Go to Post 118 embodies everything this entire program is supposed to be about: INSPIRATION. Respect that. Acknowledge that. Support that. - barn34 [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-04-2013, 22:49
J_Miles's Avatar
J_Miles J_Miles is offline
FiM Referee
AKA: Jared Miles
no team (EngiNERDs)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Posts: 128
J_Miles is a splendid one to beholdJ_Miles is a splendid one to beholdJ_Miles is a splendid one to beholdJ_Miles is a splendid one to beholdJ_Miles is a splendid one to beholdJ_Miles is a splendid one to beholdJ_Miles is a splendid one to behold
Re: A "Dangerous Situation"

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenavt View Post
This season in Michigan, I've seen it ruled as Jared described, or with a 3-point penalty handed to the intruding robot (217 and 2474 here). I have not seen many G18-1's being assessed, possibly as part as a product of the district system. Playing with the same teams over and over (although we hadn't seen 2474 or 2054 yet, we had played at a competition with 67, 217, 469, and 3539 already this season once) and the relationships that are created with that create an friendly, respectful atmosphere, I find.
Something that came up in discussions about the situation I described in the original post was that any contact between robots attempting to dislodge a defender from their position would NOT be in violation of rule 18-1 - My interpretation of 18-1 is, for example: Given a blue robot at/near the blue pyramid, a red robot slams into the blue robot and shoves blue-bot across the field INTO the Red Pyramid. This is quite obviously intentional and deserving of a technical foul.

I think that Rule 18-1 has been (in Michigan) considered violated only in such glaringly obvious cases such as this - I don't believe I've ever seen it called at either of the events I volunteered at (one of which where I was a referee) or at the third and fourth where I was merely a spectator. It seems to me to be a more "Spirit of the Game" rule rather than a rule prohibiting incidental/unintentional contact that might occur during the fast, brief collisions incurred during an intense FRC match.
__________________

  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-04-2013, 08:25
theun4gven theun4gven is offline
What time is it?
AKA: Tom Filipek
FRC #0079 (Team Krunch)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 24
theun4gven is just really nicetheun4gven is just really nicetheun4gven is just really nicetheun4gven is just really nicetheun4gven is just really nice
Re: A "Dangerous Situation"

Quote:
Originally Posted by DjScribbles View Post
Quote:
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
Sorry, should have included this reference in my post. I see no other purpose for pushing an opponent into a protected team member other than forcing a penalty.
I disagree. If the offensive defender is capable of loading frisbees into their robot then they can argue correctly that they decided to head for the loading zone to obtain frisbees. They could even claim that they purposely pushed the defender into their alliance member while attempting to get to the loading zone. In this case their strategy is no longer "aimed solely" at forcing the opposing alliance to violate a rule.

There is no rule stating that you must avoid another robot to get to your desired location on the field. As soon as they get between you and your alliance partner your strategy changes because you can no longer push them away.

It's that "aimed solely" wording along with a harsh penalty that seems to make the difference here. As long as you are attempting to play some other aspect of the game, your strategy is no longer aimed solely at forcing penalties.
__________________
Team 79 - Krunch
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-04-2013, 08:52
FrankJ's Avatar
FrankJ FrankJ is offline
Robot Mentor
FRC #2974 (WALT)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Marietta GA
Posts: 1,954
FrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond repute
Re: A "Dangerous Situation"

This is one of the problems of having to rewrite the rules every season. The law of untended consequences come up. Everybody, referees included, has a slightly different interpretation of the rules. The best you can hope for is at any given event, the referees are consistent.

Just reading G18-1, I would think that it would only be called when intent to cause a foul is the only reasonable interpretation of the action. So pushing a robot into a protected member while trying to get them out of the way of another robot shooting should not be a foul under this rule.
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-04-2013, 09:41
DjScribbles DjScribbles is offline
Programming Mentor
AKA: Joe S
FRC #2474 (Team Excel)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Niles MI
Posts: 284
DjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to behold
Re: A "Dangerous Situation"

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Miles View Post
I think that Rule 18-1 has been (in Michigan) considered violated only in such glaringly obvious cases such as this - I don't believe I've ever seen it called at either of the events I volunteered at (one of which where I was a referee) or at the third and fourth where I was merely a spectator.
I don't disagree with your interpretation entirely, but I feel even the situation described above can be given enough credible reason to avoid the 18-1 penalty; a robot pushing another robot into a pyramid can easily be justified as a defensive pinning maneuver.

Personally, my feeling is that 18-1 is too severe and narrow to accomplish its goal (as I interpret it). Attempting to assign a technical foul based on intent of an action is far too difficult to judge accurately enough to enforce the rule by assigning technical fouls.

As written, a forced rule violation that would receive a technical foul creates a 40pt swing in the match based on the referee's ruling. There is no middle ground where Red forced Blue to violate a rule with motives beyond generating foul points; in this case, even though the penalty was forced upon blue, they are still penalized despite their inability to avoid it (by the letter of the rules).


I feel like the intent of G18-1 would be better stated as follows:
"Strategies that result in forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of the game, rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: Technical Foul if the sole intent of the strategy was to force a rules violation"

Add a blue box on G30 stating "With respect to G18-1, G30 will supersede, except in cases where the violating ROBOT is prevented from escaping contact (for example, a second opposing robot holding them in place or pushing them into contact)."

Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but the intent of the rules seems to be to prevent people from being penalized unavoidably, but not to give them a protective bubble.
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-04-2013, 11:06
FrankJ's Avatar
FrankJ FrankJ is offline
Robot Mentor
FRC #2974 (WALT)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Marietta GA
Posts: 1,954
FrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond repute
Re: A "Dangerous Situation"

So would a strategy to force the other alliance into a G18-1 would be in fact a violation of G18-1 in itself? How deep into this rabbit hole do we want to go?
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi