Team Update 1-17-2014

[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?

[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)

[apples000]

Originally Posted by markmcgary

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

Sorry- a clarification is needed. The pickup robot was geared for 8 fps, the defense was geared two speeds, 15 and 6 fps.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

So, if you catch an opponents ball (by mistake - not through any intent on either alliance's part), then you incur a penalty if you keep it, and you incur a penalty if you kick it out of your robot?

In my interpretation - until officially taught otherwise - that would be one possession, not two. So one foul, not two.

Seems to provide a powerful deterrent to an open-topped passive catching design.

Which is what the rules warned against since day 1 - beware designs that allow you to possess an opponent's ball.

Without the revision, every time you touched an opponent's ball and redirected it, it would be a foul. Can we say hundreds of foul points?

[Donut]

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 the same way. Assists are worth a lot of points (1 or 2 high goal scores each), they shouldn't be as simple to get as roll the ball to my partner. If you put the ball on the ground you are taking a risk that you will have to spend a significant amount of time in chasing it down again, and the point values are in line with that risk.

That is where the real advantage of catching mechanisms comes in to play, not in getting catch points but in accomplishing assists under defense. You will have to avoid inadvertent catching of an opponents ball, but that is no different than making sure you don't accidentally pick up an opponents game piece in any other game. I will admit my team does not have much to lose from this update, we were always intending on designing our catching mechanism to collapse so that we will have a clear shot at the high goal.

[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...

[who716]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

Defense is simple. Stop trying to lawyer the rules. Play the robot not the ball.

Beautiful you play the robot you oaky the best defense couldn't have been said better