of the earlier definitions was something along the lines of any part of your robot crossing the tower perimeter = deploying. Thus some of us have internalized a non-existent rule that no part of your robot may cross the tower perimeter until endgame.

Rereading the rules as they currently stand makes it clear that this is no longer the case and all the pre-alignment mechanisms are perfectly legal, provided the minibot doesn't cross the boundary before the endgame.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I guess with the key of "there is no rule violation yet" it is ultimately the correct way to call this, which is not a ruling a like. It seems too easy too take advantage of. I guess it falls under the category of "Team "X" did <G##> unintentionally. Sorry, design better."

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Unfortunately, yes this is illegal :(.
They are being very strict that no upwards motion can be imparted on the minibot by the hostbot.
The letter of the rule is you cannot touch the tower, even with a tube with no opponent near.

As far as pinning goes, yes thats pinning. You did not back away far enough or long enough.

As far as your opponent getting a red card ... that depends.<G61> protects them from you causing a penalty against them, but If the referee believed that your opponent did not attempt to get away from the tower then yes they could get a red card.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

From looking at the videos, it appears to me that the refs made the correct calls in all three cases...

Thanks for posting these up -- it's a good heads-up for teams that have not yet competed!

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

So after watching the third video and going strictly by the rules the blue alliance should have received 10 penalties for pinning, or am I missing something?

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I can't tell when the pin countdown started from the video...

...but maybe, yeah.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Don,

You bring up a great point, and I wanted to post something similar that happened at the Chesapeake Regional this past weekend that had opposite outcomes (Two Red Cards Given). Check out what I posted over the weekend:

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Let me warn of an 'interesting' call at West Michigan.

In the qualifications matches, if a human player throws a tube and it accidentally brushes a hanging tube and descores it, it isn't a DSQ.

In the eliminations - it's an instant loss for that human player's team, AND their alliance.

We had a fairly precariously seated uber-tube that we had hung. It (evidently) was brushed by a tube thrown by the other alliance's human player. It fell, and they were DSQ'ed from the 2nd quarterfinals match, ending their day.

It's a lousy way to lose, but it's in the rules. Watch out.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Thanks for all the comments and discussion...

For our deployment...the last thing I'll say is that it's a little more complicated that it initially looks in the video that could be a basis for it being legal. However, the fact that some friends that we trust brought it to question made us immediately decide it was too close to call (argue) and in order to not risk anything, we decided to change. Our deployment will be better than ever at Troy...

The second video was mostly just a warning that even something as innocent as this can get your team DQ'd in quals (or your alliance DQ'd in elims)...

As for the third video...I know how the rules read. However, I still have questions because the conclusions that have come to here give way to some very powerful defense techniques. We all are realizing that the mini-bot (whether we like it or not) is the key to winning this year.

In this video, you can also see that our alliance is playing hard defense on 51 who had an outstanding mini-bot. However, as soon as it got close to the tower, 2832 got out of there to avoid the red card. However, should they have "gone limp" and let themselves get pushed into the tower? If this is allowed, then to stop teams with great mini-bots is to just get in the way and get pushed into the tower and get pinned... At the minimum, they have to back away 6ft for 3 seconds...and then the mini-bot race is lost...

I see this just like the robots getting pushed into the opponent scoring zone. Even though they get pushed into the scoring zone, it's still a penalty (yes...provided the pushing team is trying to score...etc...).

Maybe I'll ask Q&A...

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I completely agree with you, Don. I think this needs to be addressed somehow. As the rules are now it makes it too easy to defend the towers.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Add four more bars and turn it into a Peaucellier-Lipkin straight-line linkage.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

If you want to avoid a robot "going limp" start your return to the tower earlier and change your approach angle. By approaching the tower from the angle in the video (basically a line from the center of the field to the tower), the defending robot is pushed no where near the lane. If the defending robot is pushed into the lane they get a penalty regardless of G61 (and you are highly unlikely to get a yellow card). If you approach on any side where the lane is exposed the defending robot is less likely to go limp and get push into a lane violation. Also, once you push the robot near the tower (before it is touching the tower), you can use the tower as a screen as you drive around to the other side of the tower. Just my $0.02 for how to drive around this defense.