<G28>
 

<G38> Robots may not touch an opponent Robot in contact with its Key, Alley, or Bridge.
Violation: Foul; Technical-Foul for purposeful, consequential contact.

This rule applied at all times, no matter who initiates the contact, see [G44].


<G44> Generally, a rule violation by an Alliance that was directly caused by actions of the opposing Alliance will not be penalized. Rule [G28] is an exception to this rule.


_______________________

You can intentionally cause fouls.

I'm Shocked.

Re: <G28>
 

*cough cough*

[G45] Strategies exploiting rule [G44] are not in the spirit of FIRST and not allowed.
Violation: Technical-foul and Red Card

Re: <G28>
 

Based on this rule, it looks like you can receive a foul on your own side of the court if you are close enough to the opposing team's alley, and the opposing team comes to your side of the court and initiates contact with your bot while still partially in contact with its own alley.
Is this interpretation correct?

If this is the case, it seems possible to me that a robot can be in contact with its own key while at the same time make contact with an opposing robot in its own alley. (There's only 59" separation between the alley and key at the minimum).
In this situation, who is assigned a penalty?? Both teams??

Re: <G28>
 

Oooo, that's a good one for the GDC when Q&A opens!

Re: <G28>
 

It would be based on who hit who. If Red Alliance on their Key hits Blue Alliance in their Alley, Red alliance is called for the foul. If Blue Alliance in their Alley hits Red Alliance in their Key, Blue alliance is called for the foul. It's whomever does the move first. At least that's my interpretation and this is a good question to pose to the GDC.

Re: <G28>
 

I don't believe this is the case. I believe that BOTH teams will get penalized, due to <G44>

Re: <G28>
 

Yea, good call Daniel. I retract my comments and state again it's a good question for the GDC.

Re: <G28>
 

I will definitely ask this, but one thing I did notice -- the penalty is a foul. A foul simply awards 3 points to the opposing team.
If both teams are penalized, each alliance receives 3 more points, so effectively there's no point advantage for either alliance (they cancel each other out).

Re: <G28>
 

I expect Team Update #1 to address some ambiguities like this.

Re: <G28>
 

In the meantime, many teams are thinking of ways to build kitbots and just repeatedly touch opposing robots in their key and alley. Three points a touch is way easier to get than three points a hoop! ;)

Re: <G28>
 

Keep an eye out for <G45> though...

[G44] Generally, a rule violation by an Alliance that was directly caused by actions of the opposing Alliance will not be penalized. Rule [G28] is an exception to this rule.
[G45] Strategies exploiting Rule [G44] are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: Technical-Foul and Red Card

So if they are looking at ways to gain points by making contact and forcing fouls, the season is going to be a depressing one for them.

It states in rule G45 that it is not encourages and is not allowed.

Re: <G28>
 

So if a red robot was parked in blue alliances alley, they would first incur a foul when touched by a blue robot, but then blue could be issued a technical foul and/or red card if continuing to hit the parked red robot? Where is the line between getting a robot out of your way, and exploiting [g44]?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Re: <G28>
 

Said by one of my teammates: "I used to play in my opponent's alley like you, but then I took a G28 to the robot."

Re: <G28>
 

Wouldn't exploiting G44 be the other way? You would be exploiting it if you tried to get out of fouls, by having your opponent make the last move. I think it should say exploiting the exception in G44 if it means that.
(that noted, the interpretation here makes a lot more sense, I just wouldn't read it that way at first glance).

Re: <G28>
 

It really comes down to intent - If you hit them while playing the game as it's intended to be played (in you example, if you were trying to get to your inbounder to fetch a ball, or get from your inbounder to your ramp to go score a ball), they'll be penalized. If, however, you go bolting across the arena just to hit them with no intent to actually play the game (your only intention was for a penalty), it won't earn you any points. A lot of it is discretion on the ref's part, but trust me, it's usually pretty obvious.

Re: <G28>
 

But since G44 explicitly states that it does not apply to Rule G28, does that mean that Rule G45 has no authority over G28?

Therefore, if an opposing robot somehow has a malfunction in one of the zones indicated by G28, could you not "come in contact" with them multiple times, resulting in 3 points per contact?

Re: <G28>
 

Rule G45 says that if you exploit G44, it's a T-foul and Red Card. Rule G28 states that a robot may not touch its opponent in contact with the key, alley, or bridge--no matter who initiates (and says that it supersedes G44 on that).

The question to ask Q&A is this: "Because G28 opens the door for a team to repeatedly contact an opponent who happens to get stuck/pushed into/otherwise jammed in or next to a Key, Alley, or Bridge, racking up points just by contacting the team, would G45 be brought into play against a team who tried to use this to their advantage? In short, does G45 apply against G28 as well as G44?"

Re: <G28>
 

I'm confused by the confusion. <G44> contains both the rule that a team can't force a foul AND the exception to that rule. <G45> says you can't exploit <G44> as a strategy. It seems straightforward to me then that you can't exploit <G44>, which includes the exception for <G28>. So you can't repeatedly bump an opponent in your alley for the express purpose of racking up fouls.

Re: <G28>
 

The G28 blue box says "regardless of" G44 is when/how G28 applies, and no matter who initiates the contact.

In other words, if I'm in contact with the alley (or key), you're my opponent passing by, and I hit you, I get 3 points, per hit. That is G28's take on it. G44 would normally prevent this; however, G28 is specifically excluded from G44 consideration.

G45 says that strategies exploiting G44 are illegal. So if I'm exploiting G28, which is its own rule, by using the fact that G44 does not apply to G28, then am I exploiting G44 or G28?

If I'm exploiting G28, I can score points by maintaining contact with a protected zone and hitting any opponent passing by, and I get 3 points per hit. If I'm exploiting G44, then after about the second or third hit, my opponents get 9 points and I get a red card. Big difference there, don't you think?

Re: <G28>
 

I think one of the best ways to exploit <G44> is making others lodge balls in your vunerable robot :rolleyes:
Then you'd have 4 balls in your shooter and not get penalized

Re: <G28>
 

I really feel like this shouldn't even be up for discussion at all though...

Right at the beginning of the manual there is a statement about how you shouldn't try to lawyer the manual to find loop holes. This seems like a loop hole that is only going to make the game less fun for inexperienced teams and way more confusing to watch for spectators. How often can the crowd understand how and why a ref makes a call?

But mostly, this isn't in the spirit of how the game is meant to be played. In my eyes this kind of game play is the same as a pitcher beaning a big hitter rather than just walking him.

I say score points by legit means of scoring points. Don't create a foul rich situation that will destroy someone else's experience.

Re: <G28>
 

Let me try again. I read it that the exception for <G28> is part and parcel of <G44>. Without the explicit exception for <G28>, your strategy gets you no points whatsoever, because you're initiating contact. Ergo, you're exploiting <G44>'s exception for <G28> to make points by tagging people.

Also, as a practical matter, you KNOW good and well that the GDC doesn't want this to turn into a game of tag and keep away. They'd call it FIRST Tag You're It otherwise. They've given us simpler rules this year. I'd assume in the hope that we'd simplify everyone's lives by not hunting around in the rules for exploits like an explicit strategy of sitting in your alley/key waiting to tag an opponent and score 3 points. That couldn't be more clearly against the spirit of the game. The fact that the rule isn't worded exactly to your liking doesn't change that. It just means you obviously want to return to a massive tome of glossaries, definitions, exceptions to definitions, and exceptions to exceptions that we had before. So, for the sake of my sanity and back, please don't break my nice new lightweight rulebook.

Re: <G28>
 

But if you're making the other alliance lodge balls in your robot, aren't you causing them to cause a foul as well, since they're causing a foul on your robot?

In any case, I don't think that's in the spirit of FRC and it shouldn't be a viable strategy...

Re: <G28>
 

I was disappointed to see that protected zone violations were, once again, an exception to the rule that says REDROBOT may not force BLUEROBOT to incur penalties. REDROBOT should never be able to force BLUEROBOT to incur penalties, not even once per season*. The rationale behind this rule is most likely to remove the issue of ambiguity for cases in which it is difficult to determine who initiated contact, but I feel it would have been far better to have said:

"if it is difficult to determine who initiated contact, no penalty will be issued and the team who would have otherwise received a penalty will receive a warning from the referee."

That is my .00002 Kilodollars.

*once per season is just an example, In other words even if it isn't "exploiting" <G44> (i.e. it is just an [apparently?] incidental occurrence), you actions should never result in the other alliance receiving fouls.

Re: <G28>
 

The only exploitation that is possible is taking advantage of the [G44] exemption of [G28]. What am I exploiting if I cause you to foul me, but it is not counted because of [G44]? That foul isn't called; I don't get any advantage in score. I am exploiting something if I cause you to foul me per [G28], because that foul will be called and my score will be increased.

Re: <G28>
 

One thing i would like to point out... Since the contact would be on purpose, it would result in a technical foul thus 9 points.

Also, the way I see it, it all comes down to whether an exception to a rule is a part of said rule. And in my opinion, in this case, it is. since [G28]'s exception is categorized within [G44], exploiting [G28] would be exploiting [G44].([G28] being an exception to [G44] is within [G44] itself, thus [G28] is linked with [G44] and thus being linked to [G45] ... thus a technical foul and red-card would be given for exploiting [G44]. Just because your exploiting a specific part of [G44] does not mean you aren't exploiting the whole rule.)

So only in the case of exploiting [G28] and/or [G44] can you be issued a red card. In all other cases [G44] negates the penalty, such exploiting any rule other than [G44] and [G28], no [G45] penalty get issued. [G45] gets issued if [G28] gets exploited, or the fact that point negation gets exploited(I.E. stealing more than three balls from an offensive robot.(Of course this requires the offensive robot falling into some pre-existing trap of them giving you their balls.))

But of course it does all come down to the GDC's decision. My team and I were debating about this After Kick-off.:)

Re: <G28>
 

you know it is week 1 when the manual is filled with circular rules and endless loops...

the other issue is "not being in the spirit of FIRST"isn't a foul... sure, you won't be getting certain awards but...

the GDC really needs to clear this up...

Re: <G28>
 

I think to really talk about how the rules apply you need a specific situation. These are the situations that I think would be most important to talk about, even if it may seem obvious to many of us.

In all of these examples REDBOT is the offensive bot and BLUEBOT is the defensive bot.

1. REDBOT has a low shooter and needs X' in front of it to be open in order to score. BLUEBOT is in front of the key blocking REDBOT's shot. REDBOT chases BLUEBOT out of the key in order to free up it's shot.
A. Is REDBOT's use the threat of a penalty to chase BLUEBOT away exploiting the rule? - I don't think so.

2. In the same situation after being chased away BLUEBOT runs back to it's side of the field. While backing up to take it's shot REDBOT hits BLUEBOT again.
A. Is there another penalty of BLUEBOT? - I think so, REDBOT was just trying to score and BLUEBOT was in the way.
B. If REDBOT didn't need to back up to take a shot could this still be counted against REDBOT? - I think this needs to be cleared up, I think it would be up to the ref to decide if REDBOT was trying to exploit the rule.

3. BLUEBOT is hovering around it's key to defend balls inside so that BLUE scorer bots can pick them up later.
A. Is BLUEBOT exploiting the rule to defend their balls with threat of a penalty? - I don't believe that this is exploiting the rule as BLUEBOT is just trying to help their team play the game.

What do you guys think about these situations? Are there any other situations that are important to talk about? Any questions I missed?

Re: <G28>
 

I'm honestly letting go of it for now. If it isn't fixed within the first 2, maybe 3 updates, then I'll start looking into it more.

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?

Re: <G28>
 

Ya know, in most forms of racing anything (sailboats excepted)

"Rubbin is Racin"

Having been on the receiving end of the behavior that inspired <G26>, <G27> & <G28>, I like'm. Enforcement will be problematic. Reality is this is a contact sport.

And <G28> has a little problem with the relationship of "its".

Re: <G28>
 

Not to lawyer this up but.....the problem with <G45> is the definition of exploiting. Is forcing one penalty exploiting the <G44> exception of <G28>? Does two, three or four forced penalties make it exploitation? I believe the issue can only be resolved by quantifying what becomes exploitation. Removing <G45> totally would give a greater advantage to the team who owns the particular key, bridge or alley by allowing a larger number of penalties. But setting a number too low could swing the advantage to the team not owning the key, bridge or alley by limiting their penalties for more aggressive play.

Re: <G28>
 

I think the definition of "exploiting" will likely be left to the discretion of the judges, so plan accordingly.

Re: <G28>
 

The other day I overheard our Chief Scout explaining his definition of an "exploitation" of said rules to other students:

Example:
Red Robot is sitting on the Red Key shooting
Blue Robot approaches the Red key and suffers some system failure rendering it motionless.
Red Robot chooses to drive over and taps the Blue robot repeatedly while remaining in contact with the Red Key.

His logic for this being an exploit is that the contact serves no purpose other than to gain a penalty, especially since the Blue robot is not a threat.

Re: <G28>
 

I am almost certain that this is the type of thing the refs will penalize: a penalty only for its own sake.

Re: <G28>
 

Referees! They wear the stripes.

Judges will be dressed in navy blue polo shirts and will be busy interviewing teams in the pits and talking to RCA candidates.

Re: <G28>
 

Regardless, we need an interpretation from the GDC (either TU1 or QA). Is the GDC's intent to keep half of the field completely clear of the opposing alliance (i.e. pushing opponents for area penalties is a legitimate scoring strategy), or are they allowing teams to go in clear areas without worrying about being pushed into penalties?

The current wording leads me to the former, but it is entirely possible I'm lawyering the rules.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to lobby my team for a particular drivetrain without knowing if we have to worry about this.

Re: <G28>
 

Yes, yes, yes... I make that mistake all the time!

Re: <G28>
 

What if we think about the intent of the rule here?
Consider that the intent of the rule is to prevent BLUEBOT from sitting in the red alley stopping red from getting balls. The intent is to allow REDBOT not to be hit while shooting from the key. The intent is to allow the red alliance to balance without worrying about being hit by BLUEBOT.

If that is the intent, then the rules seek to stop BLUEBOT from interfering with red in these ways. If either team operates not in the spirit of the game or FIRST, then it sounds like <G45> wins.

In any event, this will probably be explained in TU1.

Re: <G28>
 

There are days when I really feel sorry for the GDC. A day when I read someone admitting that his interpretation of the rules means matches can be won by a team shoving an opponent into a forbidden corner and repeatedly tagging it to rack up foul points is definitely one of those days. Demanding the GDC explicitly tell us that we can't win a match solely by forcing fouls on our opponent seems pretty silly to me. I know the GDC has made some calls in the past that many of us disagreed with or thought would go the other way, but this one just seems far far too obvious to support this speculation. I'm honestly expecting a Q&A on this to get a rather abrupt smackdown requesting the submitter not lawyer the rules and use some common sense.

Re: <G28>
 

The problem is though that you need to lawyer the rules. You need to go strictly by what the rules say, and not by what you personally think the intent is. I know that on our team, we thought that redirecting balls in breakaway was illegal.

<G45> Active BALL control - ROBOTS may not control BALL direction with active MECHANISMS above the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.

Judging from intent, it seems that you cant redirect balls. In reality active was the key word in that rule, and it wasnt defined as to what constitutes active mechanisms. Had 469 not "lawyered" the rules, we would not have seen one of the best robots in this era.

Does anyone know when update 1 comes out?

Re: <G28>
 

(EDIT: I think my initial stance on this wasn't so clear, so I made a few edits.)

I don't think it's that obvious that the rule should be clarified as you suggest. Below are two scenarios in which violating G28 can win you a match if the rule is clarifed as suggested. In other words, the following two scenarios illustrate that a team that knows that G45 provides protection against multiple G28 infraction causes that team to violate G28 in order to win the match:

In each scenario you have one great robot (robot A) that can pick up balls and score with ease, and another robot that can't pick up balls, can't shoot, but is as large as a refrigerator (robot Z).

Scenario 1:
Robot Z's alliance has three balls in front of Robot A's rebounder station with 40 seconds to go. Robot Z knows Robot A can pick up the balls and score them with ease resulting in losing the match, so Robot Z herds the balls into the corner of the field in the lane and parks their robot so Robot A can't get them.

Robot A tries to shove Robot Z out of the lane in order to get to the balls, which earns Robot A three points for the foul (Robot Z is in violation of G28, so Robot A gets 3 points). Robot Z continues to sit there knowing that Robot A can't get to the balls and they can't continue to touch Robot Z for fear of violating G45 (or even if they don't violate G45, perhaps the refs only award one foul). Robot Z's alliance wins since the 3 point foul is less than the 9 points Robot A would have scored. Violating rule G28 resulted in an advantage to Robot Z.


Scenario 2:
Robot A makes 100% of it's shots from a particular position of the key and is not so good elsewhere in the key (they have a fixed shooter that is highly optimized for one spot). Robot Z knows this and anchors itself to the part of the key that Robot A likes to shoot from. Robot A tries to shove Robot Z out of the way (giving Robot A 3 points for the foul) but can never move Robot Z out of the way since they are an immovable object. Robot A settles for the shot from the side of the key and misses all three shots (it only shoots well from where Robot Z is sitting). Robot Z's alliance wins since the 3 point foul is less than the 9 points it would have given up had Robot A had it's ideal scoring spot. Robot Z gained an advantage by violating G28.


In these two scenarios, do we really want to reward breaking a rule since breaking that rule costs less than if they played by the rules? As far as I'm concerned, in both cases Robot A should be awarded for at least the number of points they had to give up due to Robot Z's violations of G28. If that means awarding Robot A 3 points every time they back up and hit them again to try and move them out of the way, then so be it. The problem is that if the rule is changed, it's easy to violate G28 and get a 6 point advantage by doing so.

Re: <G28>
 

In scenario1, I disagree that G28 was violated. The intent here is to make the alleyway defendable, but not to make passing robots into targets.

In scenario 2, I disagree with both quoted statements. Z did not violate G28 and the driver of A is a fool and should have made at least 4 substantial runs into the opposing robot and thus gained 12 points. Z was out of position and deserved the points.

Moral: defend far enough away from the zones to be reasonable and if the opponent comes tearing at you , dodge and remember, they are wasting their time instead of scoring.

Re: <G28>
 

Just curious, how different is that than a situation in which a team realizes the proximity of an opponents robot (say, playing defense), and while in the key bumps them several times? To me, that's "exploiting" a rule, but well within the intent and language of the rule.


Either way, I'd appreciate a clear interpretation to prevent ambiguity. That's not something I want to find out at the first regional.

Re: <G28>
 

Ha ha. That is too funny. Does this mean that two robots could sit there and rack up a huge number of fouls and set a scoring record?
Attachment 11310

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.