G15 explained - interference examples

[AmyPrib]

I thought that since there were so many questions regarding this particular issue, I'll make a new thread.
Please try to keep the comments related to only this topic in this thread.

I suggest reading Update 04 very carefully! They have given examples of the debate over what's considered interfering in loading zones. There are 8 great examples of what will happen.

I think it helps clarify the G15 rule a lot. I would like to thank FIRST for the great examples they have provided.

I can try to summarize, but really suggest you read the Update very carefully. I think it pretty much answers all the possibilities of interferences while in the loading zone.

1. If BLUEBOT is in RED-LZ, and REDBOT comes into RED-LZ, if BLUEBOT does not move out of the way, and out of the LZ, BLUE will be assessed a penalty because they are now interfereing with REDBOT getting a tetra.

2. BLUEBOT is next to RED-LZ, but not in it. REDBOT comes over but can't get to their RED-LZ because BLUEBOT is in the way. BLUEBOT stays in the way, but does not receive a penalty because REDBOT couldn't enter their LZ yet and therefore isn't technically being impeded from getting a tetra.

3. BLUEBOT is in RED-LZ, as REDBOT approaches and enters RED-LZ. BLUEBOT moves out of the way and out of LZ, but they make slight contact. REDBOT retrieves a tetra. Neither penalized, since it was incidental contact and BLUEBOT was leaving and did not impede the tetra-getting.

4. REDBOT-1 is in RED-LZ getting a tetra. REDBOT-2 is sitting near him waiting to get in the zone. BLUEBOT comes and runs into REDBOT-2, which in turn knocks him into REDBOT-1 which impedes him from getting a tetra. BLUEBOT gets a penalty because he was the source of interference. It doesn't matter that there was another robot in between BLUEBOT and REDBOT-1.

5. REDBOT is in RED-LZ getting a tetra. There is another tetra on the ground near REDBOT. BLUEBOT runs into the tetra, which in turn runs into REDBOT, pushing him out of position. REDBOT is delayed and has to get back in position, and then finally retrieves a tetra. BLUEBOT gets a penalty because it delayed REDBOT from getting a tetra, and interfered with the retrieval process. BLUEBOT was the source of interference.

6. REDBOT is sitting in RED-LZ already loaded with a tetra, waiting for a clear path to leave. BLUEBOT comes by and blocks REDBOT from leaving his LZ, and they make contact while REDBOT is still in LZ. No penalty given, since REDBOT is not in the process of getting a tetra.

7. BLUEBOT pushes REDBOT into the BLUE-LZ. While BLUEBOT continues to push, he now is in the BLUE-LZ, still contacting REDBOT. No penalty given to anyone, since BLUEBOT was not in the process of receiving a tetra while pushing on REDBOT.
But you should probably then refer back up to #1 as soon as BLUEBOT gets in that zone.. REDBOT better think about moving on out.

8. REDBOT-1 is in the RED-LZ retrieving a tetra. BLUEBOT is sitting right outside RED-LZ, but not touching the LZ. REDBOT-2 comes along and pushes BLUEBOT into REDBOT-1, impeding the tetra retrieval. No penalty given, since REDBOT-2 was the source of interference, and on the same team as REDBOT-1.

My thoughts are - try to steer clear of the loading zones while you're opponent is in it. 30pt penalty is pretty steep to worry about. You're pretty safe if you're just skulking around the zone, and one of their alliance partners knocks you into him. You were not the source of interference in that case. But most others, there is a high potential of receiving a penalty... Especially if you can't see very well and not sure if the opponent actually enters into their LZ.

[Paul Copioli]

Amy,

I read the update and the examples are great, but one important scenario is missing:

What if Blue Bot is in Red robots loading zone and is large enough to cover the entire loading zone. That way blue robot is in the loading zone, but red robot is not in and never will be in if the blue robot doesn't move. Not one of the examples covers this one. Am I missing something?

-Paul

[meaubry]

Great examples Amy - Thanks.
I'm a little concerned with the interference examples that cannot be rationalized by "intention of loading a tetra".
If that is the difference between getting a 30 pt penalty and not getting one - I would have preferred a simple LZ rule like; "while within the LZ, no contact on any kind is allowed" - and make the LZ's of a significant size to get the robots completely into them (44 x 44). Then apply a 5 second rule like in basketball for opponents being the the paint to make sure the opponents don't camp there.
Just my thoughts on the subject - by the way, what happens if the opponents robot gets disabled or dies while in the opponents LZ?

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Amy,

I read the update and the examples are great, but one important scenario is missing:

What if Blue Bot is in Red robots loading zone and is large enough to cover the entire loading zone. That way blue robot is in the loading zone, but red robot is not in and never will be in if the blue robot doesn't move. Not one of the examples covers this one. Am I missing something?

-Paul

As I read the rules and updates, if Blueabot is putting a lock-down on Redabot's LZ, Redabot (x3) can initiate as much contact as they want without ever fearing a penalty, since Blueabot cannot ever be "in the act of loading a tetra."

However, if one Redabot sneaks into the Red LZ and initiates a tetra loading, Bluabot is going to get a 30 point penalty.

[AmyPrib]

Welp Paul - I think Andrew is right. Since the Q/A currently says that there is no time limit for an Bluebot being in Redbot LZ, then I'm guessing that as long as Redbot can't manage to touch or get into his LZ, then Bluebot is fine and won't get a penalty. Redbot has to enter the loading first to even be considered for the "in act of loading a tetra". So if they can't get in there... tough luck redguy, go to another LZ. It would essentially be the same as if Bluebot was outside the LZ blocking Redbot from getting to his LZ... either way he's blocking him from getting into the LZ, which is legal.

I'm most concerned with the "fine line" of example 7 and 1 contradicting... I think 7 will be a tough one to call, because my thought is, as soon as I enter my LZ, I should be considered "attempting to get a tetra", in which case, if the opponent doesn't move, he should be penalized.

I guess the slight difference is that in 1, the opponent was already in my LZ sitting. In 7, I actually pushed my opponent into my LZ. But, what if I couldn't help it, I pushed him in there because I'm stronger, and he was in my way, and I wanted to get to the LZ to get a tetra. Technically as soon as I hit my LZ, the opponent should move out of there because I would now be in the process of getting a tetra. So I don't know exactly how they will referee an example like 7.

I don't think the opponent should be exempt from penalty just because I happened to push him into my LZ while on my way to it to get a tetra. The opponent was purposely there in my way, and now that I've pushed him into and gotten myself into my LZ, I am intending to get a tetra, and he is now interfering with me. So how would you judge that?

I think FIRST has tried to clear it up and point out that you must be in the process of loading a tetra to use interference rule. Looking at 7, it seems like if you're not planted to retrieve your tetra, then you shouldn't be considered "in the process".

That's easy enough to tell for the HP side, since I'm disabled and waiting for a tetra, someone bumping me or interfering is obvious to see.

But what about the autoload side? If Bluebot is sitting in front of my Red LZ, and my redbot comes along to swipe a tetra, as soon as I hit that LZ (even if I have to push my opponent into it), I'm in the process of getting a tetra. So, if Bluebot continues to stay in my way and tries to push me out, if I'm touching that LZ at all, it should be a penalty on Blue because he's interfering wtih my process of retrieval.

Any thoughts on that?

To answer Andrews question - if any robot gets disabled or dies in the LZ.... I don't know. I guess.... you can push him out of the way, or leave him. Don't know what else you can do about it. There are 4 LZs afterall, so I don't see that being a huge problem.

It would be nice if there was a "no camping" rule, but I like minimizng qty of rules... But, at least one robot cannot occupy more than one LZ at a time.. so they can't spread out over two of your LZs and camp.

[Max Lobovsky]

I have another unanswered question about this rule. What if your robot has a part of the frame that extends past the wheels. It would be part of the 28x38 frame, not an extension. Would this part being over the LZ triangle count as being in the triangle?

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Max Lobovsky

I have another unanswered question about this rule. What if your robot has a part of the frame that extends past the wheels. It would be part of the 28x38 frame, not an extension. Would this part being over the LZ triangle count as being in the triangle?

Please continue this particular question discussion in
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=32797
or the "Q/A questions so far" thread.

If you're not "touching" the triangle of the LZ, then you are not "in" the LZ.