Turret/Tower Height

[pmangels17]

Hey teams. just wondering where you find the sweet spot as far as the height of your shooter tower. First, Are you using a spinning turret or a tower with a spinning shooter?. How many degrees does it turn, if it does at all? Finally, how tall are you guys making your tower? I figure it doesnt need to be more than a foot of tower space, but then again maybe some people are storing balls in the tower. What do you guys think?

[n1ckd2012]

Our shooter axel is 50 inches from the ground. Not sure if there is a sweet spot. We are tall so it's harder block our shots. Shooter has tiltbut no turret.

More details at 2012.discobots.org. Link to our daily log is at the bottom of the page.

[Grim Tuesday]

We put ours at 24" to make balancing and going over the barrier easier. If we go to the back of the key, we can't be blocked and we saw no reason to shoot from anywhere else.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

If we go to the back of the key, we can't be blocked

How do you figure?

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by squirrel

How do you figure?

The trajectory that we fire at ensures that the ball is above 60" by the time it hits the front of the key.

Front being defined as the part closest to the baskets.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

The trajectory that we fire at ensures that the ball is above 60" by the time it hits the front of the key.

An opposing robot is allowed to be on your key (and block your shot, if your shooter is low). They receive a foul if they contact you while you're on the key.

I guess you could assume that no other robots will try to block you while you're on the key, but that may or may not be a valid assumption.

[lemiant]

Originally Posted by squirrel

An opposing robot is allowed to be on your key (and block your shot, if your shooter is low). They receive a foul if they contact you while you're on the key.

I guess you could assume that no other robots will try to block you while you're on the key, but that may or may not be a valid assumption.

In my opinion this is a pretty safe bet, they could just drive forward quickly and they'd get the foul. In fact, tempting opposing robots to sit in front of you in the key could be an even better scoring strategy than sinking baskets .

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by squirrel

An opposing robot is allowed to be on your key (and block your shot, if your shooter is low). They receive a foul if they contact you while you're on the key.

I guess you could assume that no other robots will try to block you while you're on the key, but that may or may not be a valid assumption.

If they do try this, we can drive forward and bump them, under no penalty to us, and a three point penalty to them.

[MrForbes]

I'm still not clear on the whole rule thing about that...but I kinda think you have a good approach, we might plan on making our shooter sit a bit lower, mainly to help with the CG thing. It looks like it won't lose us much.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

If they do try this, we can drive forward and bump them, under no penalty to us, and a three point penalty to them.

Not so much. If you do this intentionally exploiting G44's exception for G28, it's 9 points for them when you get a technical foul under G45.

[Grim Tuesday]

I think the intent of the rule is pretty clear, as stated in [G28]

[G28]
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].

Emphasis mine. The GDC seems to have thought of this eventuality and even made a rule for it. As for [G45]/[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.

[G45]
Strategies exploiting Rule [G44] are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed.
Violation: Technical-Foul and Red Card

Emphasis mine.

Our strategy is shooting, they are interfering with our strategy, and they are liable for the penalty if they intrude upon the key. If our strategy was to bait them into the key then sting them with a penalty, that would be exploiting the exception as described in [G44]. However, that is not it.

Is my analysis sound?

[Siri]

I'm not sure if your first assertion was questioning G45's applicability to G28, but if it was:

Originally Posted by Q&A

Q: Is a strategy to exploit G28 considered to be a strategy to exploit G44 which would be a technical foul and red card according to G45?
A: Yes

If not, I like the "strategy" distinction. If the motion of contact itself (moving to the front of the key) was part of your original shooting strategy, I'd agree with you. But if you're implying that you'd deliberately bump them to earn the foul rather than to physically shoot, I'd contest that this is a separate (if affiliated) strategy. I won't claim to red card you for it, but you may want to seek further clarification. I'll also point out tangentially, that the current litmus test for technical fouling with regards to intentionality is essentially just repetition.

Good thought.

[Chris Hibner]

Sorry to continue to derail this thread.

My strategy is to have a shot that is not blocked. In order to accomplish this, I'm going to shove any robots out of my way until the shot is clear. If, during my shoving, an oppenent is in the key, then that is a three point penalty on them. I don't intend to give them penalties, but I do intend to guarantee an unblocked shot.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Is my analysis sound?

No, I don't think so. The contact would not be "purposeful" or "consequential" since you bumped them before or after you launched a ball. Think of the common-sense intention of the rule - seems to be to keep them from interfering with your shooting. Turning the rule into something more just because the syntax is not perfect is not generally a good strategy in my humble opinion.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by wireties

No, I don't think so. The contact would not be "purposeful" or "consequential" since you bumped them before or after you launched a ball. Think of the common-sense intention of the rule - seems to be to keep them from interfering with your shooting. Turning the rule into something more just because the syntax is not perfect is not generally a good strategy in my humble opinion.

However, we did bump them while in the process of shooting. The point of our robot is to get balls into the baskets, not to get the other teams penalties. If they insist on stopping us from our strategy (we are not forcing them to be in the key; they drove there willingly), we have no other choice than to foul them. Why would the GDC include the exception if it was not meant to be used?