G41 and G38 when assisting robots accross defenses

[BotDesigner]

When a robot (with boulder) assists a robot stranded on the defenses (also with boulder), wouldn't it be violating G40 by causing 2 boulders to cross the defense during its single cross? The rescue bot would have clearly "caused" the boulder to cross since the stranded robot would be incapable of getting the boulder across the defenses by itself.

Also, what if the stranded robot got caught on top of the rescue bot? Would the rescue bot be violating G38 by being in control of the robot stuck on top of itself and thus the boulder in that robot?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by BotDesigner

When a robot (with boulder) assists a robot stranded on the defenses (also with boulder), wouldn't it be violating G40 by causing 2 boulders to cross the defense during its single cross? The rescue bot would have clearly "caused" the boulder to cross since the stranded robot would be incapable of getting the boulder across the defenses by itself.

Also, what if the stranded robot got caught on top of the rescue bot? Would the rescue bot be violating G38 by being in control of the robot stuck on top of itself and thus the boulder in that robot?

Sounds to me like a good Q&A question.

[TGurlik]

In the first instance, of a robot helping another stranded robot through a defense, that the boulders would both be legally crossed as they were possessed by two different robots.

I believe this logic would apply to the other cases as well, but I'm not entirely sure. This would be a good question to post on the Q&A.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by TGurlik

In the first instance, of a robot helping another stranded robot through a defense, that the boulders would both be legally crossed as they were possessed by two different robots.

I believe this logic would apply to the other cases as well, but I'm not entirely sure. This would be a good question to post on the Q&A.

I would say the same thing, each robot possesses one boulder and causes it to cross. Crossing is independent of any assistance provided by partners or opponents.

[BotDesigner]

Originally Posted by EricH

I would say the same thing, each robot possesses one boulder and causes it to cross. Crossing is independent of any assistance provided by partners or opponents.

Crossing is done by robots, not boulders. The question here is if multiple boulders were caused to move into the opponent's courtyard by a single robot. Can someone Q&A this? I am not registered .

[GeeTwo]

Submitted.

Originally Posted by Q752

Q. Asked for some folks on Chief Delphi: Robot RedA, carrying boulderA, begins crossing a defense into the blue courtyard, and becomes stuck. Robot RedB, carrying a boulderB, crosses the same defense, pushing robot RedA and boulderA to complete their crossing in the process. For purposes of G41, did RedA or RedB cause boulderA to cross from the neutral zone to the courtyard? That is, is RedB charged a foul for causing both boulderA and boulderB to transfer with a single crossing?

To me, this is pretty obvious that RobotA posessed boulderA and therefore caused it to move, even if robotB caused RobotA to move, but not so obvious as to not ask.

[rich2202]

Regarding G41: From the Q&A, FRC considers the robot that moves the ball from the Outer Works to the Courtyard as the controlling robot. In your example, once the robot has been unstuck from the Defense, it is still in the Outer Works. So, once it continues on its own, it is the robot that is considered to have moved the Boulder from the Outer Works to the Courtyard for G41 purposes.

If it is a disabled robot, and never moves on its own for the rest of the match, then the easy solution is for the assisting robot to back out before completing the crossing. Since it did not complete the Crossing, it has not violated G41 and caused more than 1 Boulder to move into the opponent's Courtyard.

If you must push the disabled robot all the way into the Courtyard (need to clear the Defense in order to Defeat it), you can do a technical reading of G41 in that the Assisting Robot did not cause the Boulder to move from the Neutral Zone, merely from the Outer Works. However, given FRC's interpretation of G40, that reading may be a problem. So, then the question becomes whether G40 has been violated by the Assisting Robot since it "caused" the action, but never contacted the Boulder in the Outer Works.

Regarding G38: It could be considered Bulldozing. Your robot is crossing the Defense, and the Boulder is in the way.

[GeeTwo]

The Q&A response:

Originally Posted by Q752

• Q. Asked for some folks on Chief Delphi: Robot RedA, carrying boulderA, begins crossing a defense into the blue courtyard, and becomes stuck. Robot RedB, carrying a boulderB, crosses the same defense, pushing robot RedA and boulderA to complete their crossing in the process. For purposes of G41, did RedA or RedB cause boulderA to cross from the neutral zone to the courtyard? That is, is RedB charged a foul for causing both boulderA and boulderB to transfer with a single crossing?
• A. A ROBOT that causes an ALLIANCE partner controlling a BOULDER to complete a CROSSING has not caused the ALLIANCE partner's BOULDER to move in to the opponent's COURTYARD (the ALLIANCE partner has). A ROBOT that is controlling a BOULDER (e.g. carrying it) and pushing a ROBOT that is also controlling a BOULDER (e.g. carrying it) is not controlling two BOULDERS and thus not violating G38. Finally, there is no requirement that a ROBOT complete its crossing under its own power.

That "finally" is a bit more than I expected, but it will make the referee's jobs a bit easier. The bottom line is that if a robot controls a boulder, and another robot moves the first robot, the control of the boulder is not transitive back to the pushing robot.