Running over a boulder foul

[catmanjake]

In our first regional, if you had possession of a boulder and happen to run over another boulder, it was NOT a foul. In regional this weekend it is a foul.
What have others come across on this situation?

[Boltman]

The relevant rule (as you describe) is....

G38 ROBOTS may not control more than one (1) BOULDER at any time.
Violation: FOUL per extra BOULDER
Moving or positioning a BOULDER to gain advantage is considered
“control.”
Examples include, but are not limited to:
A. “carrying” (holding BOULDERS inside a ROBOT)
B. “herding” (intentionally pushing or impelling BOULDERS to a desired
location or direction)
C. “trapping” (holding one or more BOULDERS against a FIELD element
in an attempt to shield or guard them)
D. “launching” (shooting BOULDERS into the air, kicking across the
floor, or throwing in a forceful way)
Examples of interaction with BOULDERS that are not “control” include,
but are not limited to:
A. “bulldozing” (inadvertent contact with BOULDERS while in the path of
the ROBOT moving about the FIELD)
B. “deflecting” (being hit by a BOULDER that bounces into or off of a
ROBOT).
If a BOULDER becomes lodged in or on a ROBOT, it will be considered
controlled by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that
it is impossible to inadvertently or unintentionally control more than the
allowed maximum.


So any foul is likely because of above rule and if you question it then certainly ask the head referee at end of your match about it.

[rich2202]

It is possible to get a G41 in the situation you describe

G41
During each CROSSING, a ROBOT may not cause more than one (1) BOULDER to move from the NEUTRAL ZONE into the opponent’s COURTYARD.
Violation: TECH FOUL per additional BOULDER

Let's say the Boulder is on the Neutral Zone size of the Low Bar. You drive over the Boulder and momentum causes the Boulder to follow you into the Court Yard. You have now violated G41, even though it was legal by G38.

[GeeTwo]

Running over a boulder is not a foul per se.

However, it clearly meets the first half of G38c (holding one or more boulders against a field element, in this case the carpet or other floor surface). Whether the referee rules that this was an attempt to shield or guard is dependent on the situation, for example:

• Did you run over a boulder that an opposing robot was trying to pick up?
• How long did you stay on top of the boulder?

As noted above, if you cause a boulder to cross over a defense towards your opponent's tower, or certain berms and lines, these can be fouls.

Also, if you run over the boulder in a direction that it would benefit your alliance even if it did not cross a proscribed defense/berm/line, it could be ruled herding.

[catmanjake]

Going back to original question - have any other regionals had a head referee state that carrying a boulder and running over a boulder was automatically a foul? We are just trying to get an understanding since it was so different between the 2 regionals we participated in.

[Boltman]

The boulder foul can be called a few different ways .... from what I understand these are likely scenarios. If the boulder is trapped under and not "planned" there is no foul to be called as that does not trigger "control". If a team gets called they should challenge that as control is the key wording.

However it gets interesting if two boulders with same bot make it through OW with one carried and one stuck under. Then Two boulders made it through OW in one movement, still no foul. If the bot that did that scores the carried boulder no foul , However if that same bot goes back and grabs the second boulder to score another goal then that's a Tech Foul most likely. "gained advantage"

Same if a bot carries and pushes though another in one crossing, they cannot use the second boulder right away or risk a tech foul. The spirit is one boulder per crossing not two. IF another bot takes advantage then no likely foul, its when the same bot does it in succession that a foul may occur.

So fouls for stuck boulders I doubt will trigger a foul unless some perceived advantage was garnered from that with multiple boulders involved by the same bot. At least that is what I have witnessed from watching several regionals worth games played.

[Peyton Yeung]

At the Indiana events we have noticed that carrying a ball and running over a ball gets called as a foul. Similarly if you are carrying a ball and run into a ball that moves forward as a reaction to you hitting it, a foul is typically called.

[BigBen]

Moving or positioning a BOULDER to gain advantage is considered “control.”

If you cause a 2nd boulder to go in a direction that the ref deems advantageous, then they can call the foul.

A robot carrying a boulder and accidentally causes another to cross the outer works for any reason is definitely a foul.

Regardless, it is all up to the opinion of the referees and especially how they were instructed by the head ref during training. During the pre-match driver team meeting with the head ref is a perfectly good time to ask the question on what they will be looking for in regards to G38. There may be differing opinions between the different refs making the calls.

Also, refs do make mistakes from time to time with bad or missed calls. They are human and are making quick decisions often with incomplete information. With that said, they are also all volunteers and should be thanked for hearing you out even if you end up on the short end of a call.

Good luck getting any foul for controlling multiple boulders reversed, since there is no way to prove that the ball was not moved "to gain advantage" after the match is over. That doesn't mean you should not ask the question regarding the ruling if the situation warrants it. You have to know what rule to cite, quote the applicable portion of the rule and plead your case.

Man, I rambled on for awhile there. This is why you shouldn't troll Chief Delphi at 1AM.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by BigBen

Moving or positioning a BOULDER to gain advantage is considered “control.”

If you cause a 2nd boulder to go in a direction that the ref deems advantageous, then they can call the foul.

A robot carrying a boulder and accidentally causes another to cross the outer works for any reason is definitely a foul.

Regardless, it is all up to the opinion of the referees and especially how they were instructed by the head ref during training. During the pre-match driver team meeting with the head ref is a perfectly good time to ask the question on what they will be looking for in regards to G38. There may be differing opinions between the different refs making the calls.

Also, refs do make mistakes from time to time with bad or missed calls. They are human and are making quick decisions often with incomplete information. With that said, they are also all volunteers and should be thanked for hearing you out even if you end up on the short end of a call.

Good luck getting any foul for controlling multiple boulders reversed, since there is no way to prove that the ball was not moved "to gain advantage" after the match is over. That doesn't mean you should not ask the question regarding the ruling if the situation warrants it. You have to know what rule to cite, quote the applicable portion of the rule and plead your case.

Man, I rambled on for awhile there. This is why you shouldn't troll Chief Delphi at 1AM.

But perfectly said. I do believe all refs want whats best for all teams and the best ways for teams to gain clarity is pre-match Q&A, then at the driver meeting and lastly in the question box to the head ref after your match with any other involved ref as well. Read all of the rules and get the latest copy as they change and that is what everyone goes by and yes there can be rules that are somewhat ambiguous, so best to bring those up prior.

Trust me we have been on the bad side of calls ourselves but it is what it is in the end and our bad calls helped many teams in later weeks this season with ref awareness and writing to First about it. That's the chance you take playing weeks 1 and 2. Those playing week 3 and and later benefit as reports come in and changes are made . I do believe most of the crossing issues have been resolved in later weeks based on my observations.

I no longer think instant replay is necessary as long as feedback is taken into account and adjustments made.

[catmanjake]

Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't complaining about referees. They specifically told the drive teams at 2 different meetings this is how it was going to be called. We just found it interesting how it was different between our two regionals. Since we are going to worlds, it will be interesting to see how it is called there.

[Kevin Ray]

First off, a very much appreciate that refs are volunteers and as such should be granted a great deal of appreciation and blanket acceptance for their decisions. However, after having attended two regionals I feel that the intent of the rule and the letter of the rule are being missed too frequently. On dozens upon dozens of occasions penalties (G38 b) were called for intentionally moving a boulder to gain advantage when CLEARLY the driver was only attempting to drive with the boulder which they had in their possession to get to a defense to cross into the courtyard. The situation occurs all too often that another boulder happens to be in the direct path of the driver. Rather than driving around it as though it were a land mine, they merely push it off to the side and get flagged. Was an advantage gained? Possibly yes, BUT the caveat at the bottom of the rule clearly states that bulldozing balls in the way is not worthy of a penalty. I think that this interpretation needs to be emphasized at the drivers' meetings by the head ref. The intent of the the GDC in making the herding rule IMO was rather obvious but has since morphed into a "touch a second boulder and be flagged" situation.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by Kevin Ray

First off, a very much appreciate that refs are volunteers and as such should be granted a great deal of appreciation and blanket acceptance for their decisions. However, after having attended two regionals I feel that the intent of the rule and the letter of the rule are being missed too frequently. On dozens upon dozens of occasions penalties (G38 b) were called for intentionally moving a boulder to gain advantage when CLEARLY the driver was only attempting to drive with the boulder which they had in their possession to get to a defense to cross into the courtyard. The situation occurs all too often that another boulder happens to be in the direct path of the driver. Rather than driving around it as though it were a land mine, they merely push it off to the side and get flagged. Was an advantage gained? Possibly yes, BUT the caveat at the bottom of the rule clearly states that bulldozing balls in the way is not worthy of a penalty. I think that this interpretation needs to be emphasized at the drivers' meetings by the head ref. The intent of the the GDC in making the herding rule IMO was rather obvious but has since morphed into a "touch a second boulder and be flagged" situation.

One common scenario is boulders collecting at low bar (from Human players) so in order for a bot to clear sometimes they will have a boulder and find another in their path on a defense. I think where the rule will come into play is the intent . If that bot finds the easiest way is to bulldoze the extra boulder though that could be OK as long as they don't use it to gain advantage (and there was not a good alternative) . Now if they went out of their way to make a second boulder go through a defense then that would likely be called.

I saw bots in that scenario aware of the two possession for advantage rule and purposely rid themselves of that extra boulder in their path prior to crossing a defense while possessing another. So teams find out pretty quick how the ref crew will call. I see refs talking to teams after to explain calls in many cases so they understand why they triggered a foul.

The rules are not always super clear... so that is why there are multiple referees to discus the rules as a unit and build a consensus not to mention the worldwide aspect and continual rule clarifications. This year is especially complex when you look at the rules. I saw teams purposely design their bots with tiny 15" extensions (seemingly useless) to take advantage of the rules themselves (for "bumper hang" protection in OW and to make a foul more likely and also to clear space to shoot) , perfectly legal and very smart (wish we thought of it) . The rules are there for anyone to read.

Intent of the rule IMO boils down to did one boulder per action through OW happen (desired outcome) or if two or more did then did that bot intend to use that for competitive gain or not?

I don't see any point to just touching a second boulder inadvertently being a foul as that happens a lot with wheeled bots in fact in every regional I watched , it happens. I never saw that called as long as inadvertent as driving over and getting stuck on it. As for pushing it aside I find it weird that would be flagged because the boulder was not there to start and it would waste time releasing a carried boulder just to push a boulder out of the way of a defense, I cannot see how that would be called myself. IMO bots should be able to hit boulders around as they drive as long as its not though OW or SP while possessing another. If that happened I'm sure our team would ask for clarification of the foul at the end of match and explain our side of it.

A few things I would keep in mind in regard to the rules and would remind my drive team of....

Notice how you always start on opponents side of the field?

When on your side (the one you did not start on closest to your drivers) that is when MOST FOULS get called for various actions so defensive bots are certainly potential foul violators as are any other partners on your castle side past the mid-line... there are several fouls that trigger in those scenarios with OW. G43 and intentional/coordinated blocking OW defense strategies to prevent a breach come to mind.

The other key point is last 20 seconds and contact with opponent will likely trigger FREE SCALE so at 30 second sound think about getting out of their courtyard ASAP and before the 20 second sound . Lastly when touching their secret passage that also triggers a foul with any competitor contact at any time so be careful when in their SP and never enter it or exit it to neutral (foul).

[Sperkowsky]

In 2015 there were these noodles spewed about all over the playing field. There was no foul driving over them but most avoided them as they could cause issues with their wheels. Although I disagree that unintentionally running over a boulder should be a foul I think after your find it they are calling it a foul it is your responsibility to avoid driving over them.

[sastoller]

Reading the rules, specifically the 2nd half of G38, it clearly states that running over a boulder inadvertently should not be called a foul. Unfortunately, the problem with this rule is that it is up to the referees to judge the intent of the driver. Anytime you ask a ref to judge intent, there are going to be issues. In cases like this, it is up to the FIRST to make sure that events are judged fairly and consistently. This is done by writing the rules well (and it seems like they tried to, with the use of examples to guide the refs), and by training Head Referees well.

I'm curious as well to see how this rule is judged at champs. Regardless of how it is judged by the Head Referees at champs, it is important that they be consistent across all 8 fields of play. Consistency of calls across regional events (as much as the inconsistency this year pains many of us) is much less important than the consistency of the calls made at Champs. FIRST must make sure that the head referees on each field, and on Einstein, are all making the same calls.

G38
Examples of interaction with BOULDERS that are not “control” include,
but are not limited to:
A. “bulldozing” (inadvertent contact with BOULDERS while in the path of
the ROBOT moving about the FIELD)

[Jake177]

Based on what I saw from the stands, the way the refs at the Hartford District called G38 seemed very fair. If a robot was in possession of a boulder and happened to drive over a second boulder, a ref would signal a five second count (similar to a pin count). After five seconds, if the robot was still in possession of two boulders, a foul was called. This kept the refs from having to judge "intent" while still allowing a case for a no-call on incidental violations. It also gave the drivers a clear signal that they were doing something wrong with time to correct it before the foul was called.

For G41, they called a foul any time a robot caused two boulders to move into their opponents' courtyard in a single crossing. Most of these looked like they could have been caused by the drivers simply not being able to see the second boulder. Usually it was between the robot and the defense being crossed, so they just bulldozed it through the outer works. Even so, I think this is a fair way to enforce this rule. Whether intentional or not, having one more boulder in your opponents' courtyard most certainly gives you an advantage.