[YMTC]: Breaking robots

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by Racer26

There is still the clause at the end of the G28 blue box that says "unless the actions of the damaged ROBOT are the catalyst for the damage." Red 1 certainly catalysed that damage. They were playing defense on Blue 1.

I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. If you read "catalyze" too broadly, then every robot with an outstretched appendage gets a right of way - any defender / offender that gets hit by the appendage on the way risks being called a "catalyst" to their own damage.

Personally, I would set the "fault" line at "inside/outside" the frame perimeter. It seems more in keeping with the original bumper rules, and the blue box in G27: "Teams are encouraged to be cautious in their use of such appendages when engaging in ROBOT to ROBOT MATCH play". Think of appendages as weapons - you have an extra burden of care when you deploy one.

That, of course, runs the risk of teams performing "suicide attacks" against appendages to try to draw damage, but I think that's much less likely (and easier to spot).

[George Nishimura]

The 'catalyst' clause was added as a team update, precisely because teams playing offense were penalized when defenders rammed in to their intake.

Blue are actively engaging their mechanism by picking up the ball, that's why they are not considered the catalyst for the contact inside the frame perimeter.

Red are driving towards the ball or robot to make contact with ball/robot (ie play defense), so they are considered the catalyst.

[rich2202]

G28 is "Deliberate" or "Damaging". With Blue extended, they are taking the risk. If they cause unintentional damage, they still caused damage. G28 is a technical, and there is no lower "foul" for unintentional damage.

Which I think is good. The opponent could be negligently driving extended. If G28 required intent then how do you penalize them for negligence?

"Deliberate" without damage is hard to call. "Deliberate" would require repeated inside the frame contact with hope of causing damage. Again, "wanton disregard" is not "deliberate". Thus, damage must be called, regardless of who initiated the contact. If you are the bull in the china shop, then you better be careful of the china.

Now, if the opponent drove at you with the intent to draw the G28 technical, then that would be a G14 violation, and G28 could be waived. They could also be in violation of G27 if they had the intention to damage the extended piece (playing the extension, and not the bot).

[Taylor]

Am I alone in thinking this should be an absolute no-call?

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Am I alone in thinking this should be an absolute no-call?

No, you're definitely not alone. Tyler Holtzman alluded to that in his analysis as well. I tend to agree with both of you also.

The real challenge I suppose is coming up with a set of rules that would allow a no-call (or offsetting ones) in situations like this, but still penalize more egregious situations.

[rich2202]

I think of it from the perspective of the bot receiving the damage. Once they violate my frame perimeter, then all bets are off. They are taking the risk, and if they damage me, then the penalty is fully on them.

If you require robots to sustain contact within the frame perimeter without damage, that is imposing a much higher level of design (and weight).

If I design my bot to stay within the frame perimeter, then I am not at risk of causing damage to other robots. If I choose to extend outside the frame perimeter, then it is on me to make sure that I do not inadvertently damage other robots.