Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Holley
Because Redabot pushed for 8 seconds (which would give them 2 seconds over the time period needed to wait as per update #15), they now have the opportunity to begin moving without incurring a penalty.
No penalty for redabot because they waited the 6 seconds, no penalty for bluabot because they hit the e stop.
|
Update #15 is worded a little funny, but my understanding is that the update didn't change <G22>, it just added an additional example to <G40> and <G41>. I wouldn't swear to this, but I'm reasonably confident that "an opportunity to begin moving again six seconds later" refers to the other robot moving out of the way to avoid the <G41> penalty. In any case, there is no leeway in <G22> that would allow what you suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Bessette
If blueabot didn't break then redabot wouldn't have taken a penalty, therefore, I can argue that bluabot caused the penalty.
|
How loose of a chain of actions would you permit to be considered causal? If Redabot took possession of Bluabot's trackball, I don't think you'd excuse the penalty on the grounds that it wouldn't have happened if Bluabot hadn't knocked the ball down in the first place. How about when Redabot gets tangled up in the overpass by Bluabot, and Redabot2 backs up over the line to free them? The only way this rule makes sense is if somebody else
forced you to violate a rule when you didn't want to. Redabot's hand is not forced here; they have other options.
(It is worth noting that something very similar to the original scenario happened in finals match 2 at Buckeye, with the added trickiness that Redabot's gripper ended up stuck pretty deeply into Bluabot, and continuing to try to push them could cause serious damage to Bluabot. After at least six seconds, Redabot backed out, and the head ref flagged them for a game-deciding <G22>. Perhaps that isn't the right call, but at least it's some indication of how this rule is being interpreted elsewhere.)