Capping a Team Legal?

[Nate Edwards]

Originally Posted by Raul

If your robot is good enough to cap a moving robot, would it not be that much better at capping a goal that is obviously stationary. How often would a robot be sitting still while you are capping a tetra in their possession? Probably only when in the loading zone - and we already know you will get a 30 point penalty for touching them while loading.

What I am talking about is if you were capping a team that usually waits until the end to put the tetras on ( leaving not enough time to cap the goal they just capped?, so wouldn't it be smart to cap them?... Teams that I have seen with over 3 tetras have been considerably slow with that many tetras, slow enough to cap them.

[pakrat]

what about capping a robot's arm at a joint, and keeping them from moving their arm??

[J Flex 188]

I would not say that capping a team per se is graciously unprofessional; its just another example of a really unique (whether or not it proves to be usable) strategy. The same could be said if someone spent the whole match locking you in one corner.

I wasn't sure if thats what was meant, but hey, just to throw it out there.

[thoughtful]

Originally Posted by pakrat

what about capping a robot's arm at a joint, and keeping them from moving their arm??

That would be very unGP. It might seem smart but think about it, that might cause damage to their robot; the robot they built for the past 6 weeks. Capping a robot is fine and will be a crowd pleaser, but intentionally capping an arm joint, or jamming a tetra into a robot will be very very wrong.

[Alex1072]

I think capping a stack of tetras would be not fall under unGP unless you did knowing that it would break their lifter. If you have a reasonable expectation that doing this will break them, then it's very unGP. I would be surprised if this strategy happened very often though.

[Steve W]

Legal yes and what does GP have to do with it? This is a competition and there is no rule against it so it is legal. Therefore it has nothing to do with GP. I would also have to question whether capping a team while in the loading zone is or is not legal. If you drop a tetra and are not touching the tetra or other robot then you have also not broken any rules. The rule states that if you are touching a tetra and it comes in contact then it is a penalty as the tetra is an extension of your robot.

I could be wrong and if so please post the correct ruling.

[ryan_f]

I've got another question. If team A caps team B's robot, can team B's human player remove the tetra if the robot went to the human loading zone?

[Nate Edwards]

Originally Posted by ryan_f

I've got another question. If team A caps team B's robot, can team B's human player remove the tetra if the robot went to the human loading zone?

I would have to say no, I don't think Humans can decap other team alliance tetras from their robot. And it would take alot of time.

[MasonMM]

Originally Posted by Nate Edwards

I would have to say no, I don't think Humans can decap other team alliance tetras from their robot. And it would take alot of time.

Tetras already on your robot are considered part of your robot, therefore a human player cannot touch the tetras with his hands because a human player cannot touch the robot... BUT a human player can use the tetra he left his station with to manipulate his robot and tetras that may be on the robot, so a skilled human player may be able to get the other teams tetra off by using the tetra he's holding, if he knows what he is doing.

[phrontist]

GP is extremely simple in regards to the actual game: Don't intentionally damage another robot. Hindering another robots function is fine, unless there is a chance that it will cause damage, where damage is defined as anything that would require repair post-match to restore functionality. If some team has a pole-like lift mechanism that I know won't retract fully if a tetra slides down it, I would have no issue capping them to prevent them from grabbing tetras off the ground. Would it be worth the trouble? Probably not.

[IndianChieftain]

Has any team thought of a way to remove the tetra off your robot in case it does get capped(other than the skilled human player)? Some kind of mechanism near the most vulnerable spot to pull/push the tetra off your robot?

[Ian Curtis]

No one can cap our tetras if they are on the arm(yay for claws). If they cap them on our tetra holder we can just grab the tetra and fling it off.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Legal yes and what does GP have to do with it? This is a competition and there is no rule against it so it is legal. Therefore it has nothing to do with GP. I would also have to question whether capping a team while in the loading zone is or is not legal. If you drop a tetra and are not touching the tetra or other robot then you have also not broken any rules. The rule states that if you are touching a tetra and it comes in contact then it is a penalty as the tetra is an extension of your robot.

I could be wrong and if so please post the correct ruling.

update 4 - cannot use field objects to hinder an opponent in a load zone (ie push a tetra that is on the floor into them) i think this would apply. And if this happens, I hope i'm not there when it does. JUST PLAY THE GAME PEOPLE THE WAY IT WAS MEANT TO BE PLAYED (insert napolean dynamite JEEZ noise here)

[Dranyam]

Originally Posted by Ricksta121

JUST PLAY THE GAME PEOPLE THE WAY IT WAS MEANT TO BE PLAYED (insert napolean dynamite JEEZ noise here)

Remember that one of the points of first is to get us to "think outside the box," as cliche as that sounds. We're supposed to look at the game, and think "What are all the ridiculous, crazy, weird ways we can get an advantage in this competition," and then do them. trying to figure out all the ways we can use field objects legally in play is definately a legitimate discussion.

[Travis Hoffman]

What defines "THE WAY THE GAME WAS MEANT TO BE PLAYED"?

I'd say the RULES do. The opinions of FIRST or the game designers or anyone else mean NOTHING until those opinions have been incorporated into the official rules of the game. If they feel so strongly about a certain strategy's impact on the game, they can amend the rules to address it. Until then, let's not quash the creativity of teams seeking to find unique ways to play the game WITHIN THE RULES. By all means, please use these forums to educate people about obviously illegal strategies and also the risks involved with employing unique but legal strategies. But please don't use them to try and influence team's to play the game the way YOU THINK it should be played. There will be offense. There will be defense. Teams should be free to do whatever they feel gives them the best shot at success, and as long as they are operating within the rules and the boundaries of their conscience, that's fine.

If anything "bad" or "unusual" ever happens because a team chooses to employ a strategy that's legal according to the written word of the game, or a team does cross the line, that's what we have refs for - to make non-biased judgement calls in unique situations where their expertise is needed. Otherwise, let the teams play.

Instead of slapping a blanket statement of prohibition on each and every "non-standard" way of doing things, at least in the eyes of the status quo, let's react fairly and calmly each time a unique situation comes up during a match. That way, we may be more entertained and impressed by the truly one of a kind strategies our teams come up with. And let's also trust that if a team's legal strategy unintentionally causes damage to another or upsets another team, that the referees and the parties involved will employ GP to the fullest extent in trying to remedy the situation, as we've seen demonstrated so many times in the past.