Off Side Penalty?

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Jon K.

No I didn't count it but I remember there being an aweful lot of penalty points called on its part and thats why the ref moved it.(Mostly because a scrimmage is a testing ground for bots not a real competition and therefore it wasn't really a big deal.)

http://podquard.multiply.com/video/item/3

Enjoy the video. It was fun to make.

Mirror if you want to as well. Just don't edit it please.

[Ethulin]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

Nope, it hasn't been posted to Q/A yet by the GDC. Doesn't look there has been any activity today on Q/A.
You can check yourself also at yttp://www.usfirst.org/robotics/2006/qa.htm . The subject title was "Dead backbot".

Also, Ethulin, good points! However, your example of
Unless they foolishly take their hands off the controls and sit there, like your example, they won't get a penalty. Chances are, the pushed bot will be trying to get back over to his backbot position, and therefore, if the opponent tries to prevent him from doing so, G26 kicks in again, and no penalty assessed. I suppose your situation could happen, but honestly it doesn't seem realistic to me... why would a backbot just sit there and take the penalties after they got shoved around by the opponent? There might be a reason, but.... I'll take the odds that they will try to get back.

The GDC might just make a difference between dead and live bots. We shall see soon hopefully.
I like health of this debate.

Hm, a distinction between "dead" and "live" bots. If the GDC decides to make that then I think your interpretation is very valid. I just think that to make an air tight rule you would need to make distinctions like that. You are right, it is not very realistic, it is a theoretical. I was using it to point out an inconsistency, nothing more. Personally I would be a little pissed if they made the live and dead bot distinction this late (after ship). Also, if they did, do you consider disabled bots dead? I can see the GDC saying that no, they are not dead, just because it is some how part of their penalty. I would also wander what makes a bot "dead" is a dead bot a bot that can not move at all, its base does not move (they can still shoot). What if they still have one chain left so all they can do is circles !

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

http://podquard.multiply.com/video/item/3

Enjoy the video. It was fun to make.

Mirror if you want to as well. Just don't edit it.

Haha! Very ammusing. I like the referees perplexed look before he moves it.
As a team mate of the dead bot I would have ran over and moved it. I was supprised when a RED team came over and rammed it, were they trying to move it?

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Ethulin

Also, if they did, do you consider disabled bots dead? I can see the GDC saying that no, they are not dead, just because it is some how part of their penalty. I would also wander what makes a bot "dead" is a dead bot a bot that can not move at all, its base does not move (they can still shoot). What if they still have one chain left so all they can do is circles !

Hmmmm.. Good question on disabled bots. Dead bot implies nothing can move, so if they can drive in circles, they are not dead. If they can shoot, they are not dead.
On the flipside, if one of your partners is disabled or dies on the non-backbot side of the field, I believe you can push them over to backbot position to act as a legal backbot. The difference in this case is that it was your own alliance that causes the action and you are fully complying with the rule to make sure one of your alliance bots is a backbot. So I don't know which way they'll go on this.

I still contend dead backbots shouldn't get a penalty if they were moved intentionally and specifically by an opponent. Hopefully they answer questions in the queue, as I've read they shut Q/A off (which I think they should not do, now there's no way to get official clarifications before regionals). It hasn't been answered as of yet.

Can always ask the refs at each regional I suppose.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Ethulin

I was supprised when a RED team came over and rammed it, were they trying to move it?

I don't know. If they were, they would of had to move it up on to their ramp from midfield to get any points whatsoever. Another legitimate strategy?? Maybe???

That's amusing.

[AmyPrib]

See http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...486#post459486 to clear up deadbot cases.

[Ethulin]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

See http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...486#post459486 to clear up deadbot cases.

Incase you are too lazy:

Originally Posted by GDC

It is contrary to the intent of the game to gain advantage by using a dead robot as a tool to force the other alliance to incur penalties. A backbot that is prevented by another robot from crossing the center line - or is pushed off-sides - will not incur a penalty.

Also note that each alliance gets to choose which robot is assigned as their backbot. In this example, the red alliance gets to choose which robot is assigned as the backbot. They cannot be forced into making this decision by blue alliance attempts to move the dead red robot.

Though I can not say I agree with this it is what it is. I have to say this is what annoys me with the GDC. I suggest that they build the "intent of the game" into the RULES rather than their interpretations. This really will constrain this fine game of ours from becoming a sport if rules are not meant to be read but entire rule books read in the light of the GDC's interpretation of the "intent of the game". They either need to make rule modifications or stick to the ones they have.

So then in follow up some one posted:
QUESTION:

Clarification from here: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=732

In this instance, would RedAlliance have to either move the dead redbot back into backbot position or have another robot become backbot, or would they no longer be responsible to do this since BlueAlliance pushed the dead bot across the line?

ANSWER:

The red alliance would not be penalized, but they would have to act to restore a valid backbot. In this instance, once the blue robot stopped pushing the dead red robot, the red alliance would have to either push the dead red robot back across the center line or move another red robot across the center line to become the backbot. The choice of these options is up to the red alliance. The red alliance would not be penalized for the momentary period when three red robots are on the same side of the field between the time the blue robot stopped pushing the red dead robot and the red alliances attempts to position their backbot, for the reasons cited in this question/answer.

In other words you DO still need to get a backbot if yours was pushed over. I will be asking tonight how long this grace period is.

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

I don't know. If they were, they would of had to move it up on to their ramp from midfield to get any points whatsoever. Another legitimate strategy?? Maybe???

That's amusing.

No, I thought they were jsut being really good sports! I thought they were trying to get their opponent on sides so it did not incure any penalties.

As for deadbots being pushed onto the ramp that DID happen to us at our scrimmage. Our refs counted it for 5 points.

[AmyPrib]

I will be asking tonight how long this grace period is.

Grace period is likely 5 seconds considering that is what the rule says. Is Q/A open? I thought someone wrote it closed.

Considering the GDC are the ones that made up the game and wrote the rules book (very well, I might add, for the first cut, compared to previous years), I think their interpretation of the rules actually matters, whether it's written in black/white or not.

I honestly believe that their answer was their intent of the game, but sometimes it's difficult for the few GDC members to think of all the instances that 1000 teams will think up - therefore making it difficult to cite every possible situation in their rule book and describing every rule's intent in detail. Perhaps the GDC didn't think anyone would want to use that type of strategy, which is relatively clear by their answer.

They answered it according to what I would have considered the original intent of the game, but I suppose others don't see it that way. Are we really that annoyed that a team can't intentionally cause penalties on the opponent? Sigh.
In Volleyball, it's illegal to touch the net, but if the opponent spikes a ball such that is hits the net and then hits you (on the other side), you are not penalized for it because you didn't violate the rule. Maybe not a great analogy. But they are still sticking to the rules in that the deadbot alliance must still act to have a backbot - they just aren't penalized for the initial action made by the other alliance but will be if they don't eventually produce a backbot.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and interpretation, but now we have the final GDC intent/interpretation.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

Is Q/A open? I thought someone wrote it closed.

Q&A is open - I asked the question about shields being upgrades yesterday. I suspect the person who reported it closed wasn't logged in.

[meaubry]

With all of the confusion regarding the penalty around the backbot - Is there ever an advantage to not having a known deadbot even placed on the field at the start of the match?

In the past, it was always encouraged to bring your robot down, BUT there wasn't penalties associated with being on the wrong side of the field, or potentially incurring additional damage from other robots trying to push your dead robot over a line to get or avoid a penalty.

If the robot is dead and unable to even move, the only reason I can see is to allow both other live robots to be able to play defense during that 40 second time period. This requires the dead robot to be placed in the correct starting position so the team doesn't incur a penalty for being on the wrong side of the field.

If there ever was a time for a placebo bot to act as a place holder for the Dead bot, this seems it.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by meaubry

Is there ever an advantage to not having a known deadbot even placed on the field at the start of the match?
//snip//
If the robot is dead and unable to even move, the only reason I can see is to allow both other live robots to be able to play defense during that 40 second time period. This requires the dead robot to be placed in the correct starting position so the team doesn't incur a penalty for being on the wrong side of the field.

There was something (a Q&A?) that said if an alliance could only field 2 robots, they would not be required to have a backbot. (The proof is left as a [search] exercise for the reader.)

[meaubry]

Gary,
Thanks, exercise completed -
Yes, the Q&A did have a response.
So it would appear that if your team cannot move you are better off not putting it on the playing field, and it is questionable if you think the robot may break down during the match, and be stranded on the wrong side of the field.
Just curious - Are the Rule revisions documented in the Updates, the Q&A, the Rules sections, all 3? - and where was that communicated (I can't find it) - and the Rules sections don't seem to have been updated to match all of the answers listed in the Q&A and the Updates.
Hope everyone knows that they need to be aware of all 3, if that is the case.

Mike

[Athenian Roboti]

Originally Posted by dlavery

The referees will think "I am here to enforce the rules of the game." The judges probably won't think anything about it, because they are likely to be back in the pits interviewing teams. If a robot breaks down on the "wrong" side of the field, count on getting a 5 point penalty for every 5 seconds that your alliance partners don't push the dead robot back across the mid-field line, or until one of them scoots back over the line.

What were you anticipating?

-dave

We were interested in the penalty more than the strategy, but the suggestions are helpful.

The ARC

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by meaubry

Gary,
Thanks, exercise completed -
Yes, the Q&A did have a response.
So it would appear that if your team cannot move you are better off not putting it on the playing field, and it is questionable if you think the robot may break down during the match, and be stranded on the wrong side of the field.
Just curious - Are the Rule revisions documented in the Updates, the Q&A, the Rules sections, all 3? - and where was that communicated (I can't find it) - and the Rules sections don't seem to have been updated to match all of the answers listed in the Q&A and the Updates.
Hope everyone knows that they need to be aware of all 3, if that is the case.

Mike

Mike -

The revision to this particular item was documented in Update #12, Rule <G26>, and in the "Rev D" version of Chapter 4 of the rules, posted to the FIRST web site on Friday.

-dave

[meaubry]

Thank you David - I was looking in th wrong section, I went to section 5