Turret/Tower Height

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

If they do try this, we can drive forward and bump them, under no penalty to us, and a three point penalty to them.

Not so much. If you do this intentionally exploiting G44's exception for G28, it's 9 points for them when you get a technical foul under G45.

[Grim Tuesday]

I think the intent of the rule is pretty clear, as stated in [G28]

[G28]
Robots may not touch an opponent Robot in contact with its Key, Alley, or Bridge.
Violation: Foul; Technical-Foul for purposeful, consequential contact.


This rule applied at all times, no matter who initiates the contact, see [G44].

Emphasis mine. The GDC seems to have thought of this eventuality and even made a rule for it. As for [G45]/[G44]

[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.

[G45]
Strategies exploiting Rule [G44] are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed.
Violation: Technical-Foul and Red Card

Emphasis mine.

Our strategy is shooting, they are interfering with our strategy, and they are liable for the penalty if they intrude upon the key. If our strategy was to bait them into the key then sting them with a penalty, that would be exploiting the exception as described in [G44]. However, that is not it.

Is my analysis sound?

[Siri]

I'm not sure if your first assertion was questioning G45's applicability to G28, but if it was:

Originally Posted by Q&A

Q: Is a strategy to exploit G28 considered to be a strategy to exploit G44 which would be a technical foul and red card according to G45?
A: Yes

If not, I like the "strategy" distinction. If the motion of contact itself (moving to the front of the key) was part of your original shooting strategy, I'd agree with you. But if you're implying that you'd deliberately bump them to earn the foul rather than to physically shoot, I'd contest that this is a separate (if affiliated) strategy. I won't claim to red card you for it, but you may want to seek further clarification. I'll also point out tangentially, that the current litmus test for technical fouling with regards to intentionality is essentially just repetition.

Good thought.

[Chris Hibner]

Sorry to continue to derail this thread.

My strategy is to have a shot that is not blocked. In order to accomplish this, I'm going to shove any robots out of my way until the shot is clear. If, during my shoving, an oppenent is in the key, then that is a three point penalty on them. I don't intend to give them penalties, but I do intend to guarantee an unblocked shot.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Sorry to continue to derail this thread.

My strategy is to have a shot that is not blocked. In order to accomplish this, I'm going to shove any robots out of my way until the shot is clear. If, during my shoving, an oppenent is in the key, then that is a three point penalty on them. I don't intend to give them penalties, but I do intend to guarantee an unblocked shot.

We have the same sentiment.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Is my analysis sound?

No, I don't think so. The contact would not be "purposeful" or "consequential" since you bumped them before or after you launched a ball. Think of the common-sense intention of the rule - seems to be to keep them from interfering with your shooting. Turning the rule into something more just because the syntax is not perfect is not generally a good strategy in my humble opinion.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by wireties

No, I don't think so. The contact would not be "purposeful" or "consequential" since you bumped them before or after you launched a ball. Think of the common-sense intention of the rule - seems to be to keep them from interfering with your shooting. Turning the rule into something more just because the syntax is not perfect is not generally a good strategy in my humble opinion.

However, we did bump them while in the process of shooting. The point of our robot is to get balls into the baskets, not to get the other teams penalties. If they insist on stopping us from our strategy (we are not forcing them to be in the key; they drove there willingly), we have no other choice than to foul them. Why would the GDC include the exception if it was not meant to be used?

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

However, we did bump them while in the process of shooting. The point of our robot is to get balls into the baskets, not to get the other teams penalties. If they insist on stopping us from our strategy (we are not forcing them to be in the key; they drove there willingly), we have no other choice than to foul them. Why would the GDC include the exception if it was not meant to be used?

I would at least run this by the GDC and see what they say. It is not obvious to me that initiating contact with a bot that is near your key (to cause a penalty) is in the spirit of the rules. It seems a tortured interpretation of the rules. What if the other bot tries to retreat? Are you going to chase them?

[Dr Theta]

Originally Posted by wireties

I would at least run this by the GDC and see what they say. It is not obvious to me that initiating contact with a bot that is near your key (to cause a penalty) is in the spirit of the rules. It seems a tortured interpretation of the rules. What if the other bot tries to retreat? Are you going to chase them?

The whole point is to make them retreat. The key is a protected area with the intent being to allow for relatively uninhibited offense. If a team drives on or near your key, it is entirely your right to make contact with them to cause them to get a foul. The intent is that they are to enter that area at their own peril, and that the foul resulting is their own fault regardless of who initiates contact. G<45> was initiated to keep teams from exploiting G<28>'s exemption not to eliminate it entirely.

This is not exploitation of the rules; it is merely enforcement of them.

[LinuxArchitect]

Originally Posted by Dr Theta

The whole point is to make them retreat.

And their whole point might be to distract your driver into keeping you moving. A nice proximity sensor and/or big red driver station button that puts the defensive robot into auto-reverse might be all it takes to avoid fouls.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Dr Theta

The whole point is to make them retreat. The key is a protected area with the intent being to allow for relatively uninhibited offense. If a team drives on or near your key, it is entirely your right to make contact with them to cause them to get a foul. The intent is that they are to enter that area at their own peril, and that the foul resulting is their own fault regardless of who initiates contact. G<45> was initiated to keep teams from exploiting G<28>'s exemption not to eliminate it entirely.

This is not exploitation of the rules; it is merely enforcement of them.

Wow - that is reading a lot into the rules! Who cares if they are in the key or not? The common sense purpose is so they do not bump their opponent's bot while the opponent is shooting. The key is a place where we can take your time, aim our shooter and try to score w/o being bumped. How on earth can we expect a referee to enforce the strategy you guys are advocating? It would result in chaos.

Some are missing the whole point - teams do not "enforce the rules", teams play by them. The referees "enforce the rules" and (in my humble opinion) they will be reasonable and apply common sense. If the intent were for the opponents robot not to enter the key area, just doing so would be a penalty and it is not (that I can find).

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by wireties

Wow - that is reading a lot into the rules! Who cares if they are in the key or not? The common sense purpose is so they do not bump their opponent's bot while the opponent is shooting. The key is a place where we can take your time, aim our shooter and try to score w/o being bumped. How on earth can we expect a referee to enforce the strategy you guys are advocating? It would result in chaos.

Some are missing the whole point - teams do not "enforce the rules", teams play by them. The referees "enforce the rules" and (in my humble opinion) they will be reasonable and apply common sense. If the intent were for the opponents robot not to enter the key area, just doing so would be a penalty and it is not (that I can find).

Back to my previous post.

If a robot is in a position to block my shot, I have every right to push and shove that robot so they are not in a position to block my shot (just like they have a right to agitate my robot to make it difficult to shoot). However, if during that pushing and shoving my robot is in the key, then the penalty is on the defender. If the defender doesn't want that penalty, then stay away from the key .

[midway78224]

From the ground to the tip of our shooter is 55 inches with a 45 degree hood. It works great and we can shoot over anything.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by LinuxArchitect

Our regional judge said if you are "playing the game" which is to say, attempting to retrieve and score baskets, then no technical. So there is the human judgement factor. Certainly if you have no ball to shoot, and no ball nearby to retrieve, just hitting the other guy to get a 3 point foul is not wise. You leave too much room for the judge to nail you with the technical.

Do you mean referees? I am a referee. Clarifications are still pending (at least in my channels). I have no problem with the opportunity of the rule: certainly there are situations in which you can exercise G28 contact initiation without violating G45, and I had not meant to disregard that in my posts. Philosophically and personally, I do like the strategy discussion, but my problem is how to call the difference (a perennial concern in "playing the game" calls). I do not wish for teams to assume anything not in evidence, for their own sake. That's all I'll say on the matter, but please do not base your designs on facts not in evidence.

[LinuxArchitect]

Originally Posted by Siri

Not so much. If you do this intentionally exploiting G44's exception for G28, it's 9 points for them when you get a technical foul under G45.

The analogy from basketball is kinda like offensive charging, only "with intent".

Our regional judge said if you are "playing the game" which is to say, attempting to retrieve and score baskets, then no technical. So there is the human judgement factor. Certainly if you have no ball to shoot, and no ball nearby to retrieve, just hitting the other guy to get a 3 point foul is not wise. You leave too much room for the judge to nail you with the technical.

Talk to your regional head judge and get their direct feedback, especially after they get their final directions from HQ. And buy them coffee the morning of your event.