<G09> Dropping Tubes on Your Opponent

[Jimmy Cao]

Hey,

I have a few questions regarding rule G09, as follows:

<G09> POSSESSION - ROBOTS may only have 1 (one) GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION at
any time during the match. Inadvertent bulldozing of GAME PIECES while the ROBOT
moves around the field is allowed. Controlled "herding" of a single GAME PIECE lying on
the floor is permitted as long as no other GAME PIECE is in the POSSESSION of the
ROBOT. Herding of multiple GAME PIECES, or herding of a GAME PIECE on the floor
while in POSSESSION of another GAME PIECE is not permitted (as this would be
considered POSSESSION of more than one GAME PIECE).

What if you were blocking an opposing robot from scoring, and they happened to drop the inner tube onto your robot while you already had one in your possession and the one they dropped on you did not roll off. Would this be considered as being "in possession" of the inner tube?

Thank you.

[Pavan Dave]

Sounds like a YMTD topic to me. I think this it would be counted as possession since the robot now has control of two ringers.

Pavan.

[Imajie]

POSSESSION: a GAME PIECE is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a ROBOT if it is
being fully supported by the ROBOT, or if the ROBOT is controlling the position and movement of
the GAME PIECE. A GAME PIECE on the floor is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a ROBOT
if it contacts the ROBOT at more than a single point (e.g. the ROBOT has a concave
"plow" feature that is used to push the GAME PIECE in a controlled manner).

So could your robot be designed to put the ringers on your opponents, who then receive penalties for possesing more than one ringer?

Edit: I know that this is against FIRST spirit

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by trilogism

So could your robot be designed to put the ringers on your opponents, who then receive penalties for possesing more than one ringer?

That is against the FIRST spirit. I hope that teams do not do this but I think that I will wait until someone asks this question on the FIRST forums and we get a reply from them.

Pavan.

[Noah Kleinberg]

Originally Posted by Lostmage333

Hey,

I have a few questions regarding rule G09, as follows:

<G09> POSSESSION - ROBOTS may only have 1 (one) GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION at
any time during the match. Inadvertent bulldozing of GAME PIECES while the ROBOT
moves around the field is allowed. Controlled "herding" of a single GAME PIECE lying on
the floor is permitted as long as no other GAME PIECE is in the POSSESSION of the
ROBOT. Herding of multiple GAME PIECES, or herding of a GAME PIECE on the floor
while in POSSESSION of another GAME PIECE is not permitted (as this would be
considered POSSESSION of more than one GAME PIECE).

What if you were blocking an opposing robot from scoring, and they happened to drop the inner tube onto your robot while you already had one in your possession and the one they dropped on you did not roll off. Would this be considered as being "in possession" of the inner tube?

Thank you.

Technically yes, but it should probably go to the FIRST Q&A. Obviously this is not the reason for the rule, so it's possible that they'll change it to allow for this. Designing a robot to put ringers on your opponents is legal under the current rules, but is against the spirit of the rules in my opinion.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see that Pavan responded first.

[jgannon]

Is there a general rule for determining the penalty for violating a rule when it isn't explicitly given, such as <G09>? It is "not permitted", but what happens if it does? 10 points? Disable? DQ? Break the coach's kneecaps? (Please don't.) I tend to assume that things that aren't labelled as a DQ are 10-point penalties, but I don't see anything that indicates that this is the case.

[xenicator]

I seem to recall the word "innovation" prominent in the acronym of FIRST. Creativity in interpreting the rules where no robot is being harmed seems, on the contrary, to be IN the spirit of FIRST. I have noticed that Gracious Professionalism has started to be increasingly used to discourage innovation rather than maliciousness. Is it ungracious to hope that there is a slight loophole in the rules which makes this game based on technology rather than simply driver control and quickness of wit? Without these loopholes what is this game but another sporting event, something that is opposing the spirit of FIRST and promoting the “Rich and Famous” as an ideal lifestyle rather than commitment and hard work.

[shamuwong]

Actually, the rule book specifically tells teams not to "lawyer" the rules and such. By that, they mean stick to the spirit of the competition and don't look for loopholes to get the advantage through devious game play.

I think innovation refers not to creativity in interpreting the rules, but rather, the game.

[Mike o.]

Looking at the situation from a Ref aspect, I would think that they would come out with a revision to this that states that if a robot inadvertently comes into possession of multiple ringers (i.e. by means of an opposing robot dropping a ringer onto it), that if it does not try to loose possession of the ringers and reduce its possession to one ringer in a timely fashion (i.e. within 5 seconds), the offending robot will be assessed a multiple possession penalty (not sure if there is already one, but if there isn't my guess is that it would be another 10 point penalty).

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by xenicator

I seem to recall the word "innovation" prominent in the acronym of FIRST.

That's "inspiration".

Originally Posted by xenicator

Creativity in interpreting the rules where no robot is being harmed seems, on the contrary, to be IN the spirit of FIRST. I have noticed that Gracious Professionalism has started to be increasingly used to discourage innovation rather than maliciousness. Is it ungracious to hope that there is a slight loophole in the rules which makes this game based on technology rather than simply driver control and quickness of wit? Without these loopholes what is this game but another sporting event, something that is opposing the spirit of FIRST and promoting the “Rich and Famous” as an ideal lifestyle rather than commitment and hard work.

Getting ahead on loopholes is a part of today's corporate culture, and is something that I would not expect FIRST seeking to encourage. If you find a loophole, go ahead and put in on the Q&A, and see if it's something that's allowed.

[RogerR]

reading the rule, notice the mention of "controlled" in the rule; i suspect that this will be how the define 'being in the possession' of a game peice, and while there may be grey area on that, i confident that an opponents game peice that is dropped onto your 'bot by an opposing machine wouldn't fulfill this requirement, and thus wouldn't be considered 'in your possession'.

[Brandon Holley]

Here is another possiblity, maybe a YMTC deal......your robot is in possession of a tube and is attempting to score it on teh rack. As you are doing this the tube hits the spider foot and slips over your arm and slides down to ur base (the tube is now around your arm)....there is still 1:30 left in the match...is your bot done with tubes for the match???

[Swan217]

Different question, same thread:

Am I blind, or is there not a penalty for violating G09 (yet)? 10 pts? DQ?

If not, FIRST will probably catch this in a revision pretty soon (crosses fingers).

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Dan Swando

Am I blind, or is there not a penalty for violating G09 (yet)? 10 pts? DQ?

Yeah, you're not the only one who doesn't see it in there. I'm expecting a clarification too. (And I'm hoping it's not the kneecap thing.)