Capping a Team Legal?

[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.

[Nate Edwards]

Originally Posted by slickguy2007

We were capped last year and as a driver/competitor I was mad, but I did not think that it was ungracious of them. I had realized that it was just a good strategy and I just dealt with it. This year if that happens, which i am sure it will, and it causes damage that would probably just be considered normal game play. If someone uses their arm to block someone from placing tetras would that be considered normal game play or would this be ruff housing and would then be penalized?(that is a question from me, gimme some opinions or something that i missed.)


GO 1403!!!

No, as long as you don't entangle with the robot, or decap the tetra

[Mike Schroeder]

Originally Posted by pakrat

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

Just be prepared to face not only the teams wraith but also the reprecussions from the refs if you damage said robot

personaly i think i driver/coach should be able to pecieve all the possible results for their actions and IMO these are just a few of the results that could come of this strategy a) imoblizing the robots arm for the remainder of the match b) the "capped robot" could destroy the tetra and then the capping team could be slaped with a penalty for intentional damaging the field c) the capped robot's arm is destroyed and guess what you have 3 matches partnered with this robot comming up (not completly impossible) d)capped robots arm is damaged and you get slapped with a penalty for intentionally damaging an opposing alliances robot


just a few things to think about, i am not saying the strategy is an illeagal one just that the bad outwiegh the good

[Quatitos]

Originally Posted by Big Mike

c) the capped robot's arm is destroyed and guess what you have 3 matches partnered with this robot comming up (not completly impossible) d)capped robots arm is damaged and you get slapped with a penalty for intentionally damaging an opposing alliances robot


just a few things to think about, i am not saying the strategy is an illeagal one just that the bad outwiegh the good

The bad points of this strategy don't exactly outweigh the good points, as long as you were careful about how you went about it. Maybe this year, you might pay attention to how many tetras a robot could hold.

Say a robot stacked multiple tetras at once. If each time they stacked three tetras before placing them, then why not when they have two, put one of yours on top of their stack. This way you know you won't hurt their robot, but you still get your desired outcome. Now this doesn't mean that they can't stack a fourth and don't because they are prepared for just such an event.

Overall it is a completely viable tactic which doesn't really seem ungracious.

[J Flex 188]

If I may, the above might not necessarily be true as well. In Pittsburgh 2004, I witnessed first hand the kind of damage, but the kind of spirit that a FIRST competition can provide. Delphi Elite (48) was battling Simbotics (1114) for the top portion underneath the bar, and through it all, 48 somehow managed to drive on top of 1114 and completely bend their telescoping arm. They had to carry Simon off the field with his arm extended. I remember thinking, wow, if I was 1114, I'd be incredibly upset right now, and complain about 48's tactics. Yet I remember it clearly, walking towards my pits after a match, seeing a throng of simbot AND delphi elite personnel in the simbotics pit working feverishly on their robot.

While you may hear the occasional grumble immediately after a match about defensive strategies, given time, and the right mix of FIRST principles, the results usually turn out spectacularly. (48, 1114 and 1006 were finalists at their next event, the Super Canadian Regional)

GP is important, but it shouldn't necessarily stand in the way of pushing your robot to the limit, and trying the hardest you can to win a match.

[GregT]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I think there was an instance where either we or Rolling Thunder attempted to cap East but I don't think it was sucessful.

Someone pulled a tetra off of us just as we were about to cap.

I see no real problem with this, nor do I consider it in violation of "gracious professionalism". It's a design flaw in East's robot. Nothing was damaged. It was funny! I am all in favor of team's finding creative ways of playing the game- it's what keeps FIRST interesting.

Greg

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by J Flex 188

If I may, the above might not necessarily be true as well. In Pittsburgh 2004, I witnessed first hand the kind of damage, but the kind of spirit that a FIRST competition can provide. Delphi Elite (48) was battling Simbotics (1114) for the top portion underneath the bar, and through it all, 48 somehow managed to drive on top of 1114 and completely bend their telescoping arm. They had to carry Simon off the field with his arm extended. I remember thinking, wow, if I was 1114, I'd be incredibly upset right now, and complain about 48's tactics. Yet I remember it clearly, walking towards my pits after a match, seeing a throng of simbot AND delphi elite personnel in the simbotics pit working feverishly on their robot.

Jeff is correct. The incident he describes really describes gracious professionalism in a nutshell. 48 battled us tooth and nail in that match. Yes, they did a lot of damage to our arm, in fact our arm was never the same again. Was I upset at them? Not in the slightest. They played aggressively on the field, they played to win. I'm never going to fault a team for that. They chose the best strategy to stop us. I applaud them for that. But off the field, the competition ended, and the co-operation began. They came over to us, and graciously helped us fix all the damage.

That's what gracious professionalism is all about. Compete as hard as you can on the field, co-operate as hard as you can off the field.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by GregT

Someone pulled a tetra off of us just as we were about to cap.

I see no real problem with this, nor do I consider it in violation of "gracious professionalism". It's a design flaw in East's robot. Nothing was damaged. It was funny! I am all in favor of team's finding creative ways of playing the game- it's what keeps FIRST interesting.

Greg

Yeah those design flaws kill you in the end.
You especially hate finding out about them in competition.

[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.

[DarkJedi613]

Did anyone think to ask in the Q&A?

I don't see why it wouldn't be illegal (unless they are in a loading zone). Unless the refs say that you're "pushing up high", but besides that I don't think there are any rules that could even apply at all.

[Rick]

Capping on a stationary goal is hard enough, and I'm sorry if I made a comotion. I think the that planning a match for the sole purpose of disabling or taking advantage of a teams stacking ability will lead to trouble. Arms get high in the air, pushing happens, and all of a sudden you've got one or two robots on thier sides which could result in DQ's. In a finals match I think it would be worth the risk, but not during a qualifying round. Ranking points matter and it's not about shutting out your oppenent. I know that this strategy was not aimed at qualifying or finals but I am just commenting on the strategy. By all means, I can't take away the power of these forums, or the power for alliances to use risky strategies.

I think that avoiding this strategy would be a good deterent for any arguments after qualifying matches. If seen them happen and it's no fun. Thats what I meant by my previous "Play the game" comment. It all depends on your partners and your oponents.

[Josh Fritsch]

...I'm going to have to agree with Raul on this one... If you are good enough to cap a moving robot with a tetra...then wow. I think that it would be a good strategy but not a practical strategy, I highly doubt it would be possible from a drivers stand point.