Predict the most violated rule of the year

[Grim Tuesday]

Most years we see one rule that rookies and people who didn't read the manual carefully didn't notice -- for example the rolling over of balls in 2010 counted as them entering the frame and was illegal. What do you guys think we'll see this year?

I'm willing to bet teams won't take the loading zone seriously and get Technical Fouls for consequentially contacting an opposing robot in it.

[Garrett.d.w]

I second Grim on the loading zone, that and touching your opponents pyramid while playing defense.

[ksafin]

I think the fact that belays are mandatory whether or not you're climbing will be overlooked by many.

[Dad1279]

I think a few 38x28 robots will show up at events....

[dodar]

I say for the first 2-3 weeks that the sequential climbing rule will be the #1 but as the year goes on, it will move to the loading zone violation.

[Mr. Lim]

I think these two rules will be enforced more often than others:

G18-1
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE .

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

G30
Regardless of who initiates the contact, a ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOT

contacting its PYRAMID or
touching the carpet in its LOADING ZONE.


Violation: FOUL. If purposeful or consequential, TECHNICAL FOUL. If an opponent's CLIMB is affected, each affected opponent ROBOT will be awarded points for a successful Level 3 CLIMB.

Let's say your robot is shooting from a protected position. A defender comes to block you by parking very close in front of you. You push the defender back while still in a protected position.

If you make contact, a penalty is going to be called one way or another. Either your opponent will be penalized per G30, or you will be penalized per G18-1.

Given how many shooters will try and shoot from a protected position, I can see this situation happening quite often...

To me the call is similar to the Block/Charge in basketball. A offensive player goes up for a shot, and contact is made with a defender. As soon as contact is made, it's going to be a blocking foul on the defender, or a charge call on the shooter.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

Let's say your robot is shooting from a protected position. A defender comes to block you by parking very close in front of you. You push the defender back while still in a protected position.

If you make contact, a penalty is going to be called one way or another. Either your opponent will be penalized per G30, or you will be penalized per G18-1.

Given how many shooters will try and shoot from a protected position, I can see this situation happening quite often...

To me the call is similar to the Block/Charge in basketball. A offensive player goes up for a shot, and contact is made with a defender. As soon as contact is made, it's going to be a blocking foul on the defender, or a charge call on the shooter.

Same rules as last year, and 1477 employed this to great effect to keep people from blocking them while shooting from the key. They could drop a pickup mechanism to maintain contact with the key and scoot forward to tag someone for a foul. I expect the only way you're going to see G18-1 called is if a team bulldozes someone into a loading zone or pyramid, then pins them there and keeps tagging them to rack up fouls. That's obviously a strategy solely aimed at using fouls to score points. A team that bumps a defender as in your example is trying to get a clear shot to score points.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Same rules as last year, and 1477 employed this to great effect to keep people from blocking them while shooting from the key. They could drop a pickup mechanism to maintain contact with the key and scoot forward to tag someone for a foul. I expect the only way you're going to see G18-1 called is if a team bulldozes someone into a loading zone or pyramid, then pins them there and keeps tagging them to rack up fouls. That's obviously a strategy solely aimed at using fouls to score points. A team that bumps a defender as in your example is trying to get a clear shot to score points.

Exactly, as refs last year we were only told to enforce this rule is teams were hitting teams over and over again to rack up the points.

If a team puts themselves into a bad position and were forced into a penalty then tough luck. Do get into that position.

[IndySam]

I think we need to break this up into two different categories, robot rules and game violations.

My vote for robot rules is the 54" cylinder rule R03B, especially where bumpers are concerned. I think many teams will not include bumpers and will be in big trouble.

Game violation will be G30A contacting a robot in contact it's pyramid. It's gonna be tough to play defense anywhere around the pyramid.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Same rules as last year, and 1477 employed this to great effect to keep people from blocking them while shooting from the key. They could drop a pickup mechanism to maintain contact with the key and scoot forward to tag someone for a foul. I expect the only way you're going to see G18-1 called is if a team bulldozes someone into a loading zone or pyramid, then pins them there and keeps tagging them to rack up fouls. That's obviously a strategy solely aimed at using fouls to score points. A team that bumps a defender as in your example is trying to get a clear shot to score points.

Not quite. Similar rules, but missing the exemption in [G44]

Originally Posted by 2012 Manual

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

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

Originally Posted by 2012 Manual

[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.

Originally Posted by 2012 Manual

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

[G44] gave a direct exemption to [G28] for this situation, meaning that red robot on red key was allowed to run into blue robot, causing a foul against blue. I take [G45] to exist to avoid teams repeatedly causing a dead blue robot to foul, or something similar.

I don't see an equivalent to the exemption in [G44] this year, which means that [G18-1] and [G30] directly contradict each other.

Red robot is touching red pyramid. Blue robot comes nearby. Red robot drives up and touches blue robot, while still in contact with red pyramid. [G30] fouls blue for contacting red robot while red robot is touching pyramid, but [G18-1] fouls red for intentionally drawing a foul.

[NXTGeek]

I seriously don't know how the refs are going to enforce the 54" cylinder rule...

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by NXTGeek

I seriously don't know how the refs are going to enforce the 54" cylinder rule...

They really will just have to guess imo.

[BJC]

Originally Posted by NXTGeek

I seriously don't know how the refs are going to enforce the 54" cylinder rule...

In the past the refs have checked marginal playing configurations outside of the match and then watch those specific robots that could potentially violate the rules more closely.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Gregor

I don't see an equivalent to the exemption in [G44] this year, which means that [G18-1] and [G30] directly contradict each other.

G30 contains its own exception.

Originally Posted by G30

Regardless of who initiates the contact, a ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOT
A. contacting its PYRAMID or
B.touching the carpet in its LOADING ZONE.

Clearly, the wording of G30 envisions a protected team initiating the contact, for whatever reason. So it implies that drawing a foul is possible. G18-1 penalizes strategies aimed solely at forcing an opponent to violate a rule.

Originally Posted by Gregor

Red robot is touching red pyramid. Blue robot comes nearby. Red robot drives up and touches blue robot, while still in contact with red pyramid. [G30] fouls blue for contacting red robot while red robot is touching pyramid, but [G18-1] fouls red for intentionally drawing a foul.

I think this situation depends on what red robot is doing. If it's trying to go somewhere and blue is in the way, no foul on red. If red is camping for the express purpose of fouling passing blue robots, then technical foul on red.

[Gregor]

This logic makes sense.

Red robot hits blue while contacting red pyramid with the intent to escape, foul on blue.

Red robot hits blue robot while contacting red pyramid with the intent to draw a foul, foul on blue and red?
What happens when red robot is trying to draw a foul?