Re: <G28>
 

See, last year an opposing robot smashed into one end of our robot, disabling one of the gearboxes and moving our robot into the alley. Our driver's attempts to get our robot out of the alley were unsuccessful and only caused the robot to move back and forth over the boundary line, which he couldn't even see because the alliance wall was in the way. The result:
Our bot- multiple penalties and a red card for going over the boundary line
The aggressor- nothing; high speed collisions are just part of the game

After that experience, I am convinced that there's someone that will disable someone else's bot in a restricted area and then proceed to force them to incur G28's and get away with it because of the referee's interpretation of G44 and G45. If your referee's having a bad day and particularly doesn't like your robot, there is no way that you can argue against him and avoid getting penalized for the actions of the other team.

Re: <G28>
 

ummm... E-stop Button?

Re: <G28>
 

It wasn't an unsafe condition.

From the 2011 rules:

Re: <G28>
 

The key and the alley are only 59 inches apart. In theory, a red robot in contact with the red key could touch a blue robot in contact with the blue alley. How is that scored?

Re: <G28>
 

It would seem that both robots receive fouls, so no net change.

Re: <G28>
 

The intent of the rule is crystal clear to me. Don't play defense on the robots. Play defense on the balls.

Re: <G28>
 

Unfortunately, it's not the intent of the rule that people are going to follow. You know just a well as anyone else that G28 will be abused beyond belief, simply because it's easier than scoring.

Something has to change here.

Re: <G28>
 

The perspective of players?

Don't inflict penalties for their own sake, and you won't get a red card. Otherwise, stay away from opponents in/near their key, alley, and bridge!

Re: <G28>
 

If you stay more than 60 inches from the opponent's key and lane, then G28 penalties will become impossible. You can't abuse the penalty if you make it impossible to commit.

I don't know why everyone is making it so complicated. Don't play defense near the key and lane and it won't be an issue.

Re: <G28>
 

Say you're in between the opposing team's lane, and an opposing robot (Even clear across the field). The opposing robot pushes you into the lane, and touches the lane. Should that be worth 3 points to the other team?

Say they pin you, back off, and force you in again. Should that be worth another 3 points?

Is that abusing the rule the way it is written? The intent is to keep you from blocking certain areas of the field.
If the GDC interprets this the same way, may the best drivetrain win.

Re: <G28>
 

If the team that gets pushed into the lane (or key) was between you in an effort to impede your progress, then I have no problem with the first foul. The pinning part IS an issue (I'll admit that) - if the robot makes an attempt to leave the lane and you go back and touch them, I would agree that is abusing the rule. However, if the defending robot just sits in the lane and makes no effort to get out of your way after you back off, then they should be subject to further fouls.

If a team is already in the lane or key I definitely have no problem with awarding multiple fouls for backing up and touching them again. My point is there needs to be significant motivation for a team to move out of the lane and key, and not block an offensive maneuver near the lane and key. Without being able to draw multiple fouls, it's very easy to negate 9 points at the cost of a single 3 point penalty.

Also, a chokehold strategy exists for this game if you do away with the multiple G28 fouls.

Re: <G28>
 

Q&A was asked, and my interpretation was definitively ruled incorrect.
In other words, don't count on a zillion points for tapping an opponent multiple times while you're in contact with a protected area. This is the interpretation/clarification I was hoping for.

Re: <G28>
 

The million dollar question is...how many "taps" equates to a "strategy"?

Re: <G28>
 

That will be the referees decision.

Thus ... don't try to draw fouls.

Re: <G28>
 

The issue is "exploit". If there is a purpose for your movement (aside from scoring g28 points), and it causes a G28 violation, then it is not an "exploit" for G45 purposes.

For instance, if you are getting a ball from your inbound station and dashing for the bridge, the other team better get out of the alley. If you see another bot in your alley, and you make a mad dash at it for the sole purpose of scoring g28 points, then that is a g45 violation. If the other bot was going for a loose ball in your alley, then the purpose of the mad dash is going after the ball, and not the other bot, thus not an "exploit".

Similarly, if you are pushing another bot out of the way, so you can shoot from the key, then that is ok. If you don't have a ball to shoot, then that can be considered an "exploit". But, if you are clearing the key so an alliance bot can shoot, then that is ok.

No different than if Z had the 3 balls in its body. A could not go after the balls. Thus, any contact is a violation of G28.

However, if Z had 3 balls in its body, and was hearding 3 additional balls, then Z could be in violation of G22, and all A would have to do is approach to get the loose balls, and A would get the points without having to actually contact Z, thus defeating the purpose of your scenario (keeping A from scoring).

Z has no valid game purpose from immobilizing in that position. Thus, how ever many contacts it takes to get Z to move is Z's problem. A is not "exploiting" for the purpose of scoring fouls, so there is no G45 violation.

Note: There is also an issue of how often you can "touch". The Pin rules (g29) could apply where another contact would not be considered a "touch" for foul scoring purposes until the bots separated by 6' and 3 seconds.

Another question is: What if 2 alliance bots touch the same opponent bot around the same time? Let say the opponent bot is in the key. Two alliance bots push the bot away so they can shoot. I think that would be 2 fouls.