Quote:
Originally Posted by Laaba 80
Unintentional impeding is allowed, however intentional impeding is not allowed in hybrid mode from the Q&A.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Q&A
Rule <G38> and Rule <G40> were modified to remove any concerns that teams may have about inadvertently impeding robots during the Hybrid Period. This was to avoid an unrealistic requirement that the robots be able to autonomously recognize and respond to "Bump To Pass" signals or identify and steer around stalled robots on the Track during the Hybrid Period. The purpose of these modifications is not to permit the intentional blocking of the Track during Hybrid Period.
The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized. However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.
|
I was at the midwest regional today, and it was obvious that robots moved forward to block 1024's amazing autonomous modes. The refs never even said anything. It is not like this happened just once, teams were doing it to them all day. I also didnt see refs calling impeding during teleoperated mode.
Joey |
Unfortunately, that GDC response sounds like wishful thinking. It suggests that the referees should estimate the team's intent, which is always a cause for careful consideration among conscientious officials. I suspect that these officials will tend to err on the permissive side, because the opportunity to assign a small sanction (i.e. a 10-point penalty) is not available, and the requirements for a yellow card include "egregious" conduct—which is very tough to justify against a robot playing positional defence under autonomous control against an opponent with an unpredictable path, approaching from behind.
In other words, it's not getting called because the referees don't think that simple defence in hybrid mode is necessarily egregious.
On the other hand, <G40> makes it known that "ROBOTS shall not intentionally IMPEDE the flow of traffic around the TRACK." This statement is part of a rule, but disobeying it carries no specific penalty. Despite the lack of a penalty,
it ought to be followed by teams preparing hybrid mode routines.
Of course, the trouble with <G40> is that it doesn't make a clear distinction between intentionally taking an action which might possibly impede an opponent, and intentionally instructing the robot to act an impediment. (And I realize that that is a difficult distinction to express in an enforceable manner!) For example, if Redabot was programmed to advance 1 m and do a series of doughnut maneouvres during the hybrid mode, would it be be intentionally impeding Bluabot, which just happened to want to pass through the same area during its hybrid mode? It's a judgement of intent, and as noted before, those tend to favour the alleged offender, simply because it's too hard to know for sure.