[YMTC]: Defending the Defenses

[Taylor]

Redabot1 has learned that the best way to conquer defenses is full-tilt, ludicrous speed launch over the rock wall, moat, CDF, etc. If they go slowly up the defenses, due to a severely aft CG, they run the risk of flipping over backwards. They've built in an active suspension system, and the robot often lands a foot or more beyond the opposite ramp, much to the delight of the audience. It is well known that this is Redabot1's main strategy for crossing the defenses. Once Redabot1 launches itself, it is unable to change its trajectory mid-air.

Blueabot1 decides to position itself in its own courtyard, away from the Outerworks but directly in front of Redabot1. Consequently, Redabot1 lands on top of Blueabot1, with contact happening inside each robot's respective frame perimeter. When the contact is made, all bumpers are outside the vertical plane of the Outerworks.

Is Blueabot1 guilty of a G43? Is either team guilty of G24? Does G11 come in to play for either team? Do any penalties need to be assessed?

Would the call change if Blueabot1 was damaged/incapacitated as a result of this play? If Redabot1 was damaged/incapacitated as a result of this play? If both robots become damaged/incapacitated as a result of this play?

YOU MAKE THE CALL!

[JesseK]

Just going to throw this one out there - if they're typical FRC bots made of aluminum tubing then both of these robots will be damaged by this act. Even if neither robot is incapacitated, they will both be damaged. It's too much kinetic energy.

[G43] is a tricky one. If Blueabot1 moved into place before Redabot1's bumpers left the OUTER WORKS zone then I could see a case to be made for it. If Blueabot1 was in position before Redabot1's bumpers entered the OUTER WORKS zone then it may not necessarily be [G43]. The applicable verbiage is 'attempt to restrict' as defined the [G43] blue box. Worst case is +5 points for Redabot via FOUL. This is probably the least of the issues though.

Red gets hit with [G24], YELLOW CARD. Presuming Blueabot1 didn't move after getting into position, Blueabot1 didn't initiate the damaging contact. Redabot1 didn't intend the damage, but it is damage nonetheless.

Neither gets hit by [G11]. I doubt either were trying to force a penalty because at this point in the season it isn't clear what penalties (if any) would be assessed in that situation. I think 2 or more refs would need to agree on any intent based upon actual timing of the facts.

If red remains on blue for the remainder of the match:

• Blueabot1 gets hit with a [G22] penalty every 5 seconds for the remainder of the match, leading to a RED CARD. Both robots being E-stopped may affect this. If there is a safety hazard imposed by either robot (smoke, battery acid, pneumatic tank puncture, etc) then there is no penalty.
  
• Presuming this is the Blue courtyard, Redabot1 receives SCALING points per [G28]. E-stop wouldn't affect this.
  
• Redabot1 may not shoot its BOULDER unless somehow it can touch the carpet.

[New Lightning]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Just going to throw this one out there - if they're typical FRC bots made of aluminum tubing then both of these robots will be damaged by this act. Even if neither robot is incapacitated, they will both be damaged. It's too much kinetic energy.


Red gets hit with [G24], YELLOW CARD. Presuming Blueabot1 didn't move after getting into position, Blueabot1 didn't initiate the damaging contact. Redabot1 didn't intend the damage, but it is damage nonetheless.

If red remains on blue for the remainder of the match:

• Blueabot1 gets hit with a [G22] penalty every 5 seconds for the remainder of the match, leading to a RED CARD. Both robots being E-stopped may affect this. If there is a safety hazard imposed by either robot (smoke, battery acid, pneumatic tank puncture, etc) then there is no penalty.

Why would Blue get hit with the pinning penalty when Redabot 1 landed on top of blue and is preventing it from moving by damaging it. If any pinning foul is to be given here than it should go to red. However I will take precedent from the 2014 game. Specifically a match that happen in Colorado in SF 2-1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQdVzEqjz7E . In this match A blue robot was pushed into a red bot by another red bot. If you watch the referees right next to the incident the ref calls for a pinning foul, and then the head ref comes over and also signals for a foul. At the end of the match however the foul points are taken off the board.

The relation to the topic at hand would be that in the video the foul was initially called on the blue robot because it was inside the red robot and was causing the red robot to be immobile. But the end result was no foul because blue was pushed into the pin. For the scenario at hand I would say that because blue was didn't avoid the contact then red is not responsible for a pin because they didn't prevent blue from getting out of their way and were "forced" into hitting blue, which ultimately caused the pin. However red should probably be given the G24 for damaging blue.

[petercooperjr]

My first thoughts:

No G43. Redabot1 successfully completed its crossing, and Blueabot1 did not interfere with it.

G24 is one of those rules that requires referees to read the drive teams' minds. If I thought that Redabot1 performed its actions as part of a strategy to damage Blueabot1, or vice versa, then I would access the penalty accordingly. My gut, from your description, is that most likely they were each just trying to play the game, and the tangled mess wasn't really what anybody was going for. But really subtle differences in descriptions of what happened can very much change my mind as to what was and wasn't intentional.

[GeeTwo]

G43 is not applicable, as red's crossing was complete before contact.

G24 is not applicable, as neither robot intended damage (though they knew it was possible). This is the biggest judgement call - I would not be surprised if red were charged with G24 if blue were already there when red began the crossing and was damaged by this procedure, though it stretches the rules as written.

G11 is not applicable for the initial contact - this was game play on both parts, not an attempt to force penalties.

G22 (pinning) is not applicable due to a subtle point - blue did not pin red, red pinned itself upon blue. Possibly too subtle.

If blue is still mobile and red cannot drive off, it would be in blue's best interest to leave the courtyard through his secret passage with more than 20 seconds left in the match. The intent is to avoid a G28 at the end of the match while also not drawing a G24, not to cause red to commit a G21. In fact, if red is fully supported by blue, there would not be a G21 during this as red is not touching the carpet. I would not hang out in the secret passage, as THAT would constitute pinning. If blue manages to cross the red outer works with red on his back, (the intent is to get to the batter for a challenge) blue will get scaling points under G28. If he starts across but red causes him to hang up, charge red with G43.

The refs may also warn red that if this is repeated in future matches, this will be considered intentional damage and therefore under G24.

[JesseK]

Hmm, the [G11] blue box on the next page after [G11] specifies:

G11 does not apply for strategies consistent with standard gameplay,
e.g. a TEAM obtaining a BOULDER from their SECRET PASSAGE,
CROSSING an opponent DEFENSE

i.e. No [G11] penalties

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

Why would Blue get hit with the pinning penalty when Redabot 1 landed on top of blue and is preventing it from moving by damaging it. If any pinning foul is to be given here than it should go to red.

Unfortunately the refs can't rule based upon prior year precedents. The thoughts were based upon the blue box for [G22]. If blue can move, then red isn't technically pinning blue. If blue can move but red cannot, then blue is pinning red. If blue cannot move due to damage, pinning doesn't apply - but the only indication the refs have is e-stop or other safety-related indicators. I agree that it's obscure, but it's a ruling based upon the definition.

[New Lightning]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Unfortunately the refs can't rule based upon prior year precedents. The thoughts were based upon the blue box for [G22]. If blue can move, then red isn't technically pinning blue. If blue can move but red cannot, then blue is pinning red. If blue cannot move due to damage, pinning doesn't apply

Could you clarify why there would be a pinning foul on blue if blue could still move and red could not. I get why there would be no foul on red if blue was still able to move, but why would they get a foul if red couldn't move because red landed on them?

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

Could you clarify why there would be a pinning foul on blue if blue could still move and red could not. I get why there would be no foul on red if blue was still able to move, but why would they get a foul if red couldn't move because red landed on them?

The premise in the scenario is that 'everyone' knows Redabot1 jumps the defense. It also seems to be implied that this jump is the only way Redabot1 can traverse the defense. It is also stated in such a way that Blueabot1's actions are obviously intentional.

Blueabot1 moved into position in order to inhibit movement after Redabot1 landed, but instead wound up with Redabot1 on top of it. Rather than inhibiting movement, Redabot1 is likely completely immobile for longer than 5 seconds. Redabot1 is completely immobile as a direct result of the defensive strategy and actions Blueabot1 took. Blueabot didn't intend to be landed on, yet should have seen it as a risk given what 'everyone' knows.

[New Lightning]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Blueabot1 moved into position in order to inhibit movement after Redabot1 landed, but instead wound up with Redabot1 on top of it. Rather than inhibiting movement, Redabot1 is likely completely immobile for longer than 5 seconds. Redabot1 is completely immobile as a direct result of the defensive strategy and actions Blueabot1 took. Blueabot didn't intend to be landed on, yet should have seen it as a risk given what 'everyone' knows.

But as I understand the clarification in the blue box the definition of pinning is “to prevent or stop something from moving.", not inhibit movement. And as you said Blueabot didn't intended to be landed on, so it follows that they didn't intend to prevent the movement of Redabot only inconvenience it, which is not a foul.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

But as I understand the clarification in the blue box the definition is a action to prevent movement, not inhibit movement. And as you said Blueabot didn't intended to be landed on, so it follows that they didn't intend to prevent the movement of Redabot only inconvenience it, which is not a foul.

The rules for pinning do not specify that intent is a consideration with regards to pinning.

I see it as similar to all of the rules/Q&A rulings surrounding situations where a robot breaks down in the secret passage, or in the courtyard (especially near the batter) during the last 30 seconds.

edit - also, the blue box implies inhibiting movement - a robot that is 'pinned' on the batter can probably wiggle enough to be seen moving, yet is still strictly confined to a small area due to the as-clarified pin.

[New Lightning]

Okay I understand now. Still not sure I agree but I understand.

[EricH]

If it was the first time... I would not call G43. G11 is also out (more on that later). G24 is another one that's "out"--you'd have to argue that it WAS a strategy, the first time.


But that's the first time. Naturally, I would expect a discussion with both teams about what happened, and possibly some warnings given out about being careful. The first time.

AFTER the first time, you're making me judge intent. If somebody is being deliberate, then penalties would need to be called, most likely G24 (everybody knows there's a risk of damage here) with a side of G11. Exactly what would depend a lot on what the spies and drivers and robots were doing.

[BoilerMentor]

I put in Q862 last night in regard to this issue.

My concern is that if enforced in the way described we've created an impassible defense strategy, because the risk of ending up on top of another robot and being yellow carded for it is too high. Yes, they will be penalized under G43 at one foul per 5 seconds, but a situation could exist where you trade 20 points in penalties for 2 ranking points.

If the defense action happens with the defending robot entirely within the outerworks and the defense being defended is the last defense that offensive alliance needs to cross for a breach and the offensive robot is prevented from reaching the batter to complete a capture. G28 doesn't apply if the defending robot is entirely within the outerworks and not in contact with the carpet of their courtyard.

[TJP123]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

If blue manages to cross the red outer works with red on his back...

then clearly blue wins all the banners and a 3-year qualification to CMP.

Other than that, as Eric says, I wouldn't award any penalties the first time it happened. As the question clearly implies that everybody knows red can only cross in this way and blue is intentionally positioning itself in the red "landing zone", I'd hit blue with a penalty for every infraction after the first (to give them the benefit of the doubt that they weren't part of "everybody knows").