YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra

[dlavery]

Not sure why this one is even a question.

Cory has it right. When Redabot comes in contact with the red tetra, and maintains contact after the end of the match, the tetra no longer satisfies the definition of SCORED. Thus, it is no longer counted in the Redateam score, and Redateam loses the match and finals.

Update #18 does not apply, for two reasons. The specific question adressed in Update #18 has to do with a situation where Redabot would remove a blue tetra from a goal, which is not the situation here. Also, the update has to do with the specifics of a tetra that is removed from a stack (and therefore, the ownership of the goal may be assigned to the other alliance for the remainder of the match). This example YMTC has to do with an end-of-game contact situation, which is different.

The batter is still set, waiting for the fastball...

-dave

[Collmandoman]

yet it is still a very crummy way to win
It's like catching a foul ball near the stands... and a fan taking it out of your glove before the out is called..ohh too bad
well it's not exactly like that.. but I can't think of a better analogy
it doesn't seem like a defensive measure but rather a .. "good job on playing the game better.. but sorry.. I'm going to work a game rule in our favor" type of thing..
blurggg

[Natchez]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Not sure why this one is even a question.

In order to breathe some new life into this YMTC, I'll try to throw in a knuckler.

If Bluabot knocked the red tetra off with 3 seconds, it would obviously be a scored red tetra and Redalliance's goal. An obvious violation of

<G18> ... If an alliance ROBOT removes any STACKED TETRA of the opposing alliance, the TETRA will be SCORED (3 points) and the opposing alliance automatically OWNS the GOAL for the remainder of the match regardless of what color TETRAS are on the goal. ...

Therefore, REMOVE is the key word here.

AND if Bluabot just tilted the red tetra with 3 seconds such that the tetra is not scored (not properly seated) and is still supported by the goal and lower tetras, it would probably count because Bluabot DESCORED the tetra. (I may be very wrong about this)

Since DESCORED is not in the rules, then you must rely on REMOVE from <G18> to explain why you give Redalliance credit.

NOW, WHAT IF when Bluabot hit Redabot, the top tetra fell to the ground; wouldn't you say that Bluabot's actions REMOVED the tetra, thereby making it necessary to give Redalliance credit.

SIMILARLY, since in the original YMTC, it was Bluabot's actions that DESCORED the red tetra, would you not consider this REMOVING the tetra thus resulting in the red tetra counting as a score.

I say the red tetra counts ... just because Dave said it didn't and he is probably fast asleep by now ... I hope

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Natchez

NOW, WHAT IF when Bluabot hit Redabot, the top tetra fell to the ground; wouldn't you say that Bluabot's actions REMOVED the tetra, thereby making it necessary to give Redalliance credit.

SIMILARLY, since in the original YMTC, it was Bluabot's actions that DESCORED the red tetra, would you not consider this REMOVING the tetra thus resulting in the red tetra counting as a score.

I say the red tetra counts ... just because Dave said it didn't and he is probably fast asleep by now ... I hope

I don't think this changes anything. The update specifically says that blue is only considered the descorer if red is rammed, and knocks blue tetras off.

It doesn't say a single word about a cascading chain of events causing the red tetra to fall off.

Unless blue was physically touching the red tetra and knocked it off, it doesn't make a single bit of difference--red was the one that actually did knock it off.

While it may be logical to assume that this is true, the rules do not say a single word about it, and therefore we have to go by the definition of "STACKED"

[dlavery]

Once again, Cory is right.

(nope, I'm not asleep!)

-dave

[Kelly322]

Originally Posted by Cory

I don't think this changes anything. The update specifically says that blue is only considered the descorer if red is rammed, and knocks blue tetras off.

Hmmm. On more than one occasion we were determined to have "descored" the other alliance even though we were pushed into the stacked tetras (while ourselves trying to score). There are at least two matches we were involved in that were called that way, one at each of the two regionals we attended. From what I have seen, if your robot causes a tetra of the other team to be descored, it does not matter if it was an "unassisted descoring" or if you were pushed into the stack by a member of the opposing alliance. Fair call? Questionable. Consistently called? Yes. Just my observations.

See ya'll in the ATL!!

[Goldeye]

My vote: The tetra doesn't count. But I'd probably be lacking somewhat in congratulations. Winning through a loophole like this is simply wrong.
As much as I hate to say it, there's almost nothing to argue against bluateam winning. We all know that it IS wrong...but the rules don't cover it. The best available argument is under good ol' G25, claiming that bluabot may have forced redabot to become entangled with a field structure through this clearly improper game play, but it'd be quite a stretch to contend that G25 refers to entanglement with field structures.

On a side note, if there were a blue tetra on the goal, and

Winning like this is not proper gameplay. As has been stated, driving your opponents robot with yours isn't what Triple Play is about. There should be a rule to cover this. We do not want to see teams doing it at the championship.

Proposed Rule <G18> (New text bolded)
<G18> ROBOTS can remove or displace TETRAS CONTAINED in a goal, but cannot remove the opposing alliance’s STACKED TETRAS. If an alliance ROBOT removes any STACKED TETRA of the opposing alliance, the TETRA will be SCORED (3 points) and the opposing alliance automatically OWNS the GOAL for the remainder of the match regardless of what color TETRAS are on the goal. There is no penalty for removing a TETRA that is precariously positioned on a GOAL or TETRA, but not fully STACKED. In the case that a STACKED TETRA is removed from the GOAL by a ROBOT being pushed by a ROBOT of the opposing alliance, the pushed ROBOT will not be penalized for removing the TETRA. Any removed TETRAS will be treated as though removed by the pushing ROBOT, and 10-point penalties assigned as appropriate.
I admit, "pushed robot" is not the greatest term.

Yes, this rule further endangers the strategy of the teams that try to win by controlling these robots. Who said that's a bad thing? Team Update #18 would be happy with it, at the least.

[Jeffrafa]

Originally Posted by dlavery

This example YMTC has to do with an end-of-game contact situation, which is different.

This YMTC as I understand it has nothing to do with descoring, but rather simply with contact at the end of the match - as dave mentioned.

Neither robot is descoring or unseating the recently scored red tetra, bluabot is simply pushing redabot in a position such that redabot is still in contact with the stacked tetra and it is therefore not valid for being scored.

Although this could be considered a crummy twist of the rules as a way for bluabot to win I would personally say props to the bluabot drivers and coach for quick thinking and strategy on the fly. This year's game is such that even with an unfair alliance matchup the inferior alliance still has the chance to win by carefully thought out and executed strategy. As a driver I can attest to having won matches in which we were against a much better alliance but we managed to use or resources very well and conquer anyways. This YMTC situation just shows you that bluabot's drivers were well versed in the game and the rules and were able to quickly apply their knowledge and abilities and use the rules of the game to their advantage.

I agree with Cory and Dave - redabot's tetra is not scored and bluabot wins the match.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Not sure why this one is even a question.

Cory has it right. When Redabot comes in contact with the red tetra, and maintains contact after the end of the match, the tetra no longer satisfies the definition of SCORED. Thus, it is no longer counted in the Redateam score, and Redateam loses the match and finals.

Update #18 does not apply, for two reasons. The specific question adressed in Update #18 has to do with a situation where Redabot would remove a blue tetra from a goal, which is not the situation here. Also, the update has to do with the specifics of a tetra that is removed from a stack (and therefore, the ownership of the goal may be assigned to the other alliance for the remainder of the match). This example YMTC has to do with an end-of-game contact situation, which is different.

The batter is still set, waiting for the fastball...

-dave

Wow, Dave! I find it incredible that you’d take this position. It seems to me that, for scoring purposes, causing a robot to touch it’s own tetra and causing the tetra to be knocked off the stack is a distinction without a difference.

Originally Posted by Yeam_Update#18

Revised answer 3/29/2005: No. In this case the pushing robot will be considered the de-scoring robot. In cases where there is a pushing robot and a scoring robot, but the causation is not clear, the pushing robot will still be considered the de-scoring robot. In cases where there is no obvious pushing robot, for example when two robots are trying to stack tetras simultaneously, the robot that is contacting the de-scored tetras will be considered the de-scoring robot.

Originally Posted by dlavery

When Redabot comes in contact with the red tetra, and maintains contact after the end of the match, the tetra no longer satisfies the definition of SCORED.

(Definition?) De-scored: When a tetra no longer satisfies the definition of SCORED

Originally Posted by Yeam_Update#18

Why are we making this change?
From its conception, Triple Play was envisioned as an offensive game, where all of
the robots are loading and stacking lots of tetras. Based on the experience to date at
the regionals, it has become clear that the previous answer to Q&A 1824, while being
easier to referee, encourages a robot to ram an opponent while it is scoring. By
changing the answer to #1824, we hope to discourage robots from playing aggressive
defense and return Triple Play to primarily an offensive game.

Originally Posted by dlavery - Re: YMTC: Redateam Uncrates Redabot on Wednesday

The answer is right there (and please, let's not even get in to any discussions about "they said not to set up 'pit booth displays' but I am going to set up 'pit shelves' which are different, so that is OK..." - the intent here is obvious to even the most casual, moderately intelligent, observer). Uncrate your robot. Plug in your batteries. Leave the area.

Which is it? Are we going to follow the spirit of the rules; or are we going to lawyer-up and pick nits?

"Bluabot bumps Redabot forcing them into the center goal stack at the end of the match." The key words here, in my opinion, are "bump" and "force". When we put them together, we find the cause. More yet, we see that the intent was to turn a ligitimate offensive win into a defensive victory with an act of agression, which is exactly what update #18 intends to discourage.

[Andy Brockway]

While I have to agree that red does not count in this situation, this does bring up some interesting scenarios. I have to agree with Jack Jones that this turns the tide back to the defensive robots.

Example. It is the end of the match and all three redabots have returned to their home zone which has three capped goals. Bluabot, realizing that they cannot make it back to the blue zone goes to the red home zone and pushes one of the redabots into their goal and against all the tetras that are scored in/on that goal.

So this now means that red has lost all the points from that goal and lost the triple play. A mimimum 13 point swing.

Is this the intent?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Wow, Dave! I find it incredible that you’d take this position. It seems to me that, for scoring purposes, causing a robot to touch it’s own tetra and causing the tetra to be knocked off the stack is a distinction without a difference.


(Definition?) De-scored: When a tetra no longer satisfies the definition of SCORED



Which is it? Are we going to follow the spirit of the rules; or are we going to lawyer-up and pick nits?

"Bluabot bumps Redabot forcing them into the center goal stack at the end of the match." The key words here, in my opinion, are "bump" and "force". When we put them together, we find the cause. More yet, we see that the intent was to turn a ligitimate offensive win into a defensive victory with an act of agression, which is exactly what update #18 intends to discourage.

At any rate, I think it's more "lawyeristic" to claim that red should get the win. Reading the rules--as written--leaves no doubt that Team Update 18 does not apply to this situation. When you start to make inferences from it, such as that since they were talking about a similar action, and red should be the winner, you've just changed the rules.

Also, what I really think it boils down to is this is a part of the game challenge. You don't build a robot with a high cg if you don't want to tip. If you don't want to be pushed, you should make a stronger drivetrain. FIRST said there are elements that are part of the game challenge. I would define this as one of them.

$0.02

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Cory

At any rate, I think it's more "lawyeristic" to claim that red should get the win. Reading the rules--as written--leaves no doubt that Team Update 18 does not apply to this situation. When you start to make inferences from it, such as that since they were talking about a similar action, and red should be the winner, you've just changed the rules.

Also, what I really think it boils down to is this is a part of the game challenge. You don't build a robot with a high cg if you don't want to tip. If you don't want to be pushed, you should make a stronger drivetrain. FIRST said there are elements that are part of the game challenge. I would define this as one of them.

$0.02

At this point, I think that I am just going to have to adopt Cory (hey Sean! you have a new brother! ). He obviously "gets it." Listen to him, he is a wise person (at least this week).

-dave

p.s. Cory, now that you are a member of the family, I need to fill you in on a few family rules. #1: the typical allowance structure you may be used to is different for us. Allowance is limited to $20 per week - but you pay me, not the other way around. #2: Krispy Kremes for breakfast are OK, as long as you leave some for me. #3: Taking the last Krispy Kreme will result in a punishment of double allowance for that week. #4: You can work off your allowance by mowing the lawn, as long as you do not drive through the neighbors fence on the lawn mower. #5: When arguing over who gets to use the computer, Dad's game of Railroad Tycoon III takes precedence over anyone else's game of Warcraft at all times.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by dlavery

At this point, I think that I am just going to have to adopt Cory (hey Sean! you have a new brother! ). He obviously "gets it." Listen to him, he is a wise person (at least this week).

-dave

p.s. Cory, now that you are a member of the family, I need to fill you in on a few family rules. #1: the typical allowance structure you may be used to is different for us. Allowance is limited to $20 per week - but you pay me, not the other way around. #2: Krispy Kremes for breakfast are OK, as long as you leave some for me. #3: Taking the last Krispy Kreme will result in a punishment of double allowance for that week. #4: You can work off your allowance by mowing the lawn, as long as you do not drive through the neighbors fence on the lawn mower. #5: When arguing over who gets to use the computer, Dad's game of Railroad Tycoon III takes precedence over anyone else's game of Warcraft at all times.

Cory, when you get out here I can show you around the area.

Wetzel

[Andy Baker]

Wow... a first on ChiefDelphi: adoption.

We've had alliances, co-opertition, and collaboration. Now, we have an adoption. Congrats to the McBride and Lavery family.

Does this mean that Dave has to pay Cory's tuition at WPI?

Andy B.

[Spikey]

I have seen this situation happen twice. Once at the NJ regional our robot had made a back row, but one of our allaince partners touched one of our tetras and we lost the row. Also at Philly we were in the semi-finals and the opposing alliance was placing a tetra on their home row, time ran out they were still touching the tetra so it did not count, also we had a tetra underneath that goal, and our tetra was higher then the tetra which they had under the goal so our alliance got that goal.