Stopping a Triple Balance

[deadman666]

My team, 3487, just compeated in the bmr here in Indiana, and I was wondering if it was leagal for another robot on the blue alliance to run into our robot on purpose? I ask this because this happened to us in the simi-finals and they pentilized us and caused an electrical blow out on our robot.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by deadman666

My team, 3487, just compeated in the bmr here in Indiana, and I was wondering if it was leagal for another robot on the blue alliance to run into our robot on purpose? I ask this because this happened to us in the simi-finals and they pentilized us and caused an electrical blow out on our robot.

I would recommend that you check the rulebook (as well as a dictionary), but in general, running into another robot is allowed.

[deadman666]

Originally Posted by bduddy

I would recommend that you check the rulebook (as well as a dictionary), but in general, running into another robot is allowed.

not my fault for having the worst spelling on the planet, but thank you.

[Dale]

My team, 3487, just compeated in the bmr here in Indiana, and I was wondering if it was leagal for another robot on the blue alliance to run into our robot on purpose? I ask this because this happened to us in the simi-finals and they pentilized us and caused an electrical blow out on our robot

That's quite off topic and there aren't enough details in your post to respond in your case. That being said there are many places in the rules this year where one robot could cause another to get a foul by pushing them into the opposing alliance's key, alley, or bridge.

[Dale]

Assuming the opposing alliance is trying to load onto the ramp on their side of the field, opposite the alley, has any team tried just parking a few feet away as was mentioned earlier? Certainly the opposing alliance may try to push you into the bridge causing you to get a technical foul. My question is have they been issuing red cards for interfering with the bridge if you just sat there after the push? It would be a question to bring up in the driver's meeting.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Dale

Assuming the opposing alliance is trying to load onto the ramp on their side of the field, opposite the alley, has any team tried just parking a few feet away as was mentioned earlier? Certainly the opposing alliance may try to push you into the bridge causing you to get a technical foul. My question is have they been issuing red cards for interfering with the bridge if you just sat there after the push? It would be a question to bring up in the driver's meeting.

Actually, being pushed into the bridge is not a foul unless you contact an opposing robot - see [G44]. I saw a robot try this in the finals of... Sacramento, I think? It helped a little bit, but the other alliance was ultimately able to double balance.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Actually, being pushed into the bridge is not a foul unless you contact an opposing robot - see [G44]. I saw a robot try this in the finals of... Sacramento, I think? It helped a little bit, but the other alliance was ultimately able to double balance.

This is interesting

[G25] GAME

Robots may not contact or otherwise interfere with the opposing Alliance Bridge.
Violation: Technical-Foul. If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced with the maximum number of Robots possible for that Match.

[G28] GAME

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].

[G44] GAME

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.

[G29] GAME

An Alliance may not pin an opponent Robot that is in contact with a Court border, Fender, Barrier or Bridge for more than 5 seconds. A Robot will be considered pinned until the Robots have separated by at least 6 feet. The pinning Robot(s) must then wait for at least 3 seconds before attempting to pin the same Robot again. Pinning is transitory through other objects.
Violation: Technical-Foul

If the pinned Robot chases the pinning Robot upon retreat, the pinning Robot will not be penalized per [G44], and the pin will be considered complete.
Pinning a Robot against Basketballs that are being pushed against the Court border is an example of pinning being considered transitory.

Now, this is tricky. G44 only states that [G28] is an exception to the rule, which only involves touching the robots in contact with the bridge, not the bridge itself. [G44] does not state that [G25] an exception. That means that [G44] still applies to [G25], in that if an opposing robot causes you to touch the bridge and no robots on it, you are fine. Also, this is further clarified in the bottom part of [G29]. If a opposing robot causes you to be 'pinned' on the bridge as well, you still wont be penalized for touching bridge.

Also, to address the question of "My question is have they been issuing red cards for interfering with the bridge if you just sat there after the push?", That is addressed in [G29]. You must chase when the robot ceases to 'pin' you, so you cannot just sit there, you must actively try to move away from your contact with the bridge. Otherwise, by the rules, you will be penalized.

Now, there is another rule we have to look at

[G45] GAME

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

Are we really exploiting the rule? All we are doing is trying to play defense on a robot, not letting him get to the bridge. If we get pushed into the bridge, it wasnt our fault. All we were trying to do was keep them from getting to the bridge, keeping wary to not touch it by our own power.

So...Is that exploiting? I dont really know what to think!

[PaW]

Dale --
At Waterford District, Semifinals Match 1, defense was attempted, but ultimately was not successful. A blue alliance robot was parked near the red bridge to prevent the red alliance triple balance. However, all 3 red alliance robots crossed the bump and rode onto their alliance bridge from the blue side.

469 had to gingerly cross the blue key area, making sure not to contact the robot there. Once past, they were able to tip their bridge and begin the climb.

Granted, with 67's Utili-arm, the time to complete a triple balance is greatly reduced.

[MrBasse]

When I posted earlier I realized that I didn't say that we implemented parking in front of the bridge while playing defense. We have 4 wheels planted at all times, so moving us sideways is nearly impossible. We parked about 4 feet from the bridge and made it so the other team would have to come in and turn or come from the other side of the field through their alley. The problem with our strategy is that it only worked once. As soon as the opposing alliance saw the plan, they just crossed the bump and went in through their alley. But that first time, it sure did slow them down.

[bhsrobotics1671]

You could park in front of the bridge then have your battery fall out or become disabled, therefore not give up any penalties but still block the ramp. Happened to us

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by bhsrobotics1671

You could park in front of the bridge then have your battery fall out or become disabled, therefore not give up any penalties but still block the ramp. Happened to us

I find it hard to imagine there isn't a rule that would allow the refs to give you a red card for doing that intentionally.

[bhsrobotics1671]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

I find it hard to imagine there isn't a rule that would allow the refs to give you a red card for doing that intentionally.

The ruling on the field was that they went and parked a foot or so away from the bridge. As we tried to approach the bridge, we nudged them into the bridge. The field crew was all in agreement that sometime between them sitting there, us nudging them, and before they made contact with the bridge that they lost their battery and were therefore "disabled". Since they were disabled, they could not get any penalties. It seemed to just be really bad luck on our end.

[dellagd]

Hmm. At hatboro the heas ref told us that even if your robot becomes disabled, you are still eligible to have penalties on you.

[dellagd]

Man, the guy in that match video is REALLY enthusiastic!

[bhsrobotics1671]

Originally Posted by dellagd

Hmm. At hatboro the heas ref told us that even if your robot becomes disabled, you are still eligible to have penalties on you.

I have not found a rule to disagree with your statement. Could someone please point me to the rule that says if your robot is disabled then you cannot get any penalties?