Rules Questions

[Imajie]

I don't believe that the rules say anything about POSSESING an opponents ring, just scoring it.

[Dan Zollman]

Originally Posted by George1902

Blake is exactly right. In many competitions, competitors may choose to take a penalty as a better outcome in a game. In football an offense may take a "Delay of Game" penalty to give their punter more room to kick. A defensive back may take a "Pass Interference" penalty to prevent a touchdown. In baseball a pitcher will often intentionally walk opposing batters to create a favorable situation for the defense. In chess it's common to sacrifice a piece to gain position or initiative.

In some games, competitors make tradeoffs to gain an advantage, but in many other games, intentionally breaking a rule just because the normal penalty won't hurt you is considered straight-out cheating.

[+()c|D]

Originally Posted by Imajie

I don't believe that the rules say anything about POSSESING an opponents ring, just scoring it.

So, theoretiocally, you could posses two or more of your opponents rings, and the only penalty you could get is a 10 pointer for having more than one ringer.

Or you could knock over any of their rings in your home zome without a penalty.

[Aldgazar]

Originally Posted by Maximus123

<g23> states that any game piece( which means ringers and spoilers only)can be passed form alliance zone into field through the chute, not the other way around, as you said. <g48>
states that they can enter game pieces by throwing it over the wall(from the start, not just if it was dropped out of the field, which would be put right back where it was put right inside field)passing through the chute, either to a robot or to the ground fr a robot pickup.

I was trying to say that rules <g23> and g<48> do not conflict because <g23> refers to how the ringers move through the chute, towards field only. <g48> refers to the different actions that a Human Player can do, either push a ringer through the chute or throwing them over the wall.

Rule <g22> is only for ringers that exit the field on the sides. <g23> and <g22> both refer to ringers going onto the field but from different areas.

[Caseavong]

Does it say any where in the rules that we cant knock down our opponents ringers after/during the Autonomous mode.

[paradoxal]

rule G20, bottom of page 6 in section 7 gives all the details

[DanDon]

I believe that the question refers to the ringers that are leaning against the player station wall at the beginning of the match.

[dez250]

<G20>De-scoring - ROBOTS may not remove RINGERS or KEEPERS once they are HANGING.
If a RINGER or KEEPER is moved out of a HANGING configuration after the POSSESSING
ROBOT has released it, it is still considered HANGING. If a ROBOT incidentally removes a
RINGER or KEEPER from the SPIDER LEG on which it was HANGING (e.g. knocks it off
while placing another GAME PIECE), a 10-point penalty will be assessed. Obviously
intentional removal of a RINGER or KEEPER will result in a disqualification of the offending
team.

[paradoxal]

Originally Posted by Maximus123

<g07> sec 7, pg 5. "Center RACK position - After all six ROBOTS are in their starting positions and the DRIVERS, COACHES and HUMAN PLAYERS are in the ALLIANCE ZONE, the RACK will be moved (translated and/or rotated) to an arbitrary position so that the center of the RACK is within a 3 foot radius of the playing field center but the exact location and orientation of
the RACK is unpredictable. After this point in time no ROBOT may be moved or
repositioned until the match starts."
this means thats after all roborts have been properly set in the home field and all students and mentors leave the field, the refs on the field go and randomly spin it either left or right, AND it can be pushed or pulled around up to 3 feet away from the exact center of the field. so not only that it could be rotated, it can be relocated.

i think the guy was asking if the legs are in motion or not after the movement of the rack.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by dhoizner

I believe that the question refers to the ringers that are leaning against the player station wall at the beginning of the match.

I don't know if that's what the original poster meant, but I'd sure like to know what the rule on that is. Touching an opponent's game piece is legal, "herding" multiple game pieces is not. Is knocking them down going to be counted as herding, since you'll probably end up pushing them together?

[DanDon]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I don't know if that's what the original poster meant, but I'd sure like to know what the rule on that is. Touching an opponent's game piece is legal, "herding" multiple game pieces is not. Is knocking them down going to be counted as herding, since you'll probably end up pushing them together?

I believe that if you knock each one down individually it would technically be legal, but i feel that this is a question for the Q&A.

[Caseavong]

I was talking about the 9 ringers that were leaning on your side of the field when the game starts. There isnt a rule saying that you cant knock down your opponents ringers is there?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by worldbringer

In some games, competitors make tradeoffs to gain an advantage, but in many other games, intentionally breaking a rule just because the normal penalty won't hurt you is considered straight-out cheating.

An intentional walk in baseball or sacrificing a piece in chess are not breaking rules. However, an intentional delay of game or pass interference penalty in football, or an intentional foul in basketball (as in, when you foul someone to stop the clock and get the ball back) are definitely in violation of the rules, but they can be smart, and they are not necessarily ingracious. Doing ridiculous stunts after scoring a touchdown (think Chad Johnson or Terrell Owens) just because the $25k penalty doesn't mean much to you is ingracious; it's about breaking the rules because you're a jerk, not because it's part of the competition.

In any case, <G20> says that intentional descoring is a DQ. If it were only a 10 point penalty, I would plan on doing it, I would plan on seeing it done, and I wouldn't feel it ingracious on either side.

[BrianR]

I have found a very interesting/disturbing problem.

The rules are very clear about possessing multiple tubes. My question then becomes... every team is required to have a flag above their robot. I understand this isn't GP, but that isn't the question at hand. If a team were to place a ringer on another teams flag, I believe this constitute possession of a ringer for that team, and thus they would incur the 10 pt penalty every time they picked up another ringer.

This is clearly against the intent of the game, but I want it to get out there well before regionals start.

Possible solutions to this problem:

• Remove flags from robots
• Don't count ringers possessed by flags as in the possession of a robot (creates other problems)
• Penalize teams for putting ringers there (needs to be severe enough as a deterant)
• Yellow Card? (utilizes a new rule! Yeah!)

I can't say any of these are perfect solutions, but I think that this needs to be addressed as it could cause major problems during the competition.

Obviously something needs to be done, otherwise we'll end up playing a massive game of pin the tail on the donkey, err drop the ring on the robot.

[MaskedShadow]

2 questions actually

1. If your robot gets disabled/breaks down in your opponents end zone, do you still receive the penalty at the "end game"?

2. If your opponent blocks you from leaving their end zone, and forces you to stay in there, do you receive a penalty during the "end game"?