[FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do

[ratdude747]

I know Frank had to ask himself a similar question on Friday while he was at IN state champs. One of the Qual matches had a volunteer interference incident and luckily he happened to be fieldside, so Logan (our wonderful head ref this weekend) called him aside... his advice was to ask the teams in the match if they wanted a replay, which they all did not (one had what was at the time a 3rd highest qual score, and the other had a good score too)... I love how Frank is so satisfyingly transparent with things, this blog no exception.

[jvriezen]

Wondering why the GDC ruled as they did. Wouldn't it be a much more exciting game if the RC battle continued until the can was *entirely* on one side of the step? They had the choice to answer the question consistent with the ref's original ruling, and it would add a bit more alliance interaction (even more in higher level play) in a game that has nearly none.

I'd suggest they consider an update prior to CMP to allow a fight to continue until the entire game piece is beyond the step volume-- in other words, modify the rules for CMP to match the ref's interpretation of the ambiguity.

[DarkRune]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

I'd suggest they consider an update prior to CMP to allow a fight to continue until the entire game piece is beyond the step volume-- in other words, modify the rules for CMP to match the ref's interpretation of the ambiguity.

IRI rule change? Maybe let the can battle continue into the landfill?

[Paul Copioli]

I watched the Finals 1 video and just don't see a red card violation there. What am I missing?

[kiettyyyy]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

I watched the Finals 1 video and just don't see a red card violation there. What am I missing?

1:45 in the video. They reached over the can past the plane of the step.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by kiettyyyy

1:45 in the video. They reached over the can past the plane of the step.

Oh no, I see it but think it is a stupid call if a red card is the call.

In my opinion, this needs to be changed ASAP. That is not a red card. No way.

[Mark Sheridan]

I just want to say how happy I am that this was handle professionally by everyone. The teams involved are friends with each other as they are with the volunteers.

I think we knew this was a tough call to make because can wars have been rare. I think the changes to the manual will help clear up much of the subtlety of the rules. I had to check to rules myself to keep up with what was going on.

I am truly thankful for the wildcard system, we got every team to qualify in the finals and that lowered tension significantly.

[steelerborn]

I have good connections with teams on both sides, and after watching the match I don't think it was that big of a deal. The rule was poorly worded and made it difficult for the refs.

Honestly after watching the match 399 executed the maneuver safely. With how important those RCs are I think the ruling should be changed so that if any part of the RC is in contained above the step (defined as a volume, and may not necessarily touch the step) than any bot on either alliance can attempt to grab it.

I think this is quickly becoming my favorite part of the game to watch is these battles. "Let them fight..."

[BethMo]

It looked to me like 4486 should have gotten a red card in the autonomous period of that first match -- and yes, 971 in F1 at SVR the same thing. Both based on Q&A #29 and #226:

Q. If the actions of one alliance cause the other to violate G18, which alliance will be penalized? For example, if one robot from each alliance has a grasp on a container on the step and the blue alliance robot is pulled over the step by the red alliance robot while pulling on the container.
A. We can't answer your question as there are many different scenarios that could be in play. If the violation is momentary (i.e. the ROBOT is only momentarily in contact with that RECYCLING CONTAINER that is now on the opposite side of the STEP, but lets go quickly and retreats), then there's no violation and neither ALLIANCE is penalized. If, however, the contact is extended, the ALLIANCE with the ROBOT violating G18 will be penalized.

Q.In reference to Q29 and Q221 for two robots grabbing the recycling bin from the STEP: What happens if neither robot can be controlled by their drivers, in a situation like the Autonomous period? Would it be the same scenario as Q29, where the robot that is violating G18 would be
assigned a foul?
A.Yes, unless explicitly stated (e.g. a Rule is posted in Section 3.2.4 AUTO Rules), violations apply whether the MATCH is in AUTO or TELEOP.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by BethMo

It looked to me like 4486 should have gotten a red card in the autonomous period of that first match -- and yes, 971 in F1 at SVR the same thing. Both based on Q&A #29 and #226:

Q. If the actions of one alliance cause the other to violate G18, which alliance will be penalized? For example, if one robot from each alliance has a grasp on a container on the step and the blue alliance robot is pulled over the step by the red alliance robot while pulling on the container.
A. We can't answer your question as there are many different scenarios that could be in play. If the violation is momentary (i.e. the ROBOT is only momentarily in contact with that RECYCLING CONTAINER that is now on the opposite side of the STEP, but lets go quickly and retreats), then there's no violation and neither ALLIANCE is penalized. If, however, the contact is extended, the ALLIANCE with the ROBOT violating G18 will be penalized.

Q.In reference to Q29 and Q221 for two robots grabbing the recycling bin from the STEP: What happens if neither robot can be controlled by their drivers, in a situation like the Autonomous period? Would it be the same scenario as Q29, where the robot that is violating G18 would be
assigned a foul?
A.Yes, unless explicitly stated (e.g. a Rule is posted in Section 3.2.4 AUTO Rules), violations apply whether the MATCH is in AUTO or TELEOP.

This is going to pose a serious issue if there are can wars in auto, which have a strong possibility. At what point can a team design a breakaway mechanism that separates just as the can reaches a certain point on the field, while still having a strong enough mechanism to pull the can off the step in some type of tug of war?

And even in teleop, a grabber can easily become entangled when another team pulls a can. It's a bit late to require teams to redesign to fit this added requirement. (Remember these are HS students...)

[waialua359]

Oh no here we go again.
The rules need to be clarified further and clear.
Although this situation is different from the Hawaii Finals matches, the same rules were being read by both alliances as far as what was considered legal/not-legal.
As exciting as it was for both 359-610 in the finals, I can see it potentially getting ugly at Championships, if the rule(s) arent black and white. They are subjective at best, IMO on how a red card is issued.

[Rangel]

What if we just made the 4 middle cans free game no matter where they are and just add a penalty for every incident a team tries to grab a can that's tipped onto the other side. The penalty would discourage trying to steal a can that's fallen over to the other side but also wouldn't auto red card the team for trying. Idk I feel like a red card attached to any can war scenario is an overreaction considering how critical they are to success. It's minibots all over again.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

What if we just made the 4 middle cans free game no matter where they are and just add a penalty for every incident a team tries to grab a can that's tipped onto the other side. The penalty would discourage trying to steal a can that's fallen over to the other side but also wouldn't auto red card the team for trying. Idk I feel like a red card attached to any can war scenario is an overreaction considering how critical they are to success. It's minibots all over again.

I believe that is already the case in the rules.
In the Hawaii Finals, the head ref issued a penalty for each game piece and/or robot 610 touched, and for each instance, if they occurred. During semifinals match #6, they were issued 24 points in penalties as a result.
The issue here is how a team gets a red card.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by waialua359

The issue here is how a team gets a red card.

Egregious or Strategic violation of certain rules is a red card/other enhanced penalty. G18 is one of those rules. (Others replace "strategic" with "repeated". The other "strategic" enhancements are G24, which adds a disable for the offending robot on top of the red card, and G30, which applies the card to the entire alliance.)

Given that 399 reached over the step, made contact with the can beyond the step, and pulled the can back to their side, on more than one occasion, I would definitely call that Strategic. Then the question becomes, was it a violation? As written (but not as clarified), it's an open question, hence the Q&A. The container was over the step (partially), but contact was initiated beyond the step. YMTC.

[waialua359]

How does a head ref determine a move that is "strategic?"

I had argued that if its done in autonomous, then its strategic because it was programmed to purposely do something.

Our head ref determined that no matter how it was done either in auton or teleop period, the 1st time was incidental. The next time it happened, it was "strategic."

Two weeks prior in Australia, the head ref (who does SC events) said he would disable the robot should it reach over and touch our robot. This made me even more confused. A red card in eliminations means the entire alliance gets a zero, and not disabling that offending robot.

Whatever the head refs told us at various events, we showed the rules, listened to their own interpretations, and followed for the sake of getting on with the matches.