Re: <G28>
 

Generally, yes, one robot shouldn't be able to force a penalty on another robot. BUT, you want an exception to that when BLUEBOT is in REDBOT's way. REDBOT should be able to force a penalty on BLUEBOT in order to provide a motive for BLUEBOT to get out of the way. If REDBOT wasn't able to make BLUEBOT get a penalty, BLUEBOT would have no reason to get out of REDBOT's key/alley. That's why they made G28 be the one exception to G44, just as a deterrent for disrupting the game flow.

Re: <G28>
 

Reading through the rules, this one is a real head scratcher.
To make sure I've got the correct (pre-update) interpretation of this...

All intent aside, a referee witnesses:
A redbot overpowers a bluebot and shoves it into the red key (redbot now contacting the bluebot while in the red key).

What's the call?

The way I interpret it is that the red alliance is awarded 3 points per <G28/G44 exception>.

Re: <G28>
 

I think so, too. You need to get out of the way -- stat -- if you want to avoid a penalty. (Note that this makes the area between the bridge and the key particularly hazardous for a robot of the other alliance!)

Re: <G28>
 

Once again another way the GDC is designing a game that heavily discourages defense. Simply put, dont want a foul? Stay away from those zones.

Re: <G28>
 

To me it seems pretty simple. G28 states "no matter who initiates the contact" and (more or less) G44 doesn't apply to G28. Therefore, G45 doesn't apply.

Put another way: if a red team is close to the key and a blue team, while in the key, repeatedly touches the red team, then blue keeps getting points. Yes - I think that is the intent of the rule.


You say, "That's not fair!" I say why not? There's no rule saying you have to have your robot near the key. If you don't want to get rung up for fouls, stay more than 6 ft from the key at all times. Keep in mind that the GDC includes rules like this because in general, they don't really want to see defense . They've made it clear in the past that they want the games to emphasize offense. Also, this strategy is pretty common in basketball (familiar with the term "drawing the foul"?)

The ONLY clarification that I see is needed is in the case of a disabled robot.

With all that being said, if I were re-writing the rule I would limit the number of fouls to the number of balls being carried by the robot in their key. For example, if the blue team in the blue key is carrying 2 balls, then the most fouls they could draw is 2.

Re: <G28>
 

Not exactly. G45 saves the victimbot from this situation:

[G45]
Strategies exploiting Rule [G44] are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed.
Violation: Technical-Foul and Red Card

So this covers if you're purposely pushing the opposing robot into the alley/bridge so they may occur a penalty. It seems to me like yes, the victimbot will occur a Foul, but the bullybot will get a Technical-Foul and a Red Card for purposely attempting to rack up points by manipulating penalties. Who's the real winner here?

That being said, I bet that greedy robots stealing basketballs from the opposing team's alley will have a massive target on their back from the opposing alliance. That is a justifiable Foul - they weren't forced to enter the lane here.

Re: <G28>
 

[G28] is an exception. It's really, really darn hard to make a case that Bullybot is using a strategy based on one incident! If this is the 3rd or 4th time in the match, yep, it's really easy to make the call the other way.

While I'd LOVE to agree with Kevin, it isn't clear that his interpretation is correct! Do I think that he's right, especially with the second paragraph? Yep. Do I think that's the way the rules are written, as of right now? I think that that interpretation is just that: an interpretation. Do I think it's the right interpretation? Maybe not now, but if it's incorrect after Week 2 of competition season, there are going to be some really, really big complaints heading for Manchester, NH! My interpretation, as the rules are written right now, and in the absence of clarification from HQ, is that [G28] is not subject to [G45]. My honest opinion is that there will be clarification in the next couple of weeks to reverse that interpretation to more what Kevin's interpretation is.

Re: <G28>
 

I'm curious, what rule do you think [G45] applies to? The only rule one can exploit of is [G44], to force [G28] penalties.

Re: <G28>
 

That's how I see it.Yes, if we didn't lawyer the rules, that's what we think it meansExactly. I can't think of any other way to exploit [G44]. Can anyone?

I agree [G45] is worded ambiguously, but when you work through the possibilities it gets very clear. To me, at least.

Re: <G28>
 

I wasn't even talking about intentional penalties. There's so little room between the bridge and the key that two robots interacting in that area will almost definitely trigger a penalty... You won't have to try to get one, you'll just get one.

...and I'm pretty sure that if you're powering through another robot toward your own alley, bridge, or key, and they don't move out of the way before you come into contact with said field feature, then they'll get a penalty and the refs won't even blink an eye -- as long as you have a legitimate reason for doing so (up to and including getting the opposing robot to move out of your way).

Re: <G28>
 

Let's add another variable to this discussion. Redbot lowers an appendage that extends no more than 14" outside the frame perimeter, making it legal. This appendage touches the red alley, red key or red bridge. Bluebot then contacts Redbot. Penalty yes or no?

Re: <G28>
 

Yes, absolutely.

Re: <G28>
 

That could make the key and the alley a foot or so larger than their actual dimensions. So your area at the top of the key gets even tighter and more hazardous!!!

Re: <G28>
 

[G45] applies to [G44]. [G28] is a SEPARATE RULE from [G44], but is called out as an exception to [G44] (both in a blue box and in [G44]). As an exception, it is not covered by [G44]. Therefore, [G45] does not cover [G28].

To put it another way: [G45] covers [G44]. [G44] does not cover [G28] because [G28] is both an exception and a separate rule. Therefore, [G45] does not cover [G28].

What would it cover otherwise? I don't know. There may be something that we're all overlooking so far. Personally, I think it's somewhat left over from 2011 (when it was introduced to deal with a strategy that was similar to [G28] this year).

That said: I think that TU#1 will address this question. If it does not, then Q&A should be asked for confirmation. If my interpretation is correct, matches can be won far too easily by teams exploiting [G28]. If my interpretation is incorrect, then I'm concerned about nothing. But nobody has been able to fully show me that I'm wrong so far.

Re: <G28>
 

2 red alliance robots are balancing, the other red alliance robot pushes a blue alliance robot so it comes into contact with the bridge. [G25] grants the red alliance 9 points, plus the bridge is counted as balanced, and the blue robot receives a red card. [G45] prevents this

EDIT: I take that back, i think [G44] covers this. I think the rule will be clarified. Could [G44] be preventing the blue alliance from being penalized, and [G45] gives the red alliance a technical foul and red card?