Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-18

[JohnFogarty]

This update is interesting. There was an instance during the semifinals at Orlando where we were playing a blockade style of defense on 1772 and 744 to prevent them from intaking the ball, they both then preceded to push us into their ball and into the wall which caused the ball to momentarily pop up onto our bumpers.

While I thought it shouldn't have been a T-foul becuase the opposing team obviously pushed us into thier ball. We were given one anyway. We won the match regaurdless so I didn't press the issue.

Would incidents like this now be accessed as a foul by this rule change?

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Racer26

It does seem, though, that the TECHNICAL FOUL called on 1114s alliance in SF1-2 at ONTO would have been reduced to a FOUL by this rule change.

Errant blue TRUSS shot lands in red ROBOT and is immediately ejected seems like a FOUL and not a TECHNICAL FOUL, by my reading of this change.

I agree that refs seem to be really reluctant to dish out POSSESSIONs to HERDing ROBOTs of an ALLIANCE matching the colour of the BALL. They seem to be much more frequently dishing out the G12 foul for HERDing or TRAPping and opponent's BALL. I don't understand why this is.

I think this example displays that the onus will be on the offending team to ensure that the action is viewed as inconsequential. What you will see when reviewing the infraction is that even if it was deemed unintentional, the robot then (possibly unintentionally) drops the ball in such a way that their robot is positioned in between the ball and the incoming robot. They also then proceed to play active defense (the correct move given the rules at the time).

However I view any possession that significantly slows a cycle as consequential, regardless of the score. I would argue that going forward, it may be in the best interest for the robot causing the infraction to actually step away from the play to ensure that the ref sees that the unintentional possession of the ball did not give them a competitive advantage.

You are definitely still at the mercy of the ref.

Here's a link to the video at the time of the infraction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...vxVzpyfks#t=95

[D.Allred]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

This update is interesting. There was an instance during the semifinals at Orlando where we were playing a blockade style of defense on 1772 and 744 to prevent them from intaking the ball, they both then preceded to push us into their ball and into the wall which caused the ball to momentarily pop up onto our bumpers.

While I thought it shouldn't have been a T-foul becuase the opposing team obviously pushed us into thier ball. We were given one anyway. We won the match regaurdless so I didn't press the issue.

Would incidents like this now be accessed as a foul by this rule change?

I don't think it was a possession at all. The G12 update doesn't really address the key issue of how to call possessions. I saw the ball jump up on your bumper a bit. I don't believe it should have counted as an assist if that was your alliance's ball, so it should not count against you as the defender in this case.

Bottom line, the G12 update is a net negative to the game.

David

[Siri]

Originally Posted by inkling16

There are no situations in which this rule change will cause more penalties. The defending robot still needs to POSSESS the ball to get a penalty call, which is exactly what the old rules said. All that this rule does is minimize the impact of unintentional and inconsequential POSSESSIONs by opponent robots by making this infraction worth 20 points instead of 50.

That's certainly the way I read it and I think it's intended, but I've watched some inconsequential/unintentional G12s go uncalled that refs might now think they need to call. I see why people are concerned.

Q466: Does TU 3/18 lower the threshold for G12 (a no-call in Week 1 could be a call now, for the identical situation), or raise the threshold for receiving a G12 tech foul (a tech foul in Week 1 could be a foul now)?
https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Questions.php

[cglrcng]

To paraphrase and try to put it in context:

They have merely reset the severity of the G12 penalties.. If your act is an inconsequential or unintended action, but, still manages to keep the opposing alliance away from their ball (not a bad thing in this game), but, if your action is deemed to appear or be intentional or worse absolutely deliberate and strategically planned by nature of appearance...They can raise the severity back to where it was, and even higher.

I say don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Some of those fouls now won't necessarily flat cost you the match...But some still will. Try to be nice.

Play your game, don't attempt to run or ruin theirs. This is a 1 game piece per Alliance, work well together, inbound get 3 assists / truss/ catch/ score fast cycle game. (And it is really exciting to see it played to full complete high scoring fast cycles by both Alliances at the same time (especially w/ occasional zone defense, when not on the ball right then, added). Not so much, when it instead reverts to just a battle bots type show).

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

This update is interesting. There was an instance during the semifinals at Orlando where we were playing a blockade style of defense on 1772 and 744 to prevent them from intaking the ball . . .

It actually sounds like you were in violation of G25 -

G25
ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. This rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-ROBOT interaction.
Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

I like this update. I think it keeps serious offenses as a Technical Foul (50 points) but moves minor infractions to a Foul (20 points).

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

It actually sounds like you were in violation of G25 -

G25
ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. This rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-ROBOT interaction.
Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

I like this update. I think it keeps serious offenses as a Technical Foul (50 points) but moves minor infractions to a Foul (20 points).

The rule is for multiple robots, they were solely playing the defense on those 2 teams.

[JohnFogarty]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

It actually sounds like you were in violation of G25 -

G25
ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. This rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-ROBOT interaction.
Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

I like this update. I think it keeps serious offenses as a Technical Foul (50 points) but moves minor infractions to a Foul (20 points).

One robot blocking a team from getting to a ball isn't truly blockading the field. Since it was my team's robot against two opposing robots. G25 is and always has been aimed at strategies pertaining to multiple robots. I remember because last year my team asked several questions about G25 to the head ref at our regional.

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

One robot blocking a team from getting to a ball isn't truly blockading the field. Since it was my team's robot against two opposing robots. G25 is and always has been aimed at strategies pertaining to multiple robots. I remember because last year my team asked several questions about G25 to the head ref at our regional.

My interpretation error. When you said "we" and "blockade" in the same sentence I assumed that the "we" meant "alliance" on the defense side.

[E Dawg]

What qualifies as 'strategic' possession? If I bump the opposing alliance's ball to keep them from getting to it, does my team receive a DQ?

[JohnFogarty]

By my understanding (which could be wrong) that should only be "deflection", unless you bump the ball repeatedly. Then that would be considered possession.

[E Dawg]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

By my understanding (which could be wrong) that should only be "deflection", unless you bump the ball repeatedly. Then that would be considered possession.

My understanding also, but I'm glad someone could confirm this.