[YMTC] Red robot on blue bridge

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

NOPE! G44 has the exception of G28. Also, the blue robot was not trying to get out of the way, and not trying to prevent the penalty. They directly caused it themselves. NOT the red alliance. There was not one time that 1038 tried to get away from the bridge, thus making the G44 become a FOUL and/or Tech Foul and/or RED Card.

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I'm wondering what the criteria for "showing strategy" is?

I would argue, if a robot parks itself a foot away from the bridge, but isn't worried about getting called on a [G25] because they'll be protected by [G44], this would be exploiting [G44] and thus a violation of [G45].

That's my argument, but I'm more curious as to what criteria must be met to qualify as a "strategy to exploit [G44]".

This illustrates a good point about [G45]: what does it even mean? I don't think I can even articulate a hypothetical test that reliably distinguishes a [G44]-exploiting strategy from a legitimate one, based upon the evidence that referees can be expected to possess. Certainly FIRST has articulated no such thing either.

I don't think it's fair to call [G45] on a team that could have acted differently, but didn't, and therefore allowed a [G44]-excused violation to occur. That's like thoughtcrime.

For example, to use Michael's example above, how do we know that the intended result (of the "strategy") wasn't to influence some other aspect of gameplay? (The obvious one might be that they intended to block an opponent, rather than get pushed into the bridge.)

Instead, I think referees have to be very judicious in applying [G45], because it's as if they're making a very strong assertion about the motivation of a team's actions in the heat of competition. Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. Until we make the drivers wear FMRI helmets,¹ I don't think this is something that can be called in cases where the on-field actions appear borderline.

¹ Clinically speaking, that wouldn't even be enough.

[Racer26]

A similar situation occurred at GTR West in Elims, 1241 was blocking the opposing alliance from ascending their bridge, and got repeatedly rammed, ending with them touching the bridge. No [G25] or [G28] call.

[Thuvishan.R]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

A similar situation occurred at GTR West in Elims, 1241 was blocking the opposing alliance from ascending their bridge, and got repeatedly rammed, ending with them touching the bridge. No [G25] or [G28] call.

At the end of the match team 1241 correct was being pushed "near" the bridge, with our 6- 6" Pneumatic tires, team 2056 had trouble pushing us. We were pushed near the bridge but no part of our bumpers or robot was touching if you were to have looked at the robot at the end of the match. That is how the referees' made that correct ruling.

[Grim Tuesday]

A similar situation happened today at MAR Championships. Correct me if I describe it incorrectly.

Every match, 341's alliance (red) attempts to triple balance. They were successful in most every match. 1218's alliance was unable of the feat, but when they were up against triple capable alliances, 1218 would park in front of the bridge (much like the robot at Queen City), and force the red alliance to push them onto the bridge if they wanted to balance.

However, this match had a wrench thrown into it: In the process, one robot managed to get through and was touching the bridge between 1218 and 341. 341 began to ram 1218, which was touching a robot that was touching the bridge (this was the best I could see based on the webcast; again, if I'm wrong please correct me). For each ram, 1218 was given a 3 point penalty, for a total of 24 points.

So the question is:

• Was this the correct call?
• Does [G25] apply?
• Does [G44]/[G28] apply?
• Does [G45] apply?
• If [G45] does not apply, why not?
• If this call is correct, does this now invalidate this form of bridge defense?

[Grim Tuesday]

If anyone wasn't at the drivers meeting on Thursday Champs, they made the official ruling on this or any triple balance defense question. Essentially, the robot blocking the bridge is disrupting the intention of the game, and is liable for any penalties they incur. G45 does not apply.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

If anyone wasn't at the drivers meeting on Thursday Champs, they made the official ruling on this or any triple balance defense question. Essentially, the robot blocking the bridge is disrupting the intention of the game, and is liable for any penalties they incur.

Where did they get that from? It certainly wasn't the rulebook.

Even [G23], the rule about blockading, only applies when multiple robots from the same alliance are doing it. (It says "This rule has no effect on individual Robot-to-Robot defense.")

Or were they treating blocking the bridge as a [G25] issue? (A very big stretch.)

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Where did they get that from? It certainly wasn't the rulebook.

Even [G23], the rule about blockading, only applies when multiple robots from the same alliance are doing it. (It says "This rule has no effect on individual Robot-to-Robot defense.")

Or were they treating blocking the bridge as a [G25] issue? (A very big stretch.)

I think the intention was to make it clear that [G45] wouldn't be invoked as long as you were clearly trying to get robots onto the bridge.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Where did they get that from? It certainly wasn't the rulebook.

Even [G23], the rule about blockading, only applies when multiple robots from the same alliance are doing it. (It says "This rule has no effect on individual Robot-to-Robot defense.")

Or were they treating blocking the bridge as a [G25] issue? (A very big stretch.)

It's not like FIRST hasn't made ridiculous rule stretches before. I'm disappointed, though... honestly, FIRST needs to accept that sometimes teams will come up with strategies it didn't intend, and allow that to happen. Some bridge defense within the actual rules could have made the last few matches very interesting.

[FrankJ]

This was discussed at the Archimedes driver's meeting. Blocking the bridge is an acceptable strategy. Touching the bridge will trying to block is you own fault & a <G25> regardless of the reason.

If you are driven into a the bridge from across the field could be a [G44] Up the referee determination.