Turret/Tower Height

[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.