What we learned from week 1

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

Read your own quote:
High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

16 had no such extended element. Their bumpers overlapped. It happens.

I know it's hard to tell from a still, but it sure looks like 16's upper frame is hitting the vertical that 2848's shooter is mounted to. Which is well inside the frame perimeter.

At any rate, I think the primary issue is that your initial post seemed dismissive of the whole category of G29 fouls. Since you acknowledge that they do exist, the issue boils down to whether athe few stills and video we have show some evidence of deliberate and damaging contact. I think we can file this under "Judgement Calls" and everybody can move on.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I know it's hard to tell from a still, but it sure looks like 16's upper frame is hitting the vertical that 2848's shooter is mounted to. Which is well inside the frame perimeter.

The rule itself acknowledges that this type of contact may occur and is not a foul. The purpose of G29 is to make clear that the element must be purposeful and the damaging contact deliberate in order for there to be a foul. I do not believe I "dismissed a whole catagory of fouls." Since I wtnessed this contact myself, I was offering my opinion that it did not violate any foul rule.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

The rule itself acknowledges that this type of contact may occur and is not a foul. The purpose of G29 is to make clear that the element must be purposeful and the damaging contact deliberate in order for there to be a foul. I do not believe I "dismissed a whole catagory of fouls." Since I wtnessed this contact myself, I was offering my opinion that it did not violate any foul rule.

"There is no foul rule that applies to this situation."

I'm sorry, but that right there dismisses the fact that any rule applies to what happened. Rule G29 specifically applies to what happened, was it violated is a completely different question.

[toddhans]

Watching on television, it seemed a way to eliminate the defensive bots would be to have, as we used to say in Minnesota hockey terms, a Derek Boogaard. An enforcer (a.k.a. thug) to push those guys out of way as well as score a quick 10 points hanging at the end seemed to be a good protection for two other shooting robots. This way, they could continue to pump in the shots until the end and still have the enforcer score a quick ten at the end. Of course, this strategy only works if you have a defensive bot against you and a driver who understands the rules for contact. If it is all offense or if there are climbers involved, the best that bot could do would be to push around any shooters and try to avoid the penalties until the last 15 to 30 seconds. That could still be a bit of a neutralizer even if they are short and could not block any shots.

As for being an enforcer robot as a rookie team, there is nothing wrong with that. It brought us all the way to the Archimedes finals in St. Louis during our rookie season of 2011!

Todd Hanselman, Mentor
Chaotech 3747, Mankato, MN
Winners of 2011 Lake Superior Regional, 2012 10,000 Lakes Regional
Runners Up 2011 Archimedes Division, 2012 MN State High School League Robotics Championship

[Siri]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

The rule itself acknowledges that this type of contact may occur and is not a foul. The purpose of G29 is to make clear that the element must be purposeful and the damaging contact deliberate in order for there to be a foul. I do not believe I "dismissed a whole catagory of fouls." Since I wtnessed this contact myself, I was offering my opinion that it did not violate any foul rule.

I have no knowledge of this interaction, but I have put up a Q&A question regarding inside-frame-perimeter contact from things other than "extended elements" for future clarification. It is quite confusing in fact, because G29 as written says the exact opposite of the purpose you ascribe (which I also think is the true intent):

<G29> Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed. [emphasis mine]

It actually says the contact (without referring the an "element" until the unofficial Blue Box, and even then not exclusively) does not need to be deliberate. It can be either deliberate or damaging, and needn't be both.

I suspect the Q&A will get a RAO (Reasonably Astute Observer) and/or a "we cannot comment on specific situations", but I figured it was worth a shot.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

The rule itself acknowledges that this type of contact may occur and is not a foul. The purpose of G29 is to make clear that the element must be purposeful and the damaging contact deliberate in order for there to be a foul. I do not believe I "dismissed a whole catagory of fouls." Since I wtnessed this contact myself, I was offering my opinion that it did not violate any foul rule.

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

"There is no foul rule that applies to this situation."

I'm sorry, but that right there dismisses the fact that any rule applies to what happened. Rule G29 specifically applies to what happened, was it violated is a completely different question.

What he said. Please consider communicating some of your internal reasoning next time. We are not mind readers, so it's extremely easy to take single sentence answers the wrong way.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I'm sorry, but that right there dismisses the fact that any rule applies to what happened. Rule G29 specifically applies to what happened, was it violated is a completely different question.

It stated my opinion that no foul rule applied here. It does not "dismiss" any rule.

G29 refers specifically to robot elements outside the frame perimeter which are purposefully used to cause damage to another robot. That rule does not apply here, if for no other reason than because 16 had no such element. Two robots came in contact while pushing when one of them tipped. If you would like for that to be called as a technical foul in your match, you may want to be careful what you wish for.

[ttldomination]

Originally Posted by SoccerTaco

Sunny - that happened in our match with you!
It was round 84 of the qualifications (great match, btw), and it was somewhere around the 1:30 mark. We were lined up against the back of the pyramid shooting when one of your alliance partners came up and gave us a nice firm tap in our rear end. I thought it was crystal clear that it was a foul - not sure how they missed it. If you have video of that match, check it out and see if you agree. We put up 54 points that round on 15-15 shooting, so we were majorly psyched in spite of the loss.

We have footage of the match, but it focuses most on our machine.

It sucks that you guys didn't get that call. That was the hardest match all event.

- Sunny G.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

It stated my opinion that no foul rule applied here. It does not "dismiss" any rule.

G29 refers specifically to robot elements outside the frame perimeter which are purposefully used to cause damage to another robot. That rule does not apply here, if for no other reason than because 16 had no such element. Two robots came in contact while pushing when one of them tipped. If you would like for that to be called as a technical foul in your match, you may want to be careful what you wish for.

No, it doesn't. I refers to any contact inside of a robot perimeter. It then goes on to warn that when you have something that extends out you run the risk of it getting damaged because they rule does not cover extended pieces.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Please consider communicating some of your internal reasoning next time. We are not mind readers, so it's extremely easy to take single sentence answers the wrong way.

Gotcha. Typing is work. I promise to say no more than I actually mean, if you promise to infer no more that I actually say.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

No, it doesn't. I refers to any contact inside of a robot perimeter. It then goes on to warn that when you have something that extends out you run the risk of it getting damaged because they rule does not cover extended pieces.

It is silly to debate the content of something that is in writing. The rule and its blue box explanation speak for themselves. I don't think the rule applied to this situation, but that is just my opinion, which is all it ever was.

[PVCpirate]

Well, that escalated quickly! I was just trying to express how the situation looked to me, not really implying that a foul should have been called. I suppose that wasn't the best choice of words when its still week 1.

[gary325]

Originally Posted by xWildCardx

We(1559) got comfortable because we had almost zero attempts to block our climbing. Going forward, we'll just raise our climbing hook as soon as we get under the pyramid and then we can't be pushed out again.

If you had a flexible tab that would have hit the pyramid as 48 was pushing you out, 48 would incur a foul! Small price to pay for a 30 pt climb. BUT...
With your hook up and then getting hit, that would a TF and a 30 pt climb
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.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Siri

<G29> Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed. [emphasis mine]

It actually says the contact (without referring the an "element" until the unofficial Blue Box, and even then not exclusively) does not need to be deliberate. It can be either deliberate or damaging, and needn't be both.

I suspect the Q&A will get a RAO (Reasonably Astute Observer) and/or a "we cannot comment on specific situations", but I figured it was worth a shot.

All correct. Although we should not dismiss what is in the blue box. It is intended to explain the rule's meaning and how it will be implemented. At any rate, it is all a moot point here, as this contact was neither deliberate nor damaging.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

All correct. Although we should not dismiss what is in the blue box. It is intended to explain the rule's meaning and how it will be implemented.

Agreed, that's why I've requested clarification as to intent wrt to the Box. Though I've learned not to expect too much clarity, I don't think it would be too much to ask for the GDC to give an up/down on whether G29 applies only or differently to incursion by extended elements versus the main robot. It's Q563 if anyone's interested.