Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

[JesseK]

For # 3, 469 should have tried to go around the 'pinned' robot. The instant the robot chased 469 to continue blocking, it would (should) have received a red card for tower contact. They were smart for just sitting there.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by RMiller

This is a separate issue, but I think it is worth discussing as it is on topic.



This is a hard one to judge. First, I don't know enough to disagree or agree with the ruling as there are two possibilities.

1) Other alliance ends up pushing dead robot into tower <G61> causes no problems.
<G61> The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.
Unless otherwise noted, all PENALTIES assigned by referees are applied to the entire ALLIANCE.

I'll keep this short since I have already had this discussion for an hour on the car ride home and I always agreed with the call (I expected it before the endgame even started) even though it went against my alliance. I also don't want to completely hijack this thread (although it is related), I just wanted to warn people about a rule they might not think about.

G61 does not apply here for an opponent pushing this dead robot into the tower once the pinning period (back away > 6ft for more than 3 sec) has ended (they are no longer causing it, and there is no rule violation yet). As a veteran of FIRST it is easy to get used to the old rules where you could hit the E-Stop and be immune from further penalties. Those days are gone and you now get a Red Card for hitting your E-Stop unless it is a safety emergency. There is no protection for dead robots or even mention of dead robots in the rules (so there is no way for a ref to declare them dead and exempt from penalties), they are the alliance's responsibility to clear those dead robots or they will get penalties if they sit there until the End Game.

However, the real grey area is if an opponent tips a robot onto the tower, since there are rules about tipping. I say no penalty/red card in this case, but it is open to interpretation.

[Colin P]

Originally Posted by RMiller

The two closest are <G05> which is prematch and <G17> which only applies to the minibot crossing the tower cylinder, not the hostbost/robot.

WOW. Two events and 80 robots later i have yet to see someone take advantage of that...
I'd been running under the assumption that the hostbot cannot enter the vertically projected border, but it clearly only talks about the minibot. That makes 469's alignment perfectly legal, then.
I'm really surprised more people haven't done this, then.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Colin P

HOWEVER, after watching the video about 10 times to look at the upward force, I noticed you broke a much more obvious and important rule. Your alignment device, two pieces of metal, broke the plane of the tower base perimeter. I don't really feel like tearing through the rules right now, but to the best of my knowledge, no part of your robot can enter the base perimeter until the finale starts. This might be worth investigating before you head over to Troy.

Originally Posted by RMiller

I would be interested to know what rule it is you are referring to as none I know exist. The two closest are <G05> which is prematch and <G17> which only applies to the minibot crossing the tower cylinder, not the hostbost/robot.

I had the same mistaken thought as Collin until I re-read the rules recently. The confusion stems from the multiple revisions of the definition of DEPLOY. One of the earlier definitions was something along the lines of any part of your robot crossing the tower perimeter = deploying. Thus some of us have internalized a non-existent rule that no part of your robot may cross the tower perimeter until endgame.

Rereading the rules as they currently stand makes it clear that this is no longer the case and all the pre-alignment mechanisms are perfectly legal, provided the minibot doesn't cross the boundary before the endgame.

[RMiller]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

I'll keep this short since I have already had this discussion for an hour on the car ride home and I always agreed with the call (I expected it before the endgame even started) even though it went against my alliance. I also don't want to completely hijack this thread (although it is related), I just wanted to warn people about a rule they might not think about.

G61 does not apply here for an opponent pushing this dead robot into the tower once the pinning period (back away > 6ft for more than 3 sec) has ended (they are no longer causing it, and there is no rule violation yet). As a veteran of FIRST it is easy to get used to the old rules where you could hit the E-Stop and be immune from further penalties. Those days are gone and you now get a Red Card for hitting your E-Stop unless it is a safety emergency. There is no protection for dead robots or even mention of dead robots in the rules (so there is no way for a ref to declare them dead and exempt from penalties), they are the alliance's responsibility to clear those dead robots or they will get penalties if they sit there until the End Game.

However, the real grey area is if an opponent tips a robot onto the tower, since there are rules about tipping. I say no penalty/red card in this case, but it is open to interpretation.

I guess with the key of "there is no rule violation yet" it is ultimately the correct way to call this, which is not a ruling a like. It seems too easy too take advantage of. I guess it falls under the category of "Team "X" did <G##> unintentionally. Sorry, design better."

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

I just wanted to post a couple of things I found interesting that happened at the Detroit District this past weekend.

This is in no means criticism of the refs or any team's gameplay. Just some things that might affect the way you play for the rest of the season so to make you aware...

First...since I've received several PM's concerning our "illegal" mini-bot deployment mechanism and what we "tried to get away with this year"... Here's a quick video of it deploying at the end of one of our matches. The item in question was since that the 4-bar is slightly traveling in an upward motion when the mini-bot hits the pole, it is contributing to the upward motion of the mini-bot which is illegal... You be the judge, but we promptly removed it after it was brought to our attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5hmtndWAs8

Unfortunately, yes this is illegal .
They are being very strict that no upwards motion can be imparted on the minibot by the hostbot.

Originally Posted by Don Wright

In this match, we no longer have a mini-bot so we are scoring tubes until the end of the match. We received a red card for this match because the last tube we picked up touched the tower base as we picked it up and it was during the end game. Right or wrong...you decide... Just be careful around those towers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQoHIFCLWs

The letter of the rule is you cannot touch the tower, even with a tube with no opponent near.

Originally Posted by Don Wright

The final one is one I really still have a question about. In this match, excellent defense was being played on us and when we tried to go for the tower, they got between us and the tower and we pushed them into the base of the tower. We then backed off slightly, they didn't move, and then pushed them again... You can see the video (although there are some refs in the way, you still can get the point)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP5sGFJJv-M

My question is this...is this pinning (you can see we are getting a countdown for pinning)? Should this be a red card for the red team for contact with the tower in the end game (regardless of pinning)? If not, is it a viable defense now to just "get pinned" between a team wanting to deploy and their tower?

Again, no fault on the refs as I feel this is a slightly gray area that needs clarification...

Thoughts?

As far as pinning goes, yes thats pinning. You did not back away far enough or long enough.

As far as your opponent getting a red card ... that depends.<G61> protects them from you causing a penalty against them, but If the referee believed that your opponent did not attempt to get away from the tower then yes they could get a red card.

[pfreivald]

From looking at the videos, it appears to me that the refs made the correct calls in all three cases...

Thanks for posting these up -- it's a good heads-up for teams that have not yet competed!

[Paul Copioli]

So after watching the third video and going strictly by the rules the blue alliance should have received 10 penalties for pinning, or am I missing something?

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

So after watching the third video and going strictly by the rules the blue alliance should have received 10 penalties for pinning, or am I missing something?

I can't tell when the pin countdown started from the video...

...but maybe, yeah.

[Starke]

Don,

You bring up a great point, and I wanted to post something similar that happened at the Chesapeake Regional this past weekend that had opposite outcomes (Two Red Cards Given). Check out what I posted over the weekend:

Originally Posted by Starke340

SemiFinal 1 Match 3 - Two Red Cards Given

Video Link here: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13429939

Time of Red Cards in Match- Starts at 4:20
Head Referee Explanation- Starts at 11:20

Team Update #16 Link: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...nt.aspx?id=450

Please do not misinterpret this post. I am posting this with the utmost gracious professionalism possible. I wanted to share this information with everyone that has seen this match and had an issue with the decision. I know that a head referee's decision is final. Our alliance ended up coming just short on the redo of the match. We fought hard and tried our best!

[Tom Line]

Let me warn of an 'interesting' call at West Michigan.

In the qualifications matches, if a human player throws a tube and it accidentally brushes a hanging tube and descores it, it isn't a DSQ.

In the eliminations - it's an instant loss for that human player's team, AND their alliance.

We had a fairly precariously seated uber-tube that we had hung. It (evidently) was brushed by a tube thrown by the other alliance's human player. It fell, and they were DSQ'ed from the 2nd quarterfinals match, ending their day.

It's a lousy way to lose, but it's in the rules. Watch out.

[Don Wright]

Thanks for all the comments and discussion...

For our deployment...the last thing I'll say is that it's a little more complicated that it initially looks in the video that could be a basis for it being legal. However, the fact that some friends that we trust brought it to question made us immediately decide it was too close to call (argue) and in order to not risk anything, we decided to change. Our deployment will be better than ever at Troy...

The second video was mostly just a warning that even something as innocent as this can get your team DQ'd in quals (or your alliance DQ'd in elims)...

As for the third video...I know how the rules read. However, I still have questions because the conclusions that have come to here give way to some very powerful defense techniques. We all are realizing that the mini-bot (whether we like it or not) is the key to winning this year.

In this video, you can also see that our alliance is playing hard defense on 51 who had an outstanding mini-bot. However, as soon as it got close to the tower, 2832 got out of there to avoid the red card. However, should they have "gone limp" and let themselves get pushed into the tower? If this is allowed, then to stop teams with great mini-bots is to just get in the way and get pushed into the tower and get pinned... At the minimum, they have to back away 6ft for 3 seconds...and then the mini-bot race is lost...

I see this just like the robots getting pushed into the opponent scoring zone. Even though they get pushed into the scoring zone, it's still a penalty (yes...provided the pushing team is trying to score...etc...).

Maybe I'll ask Q&A...

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

In this video, you can also see that our alliance is playing hard defense on 51 who had an outstanding mini-bot. However, as soon as it got close to the tower, 2832 got out of there to avoid the red card. However, should they have "gone limp" and let themselves get pushed into the tower? If this is allowed, then to stop teams with great mini-bots is to just get in the way and get pushed into the tower and get pinned... At the minimum, they have to back away 6ft for 3 seconds...and then the mini-bot race is lost...

I see this just like the robots getting pushed into the opponent scoring zone. Even though they get pushed into the scoring zone, it's still a penalty (yes...provided the pushing team is trying to score...etc...).

Maybe I'll ask Q&A...

I completely agree with you, Don. I think this needs to be addressed somehow. As the rules are now it makes it too easy to defend the towers.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

First...since I've received several PM's concerning our "illegal" mini-bot deployment mechanism and what we "tried to get away with this year"... Here's a quick video of it deploying at the end of one of our matches. The item in question was since that the 4-bar is slightly traveling in an upward motion when the mini-bot hits the pole, it is contributing to the upward motion of the mini-bot which is illegal... You be the judge, but we promptly removed it after it was brought to our attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5hmtndWAs8

Add four more bars and turn it into a Peaucellier-Lipkin straight-line linkage.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

However, should they have "gone limp" and let themselves get pushed into the tower? If this is allowed, then to stop teams with great mini-bots is to just get in the way and get pushed into the tower and get pinned... At the minimum, they have to back away 6ft for 3 seconds...and then the mini-bot race is lost...

I see this just like the robots getting pushed into the opponent scoring zone. Even though they get pushed into the scoring zone, it's still a penalty (yes...provided the pushing team is trying to score...etc...).

Maybe I'll ask Q&A...

If you want to avoid a robot "going limp" start your return to the tower earlier and change your approach angle. By approaching the tower from the angle in the video (basically a line from the center of the field to the tower), the defending robot is pushed no where near the lane. If the defending robot is pushed into the lane they get a penalty regardless of G61 (and you are highly unlikely to get a yellow card). If you approach on any side where the lane is exposed the defending robot is less likely to go limp and get push into a lane violation. Also, once you push the robot near the tower (before it is touching the tower), you can use the tower as a screen as you drive around to the other side of the tower. Just my $0.02 for how to drive around this defense.