<G28>

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by EricH

That said: I think that TU#1 will address this question. If it does not, then Q&A should be asked for confirmation. If my interpretation is correct, matches can be won far too easily by teams exploiting [G28]. If my interpretation is incorrect, then I'm concerned about nothing. But nobody has been able to fully show me that I'm wrong so far.

There are days when I really feel sorry for the GDC. A day when I read someone admitting that his interpretation of the rules means matches can be won by a team shoving an opponent into a forbidden corner and repeatedly tagging it to rack up foul points is definitely one of those days. Demanding the GDC explicitly tell us that we can't win a match solely by forcing fouls on our opponent seems pretty silly to me. I know the GDC has made some calls in the past that many of us disagreed with or thought would go the other way, but this one just seems far far too obvious to support this speculation. I'm honestly expecting a Q&A on this to get a rather abrupt smackdown requesting the submitter not lawyer the rules and use some common sense.

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I'm honestly expecting a Q&A on this to get a rather abrupt smackdown requesting the submitter not lawyer the rules and use some common sense.

The problem is though that you need to lawyer the rules. You need to go strictly by what the rules say, and not by what you personally think the intent is. I know that on our team, we thought that redirecting balls in breakaway was illegal.

<G45> Active BALL control - ROBOTS may not control BALL direction with active MECHANISMS above the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.

Judging from intent, it seems that you cant redirect balls. In reality active was the key word in that rule, and it wasnt defined as to what constitutes active mechanisms. Had 469 not "lawyered" the rules, we would not have seen one of the best robots in this era.

Does anyone know when update 1 comes out?

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I know the GDC has made some calls in the past that many of us disagreed with or thought would go the other way, but this one just seems far far too obvious to support this speculation. I'm honestly expecting a Q&A on this to get a rather abrupt smackdown requesting the submitter not lawyer the rules and use some common sense.

(EDIT: I think my initial stance on this wasn't so clear, so I made a few edits.)

I don't think it's that obvious that the rule should be clarified as you suggest. Below are two scenarios in which violating G28 can win you a match if the rule is clarifed as suggested. In other words, the following two scenarios illustrate that a team that knows that G45 provides protection against multiple G28 infraction causes that team to violate G28 in order to win the match:

In each scenario you have one great robot (robot A) that can pick up balls and score with ease, and another robot that can't pick up balls, can't shoot, but is as large as a refrigerator (robot Z).

Scenario 1:
Robot Z's alliance has three balls in front of Robot A's rebounder station with 40 seconds to go. Robot Z knows Robot A can pick up the balls and score them with ease resulting in losing the match, so Robot Z herds the balls into the corner of the field in the lane and parks their robot so Robot A can't get them.

Robot A tries to shove Robot Z out of the lane in order to get to the balls, which earns Robot A three points for the foul (Robot Z is in violation of G28, so Robot A gets 3 points). Robot Z continues to sit there knowing that Robot A can't get to the balls and they can't continue to touch Robot Z for fear of violating G45 (or even if they don't violate G45, perhaps the refs only award one foul). Robot Z's alliance wins since the 3 point foul is less than the 9 points Robot A would have scored. Violating rule G28 resulted in an advantage to Robot Z.


Scenario 2:
Robot A makes 100% of it's shots from a particular position of the key and is not so good elsewhere in the key (they have a fixed shooter that is highly optimized for one spot). Robot Z knows this and anchors itself to the part of the key that Robot A likes to shoot from. Robot A tries to shove Robot Z out of the way (giving Robot A 3 points for the foul) but can never move Robot Z out of the way since they are an immovable object. Robot A settles for the shot from the side of the key and misses all three shots (it only shoots well from where Robot Z is sitting). Robot Z's alliance wins since the 3 point foul is less than the 9 points it would have given up had Robot A had it's ideal scoring spot. Robot Z gained an advantage by violating G28.


In these two scenarios, do we really want to reward breaking a rule since breaking that rule costs less than if they played by the rules? As far as I'm concerned, in both cases Robot A should be awarded for at least the number of points they had to give up due to Robot Z's violations of G28. If that means awarding Robot A 3 points every time they back up and hit them again to try and move them out of the way, then so be it. The problem is that if the rule is changed, it's easy to violate G28 and get a 6 point advantage by doing so.

[wilhitern1]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Scenario 1:
Violating rule G28 resulted in an advantage to Robot Z.

Scenario 2:
Robot A tries to shove Robot Z out of the way (giving Robot A 3 points for the foul) but can never move Robot Z out of the way since they are an immovable object. ... Robot Z gained an advantage by violating G28.

In scenario1, I disagree that G28 was violated. The intent here is to make the alleyway defendable, but not to make passing robots into targets.

In scenario 2, I disagree with both quoted statements. Z did not violate G28 and the driver of A is a fool and should have made at least 4 substantial runs into the opposing robot and thus gained 12 points. Z was out of position and deserved the points.

Moral: defend far enough away from the zones to be reasonable and if the opponent comes tearing at you , dodge and remember, they are wasting their time instead of scoring.

[rich2202]

The issue is "exploit". If there is a purpose for your movement (aside from scoring g28 points), and it causes a G28 violation, then it is not an "exploit" for G45 purposes.

For instance, if you are getting a ball from your inbound station and dashing for the bridge, the other team better get out of the alley. If you see another bot in your alley, and you make a mad dash at it for the sole purpose of scoring g28 points, then that is a g45 violation. If the other bot was going for a loose ball in your alley, then the purpose of the mad dash is going after the ball, and not the other bot, thus not an "exploit".

Similarly, if you are pushing another bot out of the way, so you can shoot from the key, then that is ok. If you don't have a ball to shoot, then that can be considered an "exploit". But, if you are clearing the key so an alliance bot can shoot, then that is ok.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Scenario 1: Robot Z herds the balls into the corner of the field in the lane and parks their robot so Robot A can't get them.

No different than if Z had the 3 balls in its body. A could not go after the balls. Thus, any contact is a violation of G28.

However, if Z had 3 balls in its body, and was hearding 3 additional balls, then Z could be in violation of G22, and all A would have to do is approach to get the loose balls, and A would get the points without having to actually contact Z, thus defeating the purpose of your scenario (keeping A from scoring).

Scenario 2:
Robot Z knows this and anchors itself to the part of the key that Robot A likes to shoot from.

Z has no valid game purpose from immobilizing in that position. Thus, how ever many contacts it takes to get Z to move is Z's problem. A is not "exploiting" for the purpose of scoring fouls, so there is no G45 violation.

Note: There is also an issue of how often you can "touch". The Pin rules (g29) could apply where another contact would not be considered a "touch" for foul scoring purposes until the bots separated by 6' and 3 seconds.

Another question is: What if 2 alliance bots touch the same opponent bot around the same time? Let say the opponent bot is in the key. Two alliance bots push the bot away so they can shoot. I think that would be 2 fouls.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

There are days when I really feel sorry for the GDC. A day when I read someone admitting that his interpretation of the rules means matches can be won by a team shoving an opponent into a forbidden corner and repeatedly tagging it to rack up foul points is definitely one of those days.

Just curious, how different is that than a situation in which a team realizes the proximity of an opponents robot (say, playing defense), and while in the key bumps them several times? To me, that's "exploiting" a rule, but well within the intent and language of the rule.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Demanding the GDC explicitly tell us that we can't win a match solely by forcing fouls on our opponent seems pretty silly to me. I know the GDC has made some calls in the past that many of us disagreed with or thought would go the other way, but this one just seems far far too obvious to support this speculation. I'm honestly expecting a Q&A on this to get a rather abrupt smackdown requesting the submitter not lawyer the rules and use some common sense.

Either way, I'd appreciate a clear interpretation to prevent ambiguity. That's not something I want to find out at the first regional.