Team Update 1-17-2014

[BigJ]

Nothing needs to be "fixed"...

If your robot is designed to catch at any time, that is your design decision, and you need to stay away from the opponent's balls. If you want to be in the mix pushing people around, especially when your opponent is trying to TRUSS/CATCH, your robot better not be able to catch balls.

[indubitably]

“launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT)

The only thing this update was trying to change/clarify is the fact that a single hit of the ball with the bumpers or any other static part of the robot is not considered possession. A bot that unintentionally catches a ball is affected as it always was.

I think this change was necessary because there would have been controversy on every call/no call made in regards to a robot contacting an opposing alliance's ball. I just hope strategically this doesn't hurt the game too much. Assisting is going to be significantly harder now, at least at regionals, because not only does an alliance bot need to do more to gain possession, but a defending bot can literally seek to hit the ball now.

[Mr. Van]

Originally Posted by BigJ

Nothing needs to be "fixed"...

If your robot is designed to catch at any time, that is your design decision, and you need to stay away from the opponent's balls. If you want to be in the mix pushing people around, especially when your opponent is trying to TRUSS/CATCH, your robot better not be able to catch balls.

What if you are the team trying to TRUSS/CATCH?

Is catching now not only a design challenge, but a high risk strategy? I don't think that the intent of the game was to deter teams from catching balls. This seems to be equivalent to a rule that stated "a high goal shot that hits the player station wall but does not enter the goal will be a penalty". If this were a rule, would you take the risk hope you never miss a shot?

Is anyone going to design a catching robot knowing that any random bouncing opponent ball could potentially cause a penalty? I know that this change (that you can't eject an opponent's ball from your robot without a penalty) is causing us to question the validity of a catch at all...

- Mr. Van

PS - If making "assists" is now more difficult (because an opponent is able to simply bump the ball away from you as you try to pass from one robot to another), then this
makes me fear that this game may dissolve into most robots playing defense against each other and traditionally strong teams running the field by themselves bypassing any assists (inbound, truss, high goal - 20 pts/cycle - repeat - while everyone else is in shoving matches).

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

What if you are the team trying to TRUSS/CATCH?

Is catching now not only a design challenge, but a high risk strategy? I don't think that the intent of the game was to deter teams from catching balls. This seems to be equivalent to a rule that stated "a high goal shot that hits the player station wall but does not enter the goal will be a penalty". If this were a rule, would you take the risk hope you never miss a shot?

Is anyone going to design a catching robot knowing that any random bouncing opponent ball could potentially cause a penalty? I know that this change (that you can't eject an opponent's ball from your robot without a penalty) is causing us to question the validity of a catch at all...

- Mr. Van

PS - I'm beginning to fear that this game may dissolve into most robots playing defense against each other and traditionally strong teams running the field by themselves bypassing any assists (inbound, truss, high goal - 20 pts/cycle - repeat - while everyone else is in shoving matches).

I'd argue that if your robot is in a configuration in such that it could catch a ball, the burden is on you to be aware of where both your and the opponent's ball is and make sure you don't catch the opponent's ball. These aren't "random bouncing balls", there is one ball of each color to keep track of.

[Lil' Lavery]

Just because an action was not intentional doesn't mean that it doesn't give your alliance an advantage. An unintentional catch should still be penelized. Be conscious of where the opponent's ball is.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Just because an action was not intentional doesn't mean that it doesn't give your alliance an advantage. An unintentional catch should still be penelized. Be conscious of where the opponent's ball is.

Then it comes to the point of your opponent cannot cause you to get a penalty. If your opponent shoots/launches the ball, how long after the shot is the ball still considered in control by that opponent? If the ball is launched and it bounces 1x, 2x, 3x, etc. how long does it take for that to no longer be the resultant of that robot?

If a ball is shot by Robot-A and it bounces once and then lands in Robot-B, is there no penalty because Robot-A cannot cause Robot-B to get a penalty? How about 2 bounces? 3 bounces? No bounces? When does the safety valve get turned off to where Robot-B has to take responsibility?

[indubitably]

Originally Posted by dodar

Then it comes to the point of your opponent cannot cause you to get a penalty. If your opponent shoots/launches the ball, how long after the shot is the ball still considered in control by that opponent? If the ball is launched and it bounces 1x, 2x, 3x, etc. how long does it take for that to no longer be the resultant of that robot?

If a ball is shot by Robot-A and it bounces once and then lands in Robot-B, is there no penalty because Robot-A cannot cause Robot-B to get a penalty? How about 2 bounces? 3 bounces? No bounces? When does the safety valve get turned off to where Robot-B has to take responsibility?

If a robot catches the opposing alliances ball either they are getting the penalty or the opposing bot will. However, I only see the opposing bot getting a penalty if the catching bot had been in the same position for a considerable amount of time and it appears that the bot went out of its way to shoot in that direction.

[wireties]

In light of this update, I have a hypothetical for you CDers...

If our robot carries the ball such that some part of the ball is outside our frame perimeter - is it legal for an opposing robot to bump our robot (intentionally) in a spot where the opposing robot (or an appendage of the opposing robot) will hit the ball.

And the same question but what if this action necessarily damages elements of our robot supporting the ball?

I'm not talking about incidental contact but a strategy aimed at dislodging the ball which has near certainty of impacting/damaging our robot extensions?

Before this update, I thought that might be launching. But it clearly is not now - I think.

Comments?

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by wireties

In light of this update, I have a hypothetical for you CDers...

If our robot carries the ball such that some part of the ball is outside our frame perimeter - is it legal for an opposing robot to bump our robot (intentionally) in a spot where the opposing robot (or an appendage of the opposing robot) will hit the ball.

And the same question but what if this action necessarily damages elements of our robot supporting the ball?

I'm not talking about incidental contact but a strategy aimed at dislodging the ball which has near certainty of impacting/damaging our robot extensions?

Before this update, I thought that might be launching. But it clearly is not now - I think.

Comments?

This is going to be a physical game. Design your appendages that exit the frame perimeter accordingly.

[XaulZan11]

I've always been under the assumption that deflecting passes (driving into ball and knocking it once) was legal. Am I the only one that views this is a rule confirmation and not a change?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I've always been under the assumption that deflecting passes (driving into ball and knocking it once) was legal. Am I the only one that views this is a rule confirmation and not a change?

I view it as overdue. I also assumed that, but due to the definition of launching being a little vague, was not sure (using the standard definition of "impel"). Multiple Q&As didn't answer the question satisfactorily.

This update, in one "minor" change, resolves that quite neatly. Now to avoid possessing the ball while defending it...

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by dodar

Then it comes to the point of your opponent cannot cause you to get a penalty. If your opponent shoots/launches the ball, how long after the shot is the ball still considered in control by that opponent? If the ball is launched and it bounces 1x, 2x, 3x, etc. how long does it take for that to no longer be the resultant of that robot?

If a ball is shot by Robot-A and it bounces once and then lands in Robot-B, is there no penalty because Robot-A cannot cause Robot-B to get a penalty? How about 2 bounces? 3 bounces? No bounces? When does the safety valve get turned off to where Robot-B has to take responsibility?

For reference, here is rule <G14> and the blue box beneath rule <G12>. I have bolded portions that I find particularly relevant to this discussion.

G14
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

Examples of BALL interaction that are not POSSESSION are

A. “bulldozing” (inadvertently coming in contact with BALLS that happen to be in the path of the ROBOT as it moves about the FIELD) and

B. “deflecting” (a single hit to or being hit by a BALL that bounces or rolls off the ROBOT).

A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered POSSESSED by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS an opponent’s BALL.

While I am not a ref nor a member of the GDC, so my opinion carries no official weight, my interpretation of <G14> is that the actions of the offending team must be clearly intentional (in order to be classified as a "strategy") and provide the opponent with little or no alternatives to taking a penalty (in order to be classified as "forcing"). With that in mind, I would argue that Robot-A does not recieve a penalty in any of the scenarios you named, since it did not incorporate a strategy solely aimed at forcing Robot-B to take a penalty. Since Robot-A did not violate <G14>, Robot-B would then be assessed a <G12> penalty for (inadvertently) possessing an opponent's ball. Even if the ball did not bounce, I would argue the same thing, unless Robot-A took obvious action to aim towards Robot-B.

[apples000]

This isn't great. Our team has made what we consider to be a pretty great ball pick up device. If the ball touches our front bumper, we "own it". Tonight, our best driver couldn't pick up the ball with a single robot (poorly driven by me) bulldozing the ball out of the way. At all. After 30 minutes of driving. The game will be won by a single team whose strategy involves no contact (of the ball) with the floor.

<slightly negative prediction>
We'll see the return of "if you don't hit our game piece, we won't hit yours" and the horrible tensions between teams it creates.
</slightly negative prediction>

[connor.worley]

Originally Posted by apples000

This isn't great. Our team has made what we consider to be a pretty great ball pick up device. If the ball touches our front bumper, we "own it". Tonight, our best driver couldn't pick up the ball with a single robot (poorly driven by me) bulldozing the ball out of the way. At all. After 30 minutes of driving. The game will be won by a single team whose strategy involves no contact (of the ball) with the floor.

<slightly negative prediction>
We'll see the return of "if you don't hit our game piece, we won't hit yours" and the horrible tensions between teams it creates.
</slightly negative prediction>

You're telling me one robot was able to keep you from ever getting your front bumper to touch the ball for 30 minutes?

[markmcgary]

Originally Posted by apples000

This isn't great. Our team has made what we consider to be a pretty great ball pick up device. If the ball touches our front bumper, we "own it". Tonight, our best driver couldn't pick up the ball with a single robot (poorly driven by me) bulldozing the ball out of the way. At all. After 30 minutes of driving. The game will be won by a single team whose strategy involves no contact (of the ball) with the floor.

<slightly negative prediction>
We'll see the return of "if you don't hit our game piece, we won't hit yours" and the horrible tensions between teams it creates.
</slightly negative prediction>

Are you sure that you were not "herding" the ball rather than '"bulldozing"? If you were "herding" the ball, then you POSSESSED the ball.

A. “bulldozing” (inadvertently coming in contact with BALLS that happen to be in the path of the ROBOT as it moves about the FIELD)
...
“herding” (repeated pushing or bumping)