Rules G-30 and G-18-1

[MrJohnston]

Hi,

I have asked this in the Official Q&A and have gotten the response of "We do not comment on hypothetical situations here." We have gotten equally vague answers during matches. I am hoping that some referees can help me out because we deal with these scenarios in virtually every match.

G-30 states that if a robot is in its protected zone and comes into contact with an opposing robot, that the opposing robot is penalized, no matter who initiations contact.

G-18-1 states that a robot intentionally employing a strategy to get an opposing robot to commit a foul will be charged with a technica.


We are a tall full-court shooter. Our favorite activity is shooting 3's from the protected loading zone. A 60" robot can block us by stationing itself very close to us - inches away. If we push it back from us so as to clear a shot, are we called for the foul or is the other robot?

Likewise, if a 80" tall robot stations itself in front of us and we push it across its autoline en route to our pyramid (to shoot), are we called with a technical? Or is it?

We've had the first called different ways. In one game, we were told that the first two times we pushed the other robot away, it would be penalized. HOwever, if we did it a third, we'd be called with a technical. (So, it was illegal for them to do it twice, but okay after that?!) We have not tried the second scenario, fearing that we'd be nailed with a technical.

We truly do not understand how the rules apply to these scenarios. Any thoughts?

[Deetman]

There are a few ambiguities/things open for interpretation in the rules this year. The best I can suggest would be to pose these questions to your event's head referee at the driver's meeting. This way it will be clear to your team and other teams at the event how the game will be called from the beginning. Personally I think the rules written with the "consequential" and "inconsequential" distinction are a bit vague and what is "consequential" can vary from person to person. If you are touching the pyramid and lined up to shoot, but not actively shooting at the time of contact which throws off your aim, is that "consequential"? Is contact in the loading zone that causes you to drop a frisbee as the human player is loading it consequential? These are all examples of questions to ask and get clarified at the driver's meeting with the head ref.

[RyanCahoon]

Originally Posted by Deetman

There are a few ambiguities/things open for interpretation in the rules this year. The best I can suggest would be to pose these questions to your event's head referee at the driver's meeting.

This.

If the event is already in progress, send a student to the question box immediately after the match ends [T13].

[LeelandS]

I'm no referee, so someone else with more insight can come in and clear it up, but here is how I've generally seen it play out.

If you are in your loading zone, and drive up and tap the defending robot whilst you are still in the loading zone, it is a foul on them (you can see a similar circumstance from last year, where team's shooting from their alliance key would drive and tap defenders who got too close to get a foul on them). Even if you repeat it many times, you are not forcing them to get the penalty. They are repeatedly putting themselves in harm's way. Now, if you have one of your alliance partners hold them in place while you do it, the referees would probably call you for forcing the opponent to be penalized. But in the scenario you described, the opposing robot should receive a foul.

As for pushing a >60" robot into its zone to try and get it a foul for being too tall, I haven't seen this happen, so I can't tell you definitively how it would be called. I will say that the intent of the rule is most likely to prevent robots from using height to their advantage in their own zone. As such, I would bet that, were you to do this, the referees would either not penalize it, because you forced them all the way across the field, or even penalize you if you try it too many times. Pushing robots across the field every now and again can be used as a display of strength. If you do if often to an opposing robot, the referees will probably not be to keen on it.

That's just my take.

[Bob Steele]

Last year... when the moved out of the safe lane and tapped for a penalty it was rarely given any penalty points more than the first time. last year we also did not have G 18-1

Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE .

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

I am not sure how this rule is to be used... If a long shooter sits in the corner and drives out to pick up a penalty... is that not a strategy?
It would force an opposing robot who is NOT in violation to be in violation..

I know it is annoying for the full field shooters... but if a robot sits in a position that is legal and the shooter does the movement... I don't see how moving out to cause a penalty on the other robot is not a strategy...

I think the best bet is to ask the Head referee how they are going to call it.
I can see it go either way...

I do believe that the 60/84" height rules were put in for a reason...I would think that they are there so a robot shooting into their own goal could always shoot from a height above a blocking robot in their own area.

Perhaps they are also there to impede a robot from doing full field shooting?? from the opponents home field...

We don't know the intent of the height restrictions...

My personal opinion is that the rules would not be created to allow for a single answer to the game..... and the rules committee must have considered the issue of a full field shooter.

It is an interesting dilemma...

[MrJohnston]

I think I will ask the head referee at Seattle... I'm not looking at giving the other robot a "tap" - rather I want to push it out of the way, to open a shot. It also seems strange that we'd have a "protected zone" if the opposing robot could stand right in front of it and we'd be forced to try do dodge it... Before 18-1, I figured the rule was in place to make sure that the opposing robot kept a respectable distance.

Regarding the tall robot, if we are driving for our own pyramid, unless we go completely around the opposing one, there is a strong chance that we'd push a tall defender out of its autozone (which is pretty small) in the process - even inadvertantly..

I agree about the ambiguous nature of a couple of rules. I think my biggest struggle is that the refs did not seem to agree on some interpreations and my kids were frustrated.

[Sam390250]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

I think I will ask the head referee at Seattle... I'm not looking at giving the other robot a "tap" - rather I want to push it out of the way, to open a shot. It also seems strange that we'd have a "protected zone" if the opposing robot could stand right in front of it and we'd be forced to try do dodge it... Before 18-1, I figured the rule was in place to make sure that the opposing robot kept a respectable distance.

I think it is a bit faulty to assume that G-30 was put in place to keep robots a respectable distance away. I believe the main point of this rule is to keep robots who are loading from being physically jostled which would impact the loading of the discs. Even if I am incorrect in my assumptions, if the intent was to keep robots a respectable distance away, they probably would have made the protected zone quite a bit bigger.

[FrankJ]

Regardless of why the rule is written, it should be enforced on how it is written. The quote Seattle Referee's interpretation sound very reasonable. (Especially since I agree with it )

[2789_B_Garcia]

For an interesting interpretation of how these rules interact, check out Quals Match 53 from Alamo this weekend. An opponent pushed and pinned us under their pyramid, and we were then knocked into one of their alliance members, and couldn't get out because we kept being pushed by our opponent and the ref gave them a technical foul because of 18-1, and then gave us two technical fouls for contacting both of the opponents robots AND awarded them BOTH FULL CLIMB POINTS because one of them had their hooks up...it gave them a total of 100 points for this interaction...they beat us by 16 points...I sent my driver to the question box immediately, but the ref stood by the call. Needless to say, we then went and apologized to our alliance members for that match.

[Abhishek R]

I remember that match, I don't believe you should've been awarded that many foul points nor the climb points as stated before, you were forced into the pyramid, so the opponent was "clearly looking to draw a foul." This year has been a pretty crazy season for fouls...

[2789_B_Garcia]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

I remember that match, I don't believe you should've been awarded that many foul points nor the climb points as stated before, you were forced into the pyramid, so the opponent was "clearly looking to draw a foul." This year has been a pretty crazy season for fouls...

We felt so bad about that match. Y'all deserved that win. When my driver went over to apologize, he said that y'all were upset, but the team and the mentors handled the situation respectfully. I've always respected your team and your team culture. Other teams would have chewed him out or ripped him apart. Please thank your team on our behalf for showing true gracious professionalism in a very stressful and frustrating situation.

[M.O'Reilly]

I saw a similar curious (infuriating?) call at Bridgewater this weekend.

A Blue robot sat in a Red feeder station for the entire match, blocking red robots from getting discs there at all.

The Red alliance received 44 points from penalties due to the Blue robots illegal actions.

The Blue alliance was awarded 20 points because it was deemed that a Red robot was intentionally hitting the Blue robot into the second Red robot trying to enter the feeder station as well: technical foul as per 18-1. It was clear that both robots were just trying to get the blue robot out of the loading zone.

The Blue alliance were only net -24 points for this illegal action, while effectively shutting down 2 good disc scorers. Blue won the match.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by M.O'Reilly

I saw a similar curious (infuriating?) call at Bridgewater this weekend.

A Blue robot sat in a Red feeder station for the entire match, blocking red robots from getting discs there at all.

The Red alliance received 44 points from penalties due to the Blue robots illegal actions.

The Blue alliance was awarded 20 points because it was deemed that a Red robot was intentionally hitting the Blue robot into the second Red robot trying to enter the feeder station as well: technical foul as per 18-1. It was clear that both robots were just trying to get the blue robot out of the loading zone.

The Blue alliance were only net -24 points for this illegal action, while effectively shutting down 2 good disc scorers. Blue won the match.

This ancedote, combined with what I have seen personally at SVR combined with watching many streams, has convinced me that the technical foul for "purposeful or consequential" contact is not being given enough. If, as you say, the blue robot had intentionally sat in the station for the entire match, then at some point (fairly quickly) a 20-point foul should have been given for each contact. And I don't have specific examples to point to, but I have constantly seen obviously intentional contact or contact on robots lining up or lined up to shoot (i.e. consequential contact) only being penalized with a normal foul.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

Last year... when the moved out of the safe lane and tapped for a penalty it was rarely given any penalty points more than the first time. last year we also did not have G 18-1

No, we had a G44-45, which was even more confusing.

2013: [G18-1] Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE .

2012: [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.
2012: [G45] Strategies exploiting Rule [G44] are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed.
2012: [G28] Robots may not touch an opponent Robot in contact with its Key, Alley, or Bridge.

Just something to remember when attempting to compare across years. Also, I never witnessed a limit on legitimate G28s. We got like 6 in a row trying to triple balance at MAR. It generally seems to be called the same way this year, at least in these parts.

I won't offer a referee opinion, but consider this:
What is the purpose of the clause, "Regardless of who initiates the contact" in [G30's] "...a ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOT contacting its PYRAMID or touching the carpet in its LOADING ZONE", if not to open the possibility of penalizing Blue for getting to close to Red + Red Protected Zone (within pushing distance), at least in some instances?

Asking your head ref is a good method of determining these instances.

[yoda92]

I have only reffed 1 FRC competition this year, but have reffed many FTC and FLL tournaments where FIRST's rule of "intent" is at play. I don't usually comment on these rule threads, but I've seen so many g-30 threads this year it warranted a post.

1st a foremost, ask your head referee before it happens and make sure you have a rule book on hand. Avoid posing hypothetical if statements whenever possible by giving a detailed situations that can easily be interpreted (what you wrote up is fairly clear and is easily shown during a practice round Thursday).

Given the training that I've received, you should not be penalized for bumping them to open up a clear shot. You are not pushing them to receive the penalty and are obviously in the act of attempting to score as a full court shooter. Furthermore, the protected zones are a calculated risk for teams defending near them and failure to do so correctly is to be punished. No matter how many times this happens, as long as you are clearly going for position rather than constantly tapping them for penalty after penalty, you should not receive the technical. G18 is more focused at stopping teams from forcing teams into penalty situations usually involving 2 or more robots where intent is obvious.

For your second question, I like to compare intent in this situation as the difference between bulldozing game pieces and herding them. It is very obvious when a team is driving to dodge a robot and driving to shove a robot. This question then breaks down into too much of a hypothetical and comes down to referee's judgement. Play it safe and aim for outmaneuvering rather than pushing matches.