Off Side Penalty?

[Athenian Roboti]

We are wondering: what happens if you are on defense and are not able to get one of your robots to the other side because it has broken down? Will you get penalized? We already know what to do in the event that it happens, but we want to know what the judges will think. The rule I'm referring to is in Section 4.3.4.5 (Match Play), Paragraph G26. Please advise. Thanks!

The Athenian Robotics Collective

[pyroslev]

Either choose another robot or push the damaged one to be the backbot within five seconds.

[Joe J.]

pyroslev is right

FIRST Q&A on the subject.

[Athenian Roboti]

Please refer to the changes that have been made, the first two replies were answering it, but not in the way we were anticipating.

The Athenian Robotics Collective

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Philmont629

pyroslev is right

FIRST Q&A on the subject.

We saw this happen at the UTC scrimmage.

Best thing to do is put the robot with the most potential for breaking down at the beginning of the match in the backbot position already.

To do this, gain psychic powers.

If you are competing with a known dead bot, just make them start at the backbot position.

It was pretty funny how Benge solved the problem at the UTC scrimmage.
I could upload a vid of that sometime this week.
Horray for a being a scrimmage where it's mostly by the rules but semi-forgiving as well.

[DjAlamose]

This is what you can do in this situation if you are on the opposing alliance and you have a defensive robot on your alliance. Because it is now 2v3 with the backbot dead, the defensive robot can go and begin pushing dead backbot into position so it is no longer a backbot, and presto you now have given your opponent a penalty for every 5 seconds that backbot is over the line. and therefore created a 1v3. But if you were to do this I would only push the dead bot so far as to barely put it over the line so the opposing alliance won't see that it is past the line.

mmm for strategy

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by DjAlamose

This is what you can do in this situation if you are on the opposing alliance and you have a defensive robot on your alliance. Because it is now 2v3 with the backbot dead, the defensive robot can go and begin pushing dead backbot into position so it is no longer a backbot, and presto you now have given your opponent a penalty for every 5 seconds that backbot is over the line. and therefore created a 1v3. But if you were to do this I would only push the dead bot so far as to barely put it over the line so the opposing alliance won't see that it is past the line.

mmm for strategy

And that is exactly the sort of cheap, unsportmanlike tactics that we are supposed to rise above. I would expect to see such a play in a pro wrestling match, but not in a FIRST competition. When you do this, don't be surprised when everyone on your team is treated like pariahs for the remainder of the competition.

-dave

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by DjAlamose

This is what you can do in this situation if you are on the opposing alliance and you have a defensive robot on your alliance. Because it is now 2v3 with the backbot dead, the defensive robot can go and begin pushing dead backbot into position so it is no longer a backbot, and presto you now have given your opponent a penalty for every 5 seconds that backbot is over the line. and therefore created a 1v3. But if you were to do this I would only push the dead bot so far as to barely put it over the line so the opposing alliance won't see that it is past the line.

mmm for strategy

Wow. That thought would have never crossed my mind in a million years.

If the oppoent pulls a dead backbot over to the other side, I would expect that not to count against the dead robot. I think there is a rule about how if the opponent is preventing a team to get to backbot position, it will NOT count against the backbot team. I would hope the same logic comes into play with your nasty strategy.
Heck, I would hope that opponent gets a penalty for acting ungracious and unsportsmanlike. If you need to use that kind of strategy, you should probably take a look at the rest of your strategy and capabilities to find out where you can improve.

[Ethulin]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

Wow. That thought would have never crossed my mind in a million years.

If the oppoent pulls a dead backbot over to the other side, I would expect that not to count against the dead robot. I think there is a rule about how if the opponent is preventing a team to get to backbot position, it will NOT count against the backbot team. I would hope the same logic comes into play with your nasty strategy.
Heck, I would hope that opponent gets a penalty for acting ungracious and unsportsmanlike. If you need to use that kind of strategy, you should probably take a look at the rest of your strategy and capabilities to find out where you can improve.

The rules are pretty clear on this. If they push the bot over the line and back away they the former backbot is no longer "prevented by an offensive ROBOT from crossing the field centerline". Therefore they will have the 5 point penalty assessed against it. The only thing preventing that team from getting back over is their own bot's inability to move, no one else. I am kinda sick of people saying anything that is defensive is not GP. The GP thing to do is to volunteer to help the team who's bot broke down fix it after the match, not to disregard a perfectly legitimate strategy.

This is where I draw the line: if a team is running a strategy that harms or is likely to harm another team's bot it is not GP. If a team is using the rules to their advantage then go ahead, I congratulate you on your ingenuity.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Ethulin

The rules are pretty clear on this. If they push the bot over the line and back away they the former backbot is no longer "prevented by an offensive ROBOT from crossing the field centerline". Therefore they will have the 5 point penalty assessed against it. The only thing preventing that team from getting back over is their own bot's inability to move, no one else. I am kinda sick of people saying anything that is defensive is not GP. The GP thing to do is to volunteer to help the team who's bot broke down fix it after the match, not to disregard a perfectly legitimate strategy.

This is where I draw the line: if a team is running a strategy that harms or is likely to harm another team's bot it is not GP. If a team is using the rules to their advantage then go ahead, I congratulate you on your ingenuity.

Well, some don't agree that this is a perfectly legal strategy of plan as outlined by the rules. Perhaps it's time for Q/A to specifically address this actual case.

This is not really a defensive play, persay. As always stated, nobody says Defense is un-GP. The perceived intent behind this strategy is to make your opponents score go to 0, while you sit back and watch, maybe? The rules basically tell you that playing defense on a would-be backbot does you absolutely no good. If one wants to think of this as a legit plan, ok. But I guess I don't understand the advantage of wasting all your time pushing a dead robot, rather than scoring offensively with your partners. To each his own.

If a robot is dead, it's likely that the dead bot could be damanged by the pushing, shoving, beating by the opponent to get it moved on the other side of the line. That is not acceptable and likely will be penalized for damage. I would hope they'd give up if it doesn't budge.

The question is cause of infraction. In G26, if the opponent is preventing you from becoming a backbot, the backbot doesnt' get penalized because they are not causing their own inability to get behind the line. Now if a dead bot is sitting there, they are fine. If the opponent pushes them back to the other side, the opponent caused the infraction, not the deadbot themselves. The alliance did not cause themselves to violate the rule, so if you interpret the rule that way, then no penalty.

Would seem the same logic that applies in the moving case would apply in the dead case. Therefore, the deadbot did not cause his situation, therefore by implication would not be penalized.

Why would they penalize a dead robot who was perfectly fine as a dead backbot minding his own business when they don't penalize a robot that is actually moving to become a backbot but is prevented by the opponent? This logic implies that it does not good for the opponent to try and screw up your ability to get in backbot position.

I will ask Q/A and get it answered. Good debate though.

[Jon K.]

At the Winter War Zone scrimmage(the FIRST "testing" ground(as far as I know, it is the first place that FIRST actually sees the game in play by a real robot. Anyone can feel free to correct me via p.m. if that assumption is false.)) the head ref moved a dead bot over to the other side after calling about 30 seconds worth of penalties on the dead bot's alliance.

[Ethulin]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

Well, some don't agree that this is a perfectly legal strategy of plan as outlined by the rules. Perhaps it's time for Q/A to specifically address this actual case.

This is not really a defensive play, persay. As always stated, nobody says Defense is un-GP. The perceived intent behind this strategy is to make your opponents score go to 0, while you sit back and watch, maybe? The rules basically tell you that playing defense on a would-be backbot does you absolutely no good. If one wants to think of this as a legit plan, ok. But I guess I don't understand the advantage of wasting all your time pushing a dead robot, rather than scoring offensively with your partners. To each his own.

If a robot is dead, it's likely that the dead bot could be damanged by the pushing, shoving, beating by the opponent to get it moved on the other side of the line. That is not acceptable and likely will be penalized for damage. I would hope they'd give up if it doesn't budge.

The question is cause of infraction. In G26, if the opponent is preventing you from becoming a backbot, the backbot doesnt' get penalized because they are not causing their own inability to get behind the line. Now if a dead bot is sitting there, they are fine. If the opponent pushes them back to the other side, the opponent caused the infraction, not the deadbot themselves. The alliance did not cause themselves to violate the rule, so if you interpret the rule that way, then no penalty.

Would seem the same logic that applies in the moving case would apply in the dead case. Therefore, the deadbot did not cause his situation, therefore by implication would not be penalized.

Why would they penalize a dead robot who was perfectly fine as a dead backbot minding his own business when they don't penalize a robot that is actually moving to become a backbot but is prevented by the opponent? This logic implies that it does not good for the opponent to try and screw up your ability to get in backbot position.

I will ask Q/A and get it answered. Good debate though.

Excellently articulated response, rep points coming your way. It seems people stretch the rules into a "GP" form a lot in FIRST, something will notice does not happen in other sports. If you want rules to be read that way I suggest you (GDC) write them that way. As a relatively high level soccer referee we subscribe to the philosophy that the simplest interpretation of a rule is the correct one. In soccer the rules are revised if we want to mean something else, we don't make up long winded explanations te justify them. I understand FIRST is different, but if we want it to be a "real" sport we should play by our own rules. The def. of prevent is: "To keep (someone) from doing something; impede". Impede is defined as " To retard or obstruct the progress of". The fatal flaw in your logic is that you say they "caused the penalty". You are 100% correct to say that they put the bot in a situation that allows the bot to incur a penalty, but think of it this way; if you pushed a live bot over the line and backed off and that bot's drivers decided to take their hands off the controls and let it sit there thould it incure the penalty? The other team DID put the bot in the illegal position. The only difference is that the team has the ability to get out of it. The rules do not reference this ability, therefore a penalty should be assessed in both situations.

Originally Posted by Jon K.

At the Winter War Zone scrimmage(the FIRST "testing" ground(as far as I know, it is the first place that FIRST actually sees the game in play by a real robot. Anyone can feel free to correct me via p.m. if that assumption is false.)) the head ref moved a dead bot over to the other side after calling about 30 seconds worth of penalties on the dead bot's alliance.

Jon, I almost really did smile when I read this. Did anyone ask how under the rules he came to the conclusion that this is the right thing to do? If an alliance is too dense to figure out they just got 30 penalty points against them so they should pull one of their bots back then they deserve the next 10. It seems the 30 second mark is so arbitrary. Either you count it or you don't.

[Jon K.]

Originally Posted by Ethulin

Jon, I almost really did smile when I read this. Did anyone ask how under the rules he came to the conclusion that this is the right thing to do? If an alliance is too dense to figure out they just got 30 penalty points against them so they should pull one of their bots back then they deserve the next 10. It seems the 30 second mark is so arbitrary. Either you count it or you don't.

No I didn't count it but I remember there being an aweful lot of penalty points called on its part and thats why the ref moved it.(Mostly because a scrimmage is a testing ground for bots not a real competition and therefore it wasn't really a big deal.)

[Jon K.]

Originally Posted by DjAlamose

This is what you can do in this situation if you are on the opposing alliance and you have a defensive robot on your alliance. Because it is now 2v3 with the backbot dead, the defensive robot can go and begin pushing dead backbot into position so it is no longer a backbot, and presto you now have given your opponent a penalty for every 5 seconds that backbot is over the line. and therefore created a 1v3. But if you were to do this I would only push the dead bot so far as to barely put it over the line so the opposing alliance won't see that it is past the line.

mmm for strategy

While I may never have thought of using this strategy, it is none-the-less a legitimate strategy. I thinke everyone bashing Dj should stop, I mean think of last year, and how many people would try to get intentional 30 point penalties called against the other alliance. It happened more then most would like to admit I am affraid. Although I do agree with Amy's post about it not counting against the alliance due to the rule where the opposite alliance caused the infraction.

[DjAlamose]

Originally Posted by Jon K.

While I may never have thought of using this strategy, it is none-the-less a legitimate strategy. I thinke everyone bashing Dj should stop, I mean think of last year, and how many people would try to get intentional 30 point penalties called against the other alliance. It happened more then most would like to admit I am affraid. Although I do agree with Amy's post about it not counting against the alliance due to the rule where the opposite alliance caused the infraction.

I actually agree with both of you. The thought of this just happened to cross my mind and i decided to point it out. Our robot isn't made for pushing but out maneuvering. Also i didn't know there was a rule about their not counting due to the fact that the opposing alliance caused the infraction (do you have a rule number, just curious). But yes last year people tried to force loading zone penalties way too much, and i could see the same thing happening this year (except it would be with the backbot not loading zones of course). My guess is in the first few matches the backbots will forget about the rule and accidentally go over the line, but as the competition rolls on it will be remembered quite well, just like HP's being in the box last year.
I do agree that this strategy wouldn't be within the ideas of GP so in the end I wouldn't use it at all. But the more prepared you are for any situation and circumstance the better off you are.