Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pakrat
Its strategic to have wedge shaped edges. driving forward, isn't in the G25 ruling, lifting up is. so, its not illegal to flip robots unless they LIFT UP and flip it. so, nice move 11. I like it
|
Sorry, but that's just not accurate. Here's what <G25> says:
<G25> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, Triple Play is a highly interactive contact game. Some tipping, entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, entanglement, or damage occurs where it is not a part of normal game play, at the referees discretion, the offending team/ROBOT may be disqualified from that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team/ROBOT being disqualified from the remainder of the Regional or Championship competition.
Examples of normal game play interaction include:
Pushing low on another ROBOT.
Blocking or pushing on a TETRA that is in possession of an opposing ROBOT.
Establishing ROBOT position to block access to a GOAL by an opposing ROBOT.
Using an arm or gripper to prevent an opposing ROBOT from placing a TETRA on a GOAL.
Examples of inappropriate robot interaction include:
Pushing high on a robot and tipping it over.
Using an arm or gripper to repeatedly strike an opposing ROBOT that is not in the process of placing a TETRA on a GOAL.
Placing any part of your ROBOT under an opposing ROBOT, and then lifting to flip it over.
Using an arm and gripper to pull a ROBOT by grabbing electrical cables, hoses, etc. or disabling a ROBOT by tearing out wires or hoses.
Grasping or attaching to a TETRA that is in the possession of an opposing ROBOT, and using it to pull over the opposing ROBOT.
Ramming another ROBOT at high speed.
It is therefore illegal to employ a strategy aimed solely at "destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement" of robots; if that strategy takes the form of pushing with a wedge-shaped structure, in any direction, disqualification may result. Even though a "push-and-flip" manoeuvre is not listed in the
examples, it can still be considered an illegal strategy, if the referee makes a determination that the aim of the strategy was consistent with one of the banned motives.
Using the wedge as a deterrent would probably be allowed--if no actual flipping (etc.) occurs, it's difficult for the referee to firmly determine the aim of the strategy. If 11 uses their wedge in this manner, I doubt they'll have any issues.
Chasing robots around with a wedge, claiming, "I was only pushing horizontally" will not fly. In all probability, you would be disqualified, mercilessly, because the referee will decide that the strategy employed was illegal, per <G25> (aimed solely at "tipping over", for instance).
A more interesting scenario would take place if a team tried to deliberately upend its
own robot, using 11's wedge, for the purpose of getting 11 disqualified. This is itself a disqualifying offence, for the same reasons as above. (Yes, it's not a nice thing to do. That doesn't mean that stupid ideas like this don't get tried, occasionally.) The referee would have to be watching very carefully to figure out what was indeed going on--who pushed who, who's acting passively, who's the aggressor, etc.. Now, I think that as a practical matter, the onus would be placed on 11 to justify the existence of the wedge; it is awfully hard to be certain if a team was trying to flip itself, and absent that proof, the referee might want to take the obvious route, and disqualify 11, whether or not they actually broke a rule. To avoid this situation, the referee must be responsible for being very, very sure of their call--it is better to let it pass, and make no disqualification, than to disqualify the wrong team, because of unclear and fast-paced gameplay.