Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I just wanted to post a couple of things I found interesting that happened at the Detroit District this past weekend.

This is in no means criticism of the refs or any team's gameplay. Just some things that might affect the way you play for the rest of the season so to make you aware...

First...since I've received several PM's concerning our "illegal" mini-bot deployment mechanism and what we "tried to get away with this year"... Here's a quick video of it deploying at the end of one of our matches. The item in question was since that the 4-bar is slightly traveling in an upward motion when the mini-bot hits the pole, it is contributing to the upward motion of the mini-bot which is illegal... You be the judge, but we promptly removed it after it was brought to our attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5hmtndWAs8

In this match, we no longer have a mini-bot so we are scoring tubes until the end of the match. We received a red card for this match because the last tube we picked up touched the tower base as we picked it up and it was during the end game. Right or wrong...you decide... Just be careful around those towers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQoHIFCLWs

The final one is one I really still have a question about. In this match, excellent defense was being played on us and when we tried to go for the tower, they got between us and the tower and we pushed them into the base of the tower. We then backed off slightly, they didn't move, and then pushed them again... You can see the video (although there are some refs in the way, you still can get the point)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP5sGFJJv-M

My question is this...is this pinning (you can see we are getting a countdown for pinning)? Should this be a red card for the red team for contact with the tower in the end game (regardless of pinning)? If not, is it a viable defense now to just "get pinned" between a team wanting to deploy and their tower?

Again, no fault on the refs as I feel this is a slightly gray area that needs clarification...

Thoughts?

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

The slight upward motion of the 4bar does make it seem illegal, unless you could show them that your 4bar swings out, stops, then the minibot climbs under its own power.

The tube hitting the base during endgame is technically a red card, unfortunately.

The last one should have been a red card for the team in contact with your tower, during endgame, absolutely no contact is allowed with the opposing towers/robots at the towers.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

My two cents, for what they are worth...

Deploy is illegal - minibot is being released with vertical momentum.

Third video is not pinning at all. You are not inhibiting their motion. Don't they get a red card for touching your tower?

I don't believe 469 was trying to game the rules in any way - I just think the minibot rules are kinda messy.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

As part of the 3rd video, I actually thought our alliance was going to get a red card for contacting your tower. I was surprised when we didn't (side note: it didn't affect the outcome of this match as the blue alliance won.) I would also like to see this clarification.

During the strategy adjustment discussion after this match, we made sure to state that we want to avoid this situation in the following matches so we wouldn't get red carded.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

There was a double disqualification in one of the semi-final matches at Chesapeake. The red alliance received their red card after an apparently disabled robot was pushed against the blue tower base with about 40-50 seconds left where it remained until the endgame. So it does appear that the red card is automatic even for non-intentional touching.

This means that a non-moving robot is at severe risk of causing disqualification of it's own alliance, since it will typically start very close to the opposition's tower.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

According to that I would say that you were pinning in the 3rd video.

And according to that, since you pushed them into the tower they did not get penalized.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I agree with the refs/inspectors calls on all of these. For the last one the robot that gets pinned against your tower gets G61 protection from the red card while you are still pinning them. If you were to back away from them at least 6ft for at least 3 sec (to cancel pinning), then after that they are still touching your tower, I interpret that as being a red card and a penalty on them since you are no longer pinning them (causing them to touch your tower).

Lesson learned from Chesapeake, if your partner's robot dies and gets pushed into an opponent's tower, your alliance needs to push them away from it before the endgame to avoid the red card & penalty. This happened twice in Elims.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

<G32> and <G33> include a <G61> exception. There is no exception to <G61> in <G23>. So I think the referee in Detroit was right to begin a pin count when your robot pushed an opponent into your tower -- <G61> prevents you from causing an opponent to violate <G23>, so their resulting contact with your tower satisfies the definition of PINNING in <G50>: "An ALLIANCE may not pin an opponent ROBOT that is in contact with a field border or TOWER ..."

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Thanks for posting these up. I had heard about the deployment system, but it is good to actually see it. After watching, you can find a Q&A that warns about this type of system.

The tube touching the tower thing is rough, but by rules the right call. I don't think it is in the "spirit" of what the rule was intending, but this is consistent with what I have seen on other fields.

I have been curious how the last one would get called since they starteddoing the revisions. What 3096 was initially doing was completely legal. Pushing them into the base is completely legal up to the "pinning" time limit thus the count. Because 469 did not back up more than 6 feet for 3seconds, then they were essentially still implementing the pin.
<G50> An ALLIANCE may not pin an opponent ROBOT that is in contact with a field border or TOWER for more than 5 seconds. A ROBOT will be considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least 6 feet. The pinning ROBOT(S) must then wait for at least 3 seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again. Violation: 10 PENALTIES
BLUE BOX: If the pinned ROBOT chases the pinning ROBOT upon retreat, the pinning ROBOT will not be penalized per Rule <G61>, and the pin will be considered complete.
<G61> The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.
Unless otherwise noted, all PENALTIES assigned by referees are applied to the entire ALLIANCE.

What is interesting is that had 3096 come back after 469, the pin would have ended and they may have gotten a tower violation.

These are 3 rough calls that definitely head to the grayer areas of the rules, but likely the right calls.

P.S. Amazing robot/team. I can't wait to play with/against you guys at Troy. Hoping for more with than against...

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Can't see the video at work, so no comments on the minibot beyond there should be no need for complaint against your team after the removal.

Agreeing on both accounts.



Again, I cannot see the video, but based on my reading, I think these are the applicable rules:

<G23> Contact (via ROBOT or GAME PIECE) with the opposing ALLIANCE‟S TOWERS is prohibited. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD

<G25> During the END GAME, ROBOTS/HOSTBOTS in contact with their ALLIANCE‟S TOWER are protected and may not be contacted by an opponent. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; PENALTY plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

<G50> An ALLIANCE may not pin an opponent ROBOT that is in contact with a field border or TOWER for more than 5 seconds. A ROBOT will be considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least 6 feet. The pinning ROBOT(S) must then wait for at least 3 seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again. Violation: 10 PENALTIES

Note: this is not <G32> or <G33> so <G61> applies:
<G61> The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.
Unless otherwise noted, all PENALTIES assigned by referees are applied to the entire ALLIANCE.

I think that in this case, the refs got it right assuming the other team makes no movements other than trying to back away from the tower (without hitting your robot while in contact with the tower).
Reasoning:
You have pushed them into the tower, so by <G61>, <G23> is not applicable. They are against the tower, so <G50> has the potential to be in effect (since I cannot see video, it is impossible to know).

I quoted <G25> for the potential solution (again, no video so I do not know your drive train and how difficult/easy this may be)): push the other team close to the tower (but not touching), disengage, then move toward the tower. The key here is to leave little room so the other team cannot get between you and the tower or push you before getting to the tower. Alternatively, keep pushing them down the center past the tower and then turn to the tower.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

All,

Let me set the record straight about the 469 minibot. First of all, it was awesome to see it work, but I immediately saw that it was a violation within the rules. Other "friends of 469" saw it too. We brought it to their attention.

The ghostly white look on their faces told the story ... they didn't even think about that they were causing upward momentum.

They didn't argue. they simply removed the device and never used it again. How many of you would have done the same thing? I know this team. They are of the highest integrity and more any team I have seen in FIRST in recent years. If you question that then you just don't know them at all.

In any case, the students and mentors should be proud of their actions on and off the field this weekend.

Paul

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

Third video: it shouldn't be a red card on red since blue pushed them into the tower. Can't cause you're opponent to get a penalty (except for lane/zone incursion).

As far as pinning, I would have started the count just in case but doesn't really look like pinning in the end to me.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

This is a separate issue, but I think it is worth discussing as it is on topic.

This is a hard one to judge. First, I don't know enough to disagree or agree with the ruling as there are two possibilities.

1) Other alliance ends up pushing dead robot into tower <G61> causes no problems.
<G61> The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.
Unless otherwise noted, all PENALTIES assigned by referees are applied to the entire ALLIANCE.

2) Dead robot dies against the tower or is pushed by alliance into tower: <G23>
<G23> Contact (via ROBOT or GAME PIECE) with the opposing ALLIANCE‟S TOWERS is prohibited. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD

The issue for the refs is who "pushed last" as chances are multiple teams would have bumped dead robot in passing. In addition, chances are the ref will not see all of the contact as their eyes will be elsewhere. Unless I know for sure that dead team's alliance pushed them into the tower or they died against it, I would be not give the red card.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I want that deployment to be legal, but it does violate the rules, however slightly. I can see where you would have overlooked it, too. The upward force is insignificant, and combined with the impact on the pole, negligible.
Best of luck on a new system.

HOWEVER, after watching the video about 10 times to look at the upward force, I noticed you broke a much more obvious and important rule. Your alignment device, two pieces of metal, broke the plane of the tower base perimeter. I don't really feel like tearing through the rules right now, but to the best of my knowledge, no part of your robot can enter the base perimeter until the finale starts. This might be worth investigating before you head over to Troy.

Re: Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District
 

I would be interested to know what rule it is you are referring to as none I know exist. The two closest are <G05> which is prematch and <G17> which only applies to the minibot crossing the tower cylinder, not the hostbost/robot.