Palmetto Regional Week 0.5

[Keefe2471]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

and now answered:
No, simply that:

• Perhaps backing up into the outer works does not merit much protection from a robot on the courtyard side of you.

It should provide the exact same amount of protection according to the rules. Are you just pointing out that the refs might not see it if you back up into the outer works rather than shoot as you go through? I think this rule is a critical part of the game and everyone involved needs to understand how closely it's going to be enforced.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Keefe2471

It should provide the exact same amount of protection according to the rules. Are you just pointing out that the refs might not see it if you back up into the outer works rather than shoot as you go through? I think this rule is a critical part of the game and everyone involved needs to understand how closely it's going to be enforced.

The rule is:

Originally Posted by G43

ROBOTS on the same half of the FIELD as their ALLIANCE TOWER may not interfere with opponent ROBOTS attempting to traverse OUTER WORKS (regardless of direction). A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS.

The key point here is that if robot BlueA is in the red courtyard and begins a traversal of the outer works (towards the neutral zone), activity by robot RedD (located in the red courtyard) that does not involve grappling or pinning is less than certain to be considered as interfering with the presumed traversal towards the neutral zone. Most of the "uncalled G43 violations" I've read about (and both of the ones I've seen on video) are or seem to be this scenario. Perhaps it is not a G43 violation.

Now that I've expressed it clearly, I'm going to post it to Q&A (assuming I don't find it there already).

Edit: Q532 seems to cover this pretty clearly. These non-calls were missed, not intentional.

Originally Posted by Q532

• Q. "A robot carrying a boulder crosses a defense into their opponents' courtyard. They then move back such that a part of its bumpers are within the opponent’s outer works while their robot is still in contact with the courtyard carpet. They attempt to line up a shot, but an opponent contacts them. Does the opponent incur a G43 penalty?"
• A. This situation does demonstrate a violation of G43. Per G43: "A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS." Even if you are shooting a BOULDER, you would be protected by G43 if your BUMPERS are within the OUTER WORKS.

[Jessi Kaestle]

Not trying to justify the lack of calls, just give an alternative perspective.

*Note: I did not see any of the videos in question where there was a potential G43 penalty that was not called

Firstly, please remember that the Ref's are human, and are volunteering their time. Sometimes people make mistakes

This year is a complicated year for the Ref's and there is a lot that each ref needs to watch and that visibility might be poor. Remember that the students are the volunteers customer, that means that both the students on *your* alliance AND the students on the *other* alliance. If you back up so that your bumpers are just barely in the outer works and it's not obvious then a ref might miss it.

My assessment is that if you are planning to shoot from the outerworks so to take advantage of it's protected zone status, you should make it obvious to the refs that you are in the outerworks.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by Jessi Kaestle

Not trying to justify the lack of calls, just give an alternative perspective.

*Note: I did not see any of the videos in question where there was a potential G43 penalty that was not called

Firstly, please remember that the Ref's are human, and are volunteering their time. Sometimes people make mistakes

This year is a complicated year for the Ref's and there is a lot that each ref needs to watch and that visibility might be poor. Remember that the students are the volunteers customer, that means that both the students on *your* alliance AND the students on the *other* alliance. If you back up so that your bumpers are just barely in the outer works and it's not obvious then a ref might miss it.

My assessment is that if you are planning to shoot from the outerworks so to take advantage of it's protected zone status, you should make it obvious to the refs that you are in the outerworks.

I concur I think teams expecting a ref to see the nuanced move of entering the courtyard and backing into "protection" are dreaming. The only way I see this working consistently is when crossing before you leave the platform (slight pause) you shoot HG because of the initial "protection" of the obvious crossing action.

This applies also to bots expecting the ref to see "solo" sally door bumps or drawbridge taps...don't count on it. They missed many obvious crossings "no sensors" let alone "tricky" solo ones.

Don't count on getting calls or credit. That's a failed assumption in a game as complex as this from a reffing standpoint (and scouting standpoint)

I think the refs will as time goes on get the basics down...the rest though is dreaming.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Boltman

I concur I think teams expecting a ref to see the nuanced move of entering the courtyard and backing into "protection" are dreaming. The only way I see this working consistently is when crossing before you leave the platform (slight pause) you shoot HG because of the initial "protection" of the obvious crossing action.

...

Don't count on getting calls or credit. That's a failed assumption in a game as complex as this from a reffing standpoint (and scouting standpoint)

I disagree entirely. Although the onus is on the teams to clearly have their bumpers in the OUTER WORKS, the refs should be paying attention regardless. Remember, CROSSING is only one direction (Neutral Zone to Courtyard) but TRAVERSING is either direction. The protection clause applies to TRAVERSING. Regardless of if I have a ball and intend to shoot or not, the refs should be watching for when my bumpers cross into the OUTER WORKS, because I may be intending to TRAVERSE back to the Neutral Zone, not necessarily shoot.

I agree it is a tough game to ref, and refs will miss things, but it's also their job to enforce the rules as best as possible. If I do my best to make it obvious that my robot bumpers are in the OUTER WORKS, I should expect be protected from interference, regardless of when/how/from what direction I approach the OUTER WORKS.

*Disclaimer: My team is not shooting at all, and has a mechanism to open the Sally Port from the neutral zone so as not to rely on the "tap" method.*

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I disagree entirely. Although the onus is on the teams to clearly have their bumpers in the OUTER WORKS, the refs should be paying attention regardless. Remember, CROSSING is only one direction (Neutral Zone to Courtyard) but TRAVERSING is either direction. The protection clause applies to TRAVERSING. Regardless of if I have a ball and intend to shoot or not, the refs should be watching for when my bumpers cross into the OUTER WORKS, because I may be intending to TRAVERSE back to the Neutral Zone, not necessarily shoot.

I agree it is a tough game to ref, and refs will miss things, but it's also their job to enforce the rules as best as possible. If I do my best to make it obvious that my robot bumpers are in the OUTER WORKS, I should expect be protected from interference, regardless of when/how/from what direction I approach the OUTER WORKS.

*Disclaimer: My team is not shooting at all, and has a mechanism to open the Sally Port from the neutral zone so as not to rely on the "tap" method.*

How do you expect a ref to pay that close attention to your bot with 5 others on field?

Basically the rule is in place so the other alliance cannot just defend entrances to to "easier" defenses all day and also so they cant trap a bot in a defense... the "shooting protection" is a secondary construct of the rule in the first place...relying on "bumper hang shooting protection" calls is dreaming. To many other things refs have a primary responsibility to track...like basic crossings.

These are volunteers and are human with a tough game to call.

They let slide many things in Palmetto..probably due to audience game play flow. Just like in NFL holding happens many times a game..gets called a few times. Too many "flags' creates audience fatigue.

[KrazyCarl92]

Originally Posted by Boltman

How do you expect a ref to pay that close attention to your bot?

Basically the rule is in place so the other alliance cannot just defend entrances to to "easier" defenses all day and also so they cant trap a bot in a defense... the "shooting protection" is a secondary construct of the rule in the first place...relying on shooting protection calls is dreaming

Shooter protection calls were the standard in 2012 and 2013. Why should this year be any different? I have heard from those close to the GDC that it was a very intentional construct of the rules to provide shooting protection in the outerworks.

Actually, a well-driven defensive robot could still block the entrance to easier defenses. As long as they are not touching an opposing robot in the outerworks they can still prevent access.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

Shooter protection calls were the standard in 2012 and 2013. Why should this year be any different? I have heard from those close to the GDC that it was a very intentional construct of the rules to provide shooting protection in the outerworks.

Actually, a well-driven defensive robot could still block the entrance to easier defenses. As long as they are not touching an opposing robot in the outerworks they can still prevent access.

Well if that's so I stand corrected, I just see it as an unlikely call though except maybe at highest levels with sharp shooting form 16 feet bots as the norm.

[Jessi Kaestle]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

Shooter protection calls were the standard in 2012 and 2013. Why should this year be any different?.

It shouldn't be. But just be aware that if it's not obvious or a ref didn't see it, they will likely err on the side of not issuing a penalty. So if you want to take advantage of the protection zone, make it obvious that you are in the protection zone.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Boltman

How do you expect a ref to pay that close attention to your bot with 5 others on field?

There are always 5 other robots (since 2005) that the refs have to pay attention to. My point was mainly that regardless of what a robot is doing, the OUTER WORKS is a protected zone. If my robot is near my opponents' OUTER WORKS, I expect the referees to be paying attention to it. Whether I'm shooting or traversing or just wandering aimlessly, being near the OUTER WORKS should invite the referees attention, just like any other FIRST game with protected zones. We haven't really had any in the last 2 years, but they used to be pretty common. 2011-2013 each had at least two different "protected" areas per alliance (loading zones and scoring zones).

Refs are human, for sure, but the OUTER WORKS protection is such a key part of the game mechanic this year that a robot anywhere near there should invite some attention from at least one ref, period. Perhaps FIRST needs to consider putting some kind of stripe on the edges of the plastic dividers so the refs can more easily see where the OUTER WORKS starts.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

There are always 5 other robots (since 2005) that the refs have to pay attention to. My point was mainly that regardless of what a robot is doing, the OUTER WORKS is a protected zone. If my robot is near my opponents' OUTER WORKS, I expect the referees to be paying attention to it. Whether I'm shooting or traversing or just wandering aimlessly, being near the OUTER WORKS should invite the referees attention, just like any other FIRST game with protected zones. We haven't really had any in the last 2 years, but they used to be pretty common. 2011-2013 each had at least two different "protected" areas per alliance (loading zones and scoring zones).

Refs are human, for sure, but the OUTER WORKS protection is such a key part of the game mechanic this year that a robot anywhere near there should invite some attention from at least one ref, period. Perhaps FIRST needs to consider putting some kind of stripe on the edges of the plastic dividers so the refs can more easily see where the OUTER WORKS starts.

Visibility is much less than in previous years take last 2 or most games ...basically open courts much easier to see protected zones with static features.

This year is so complex "bump hang" is probably really low on any priority list of ref calls. They are not in the middle of the game on every defense. They like both drive teams will have limited visibility and lots of action to take into account.

I agree they "should" call it but also see the difficulty in doing so. No instant replay.

[Drakxii]

Originally Posted by Boltman

Visibility is much less than in previous years take last 2 or most games ...basically open courts much easier to see protected zones with static features.

This year is so complex "bump hang" is probably really low on any priority list of ref calls. They are not in the middle of the game on every defense. They like both drive teams will have limited visibility and lots of action to take into account.

I agree they "should" call it but also see the difficulty in doing so. No instant replay.

Good enforcement of this rule will be the difference between a good game that is remember for it's great bots, games, and moments & a game that is remember for it's bad refereeing, punishment bots got and boring games.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Boltman

Visibility is much less than in previous years take last 2 or most games ...basically open courts much easier to see protected zones with static features.

There are at least 6 refs stationed along the side of the field, so they should have a MUCH better vantage point than the drivers to see the OUTER WORKS. If Refs are having trouble determining if robot are within protected zones, that's a much bigger deal than just whether or not you'll get the call when shooting.

I 100% agree it's on the teams to make it obvious they're within the OUTER WORKS, but a robot within the zone is within the zone, period. If a ref can't see that, it's an issue, shooter or not. There's no "priority" for a call. A robot with bumpers in the zone is TRAVERSING by definition of the rules, regardless of whether or not it's traversing (moving) in a colloquial sense. If refs can't see that occurance, that's a much larger problem than just for shooters trying to shoot from a protected region. Several robots will want to move into the protection of the OUTER WORKS before deploying or moving mechanisms to help them get across the obstacles.

For what it's worth, determining protection should be easier this year than in the past, since the refs aren't trying to determine robot contact with a patch or a tape line on the floor with the perspective of looking halfway across the field with parallax. There should be at least two refs with a direct line of sight down the planes which determine the start of the outer works.

Time will tell. Palmetto was a very early event, I expect as more refs experience and give feedback on the game, FIRST head refs will improve the guidance to their teams on best operating procedures and how to call things.

[laplacier]

Hello everyone, now that I've had some time to wind down and catch up on my duties post Palmetto I wanted to extend a thank you to everyone who attended or watched the event. Our team had its own challenges at the competition, but we had a blast with everyone we had a chance to speak with. I'd also like to send another thanks to the members of MARS and Garnet Squadron (and other teams I may have missed) for staying after the event and helping us with packing away FIRST's playing field and accessories to be sent off to the next event.

With the new teams at the event we got to see and experience mechanisms we had never attempted to build before. I, personally, was astonished by what some of the teams were able to develop during the short build season. We will be spending our off season learning how to develop those mechanisms with the students so we can be better prepared for games which may benefit from them in the future. Always be prepared!

Congratulations to the winning alliance this year! I look forward to seeing how well you guys perform at St. Louis!

[Keefe2471]

Originally Posted by Jessi Kaestle

Not trying to justify the lack of calls, just give an alternative perspective.

*Note: I did not see any of the videos in question where there was a potential G43 penalty that was not called

Firstly, please remember that the Ref's are human, and are volunteering their time. Sometimes people make mistakes

This year is a complicated year for the Ref's and there is a lot that each ref needs to watch and that visibility might be poor. Remember that the students are the volunteers customer, that means that both the students on *your* alliance AND the students on the *other* alliance. If you back up so that your bumpers are just barely in the outer works and it's not obvious then a ref might miss it.

My assessment is that if you are planning to shoot from the outerworks so to take advantage of it's protected zone status, you should make it obvious to the refs that you are in the outerworks.

I would also have to disagree. A member of 159 posted a picture earlier in the thread that actually sparked most of the conversation. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...2&d=1456635860)

This is a missed call. I'm not blaming anyone and realize this is a nuanced rule, but it should be made a point of emphasis in the next few weeks by FIRST if the calls continue to be overlooked. The potential for penalties is highest around the outerworks and secret passage, these zones will need to be watched closely.

Thanks GeeTwo for asking/finding the Q/A for this. (https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Que...ot-is-still-in)

Again, unclear situations are going to be common, but with a ref standing almost in line with the outerworks, it should be fairly easy for them to call it in cases like the above photo. I also believe that if it does start getting called with frequency the defender will have to play more cautious and that should lead to offense having a bigger window to sit in to shoot.

Edit: I think I misread the reply I was quoting. I do agree with making it obvious to the refs, I thought you said you didn't see any cases where it should have be called. Not that you hadn't seen any of the videos where it should have been called. Most of my reply still makes some sense though. So I'll leave it up.