Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?

[J Flex 188]

Easy now everyone, remember what everyone else has been talking about the entire time about posting without emotion and being as objective as possible. Posts like this below that are poorly formed and don't quote any specific source other than the fact that they are "in violation of the rules" do not serve any purpose in this thread and only further increase the likelihood that more lines will be drawn in the sand without proper understanding of the situation, or at least as close as it can come. I will guarantee you that you cannot cite a source in the rules that states that a robot backing up when another robot is playing defence on them is in violation of anything.

Lastly, no amount of rough play justifies being a piece of machinery as significant and as large as an arm being torn off. If that were your robot, think about how you would feel.

Originally Posted by scipio

Once again i would like to point out that every 48 backed off 1114, 1114 backed up w/ them therefor when 48 resumed defence, they were in violation of the rules...although 1114's arm braking off is unfortunate, sometimes that is just the result of of rough play in a very rough match...

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by J Flex 188

Lastly, no amount of rough play justifies being a piece of machinery as significant and as large as an arm being torn off.

The force and aggression 48 exerted was extremely great to cause the joint break and rack shift. I feel the rack movement is a combination of 1114's robust (yes, I said robust) design and a "greasier" rack that seemed increasingly easier to move as the regional weeks moved on. This is the action and accompanying sound that sickened me when I first saw it happen. After watching the video in more detail, however, 1114's action of backing up following the break did a substantial amount of the separating and final amputation. It appears once they realized their arm was broken, they did what was necessary to extract themselves from the ringer to go continue to be productive on the other side of the field. I would expect nothing less from such fierce competitors. I think the act of 1114 helping to sever their own arm is important to note, considering everyone is attaching the "vicious" appearance of the entire process solely to 48's robot.

Also, a few other observations having studied the video, purely from the DRIVER'S point of view.

• The middle spider was almost full at the time this happened, so visibility was limited, especially for a kid who's really not that tall.
• If you look, the difference in position between the "I have a ringer and I want to score on the middle spider" arm position and the "I'm being pushed into the middle spider by a defender" arm position isn't all that significant, and much of the arm is obscured by ringers already scored at the height of the middle spider level.
• The announcer didn't indicate he was aware of the broken arm until 1114 started ripping away from the part still attached to the spider leg. His attention may have been diverted elsewhere for a few moments, but his vantagepoint was unquestionably better than our driver's. If he didn't notice this until later, is it out of the question to believe our driver couldn't tell the arm was broken?
• Finally, I can never really tell if the blue ringer was ever officially scored per the rules. At the end, when 1114's arm was dangling off of it, the ringer was perched on top of the "stinger". Does this count as being scored? I really don't know - we aren't in the business of scoring ringers (save for an attempt to score a keeper in auton on Thursday).

[Ian Mackenzie]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

And before you say that 48 didn't back up 3 feet for 3 seconds, that rule doesn't apply when you are pushing back and moving back the 3 feet WITH THEM. That only makes it easier/quicker for them to re-engage in a pushing match they're sure to win.
The pinning stopped at 1:10 and started again at 1:14 (that's 4 seconds btw) and they certainly moved back more than 3 feet. If 1114 wanted to get out of that situation they should have stayed put, turned to the side and booked it out of there in the 3+ seconds and 3+ feet they had available instead of chasing after them for god's sake!
(watch carefully the space in between 1114 and the RACK, not 48 and 1114.)

Originally Posted by Tom Line

I see several people saying 1114 was pinned the whole time. No they weren't. They continued contact with 48 when 48 backed off. That is not 48's fault, and does not constitute a continuing pin count.

I sort of figured somebody else would jump on this, but can someone please explain why the pinned robot backing up with the pinning robot means the pinning count should stop? Of course 1114 backed up with 48 - our driver was undoubtedly pushing back against them trying to get out, so when they backed off we did too. Nowhere in the rules, or in any Q&A that I'm aware of, does it say that the motion of the pinned robot has anything to do with the pinning call. As I interpret it, once pinning starts, to stop the count the pinning robot must back up 3 feet away from the pinning position, stay there for 3 seconds, and can then move back, regardless of where the pinned robot moves during that time.

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

After watching the video in more detail, however, 1114's action of backing up following the break did a substantial amount of the separating and final amputation. It appears once they realized their arm was broken, they did what was necessary to extract themselves from the ringer to go continue to be productive on the other side of the field. I would expect nothing less from such fierce competitors. I think the act of 1114 helping to sever their own arm is important to note, considering everyone is attaching the "vicious" appearance of the entire process solely to 48's robot.

Sorry, Travis, but I think you're really stretching it here - the arm was snapped off and completely useless by the time 1114 started moving.

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Also, a few other observations having studied the video, purely from the DRIVER'S point of view.

• The middle spider was almost full at the time this happened, so visibility was limited, especially for a kid who's really not that tall.
• If you look, the difference in position between the "I have a ringer and I want to score on the middle spider" arm position and the "I'm being pushed into the middle spider by a defender" arm position isn't all that significant, and much of the arm is obscured by ringers already scored at the height of the middle spider level.
• The announcer didn't indicate he was aware of the broken arm until 1114 started ripping away from the part still attached to the spider leg. His attention may have been diverted elsewhere for a few moments, but his vantagepoint was unquestionably better than our driver's. If he didn't notice this until later, is it out of the question to believe our driver couldn't tell the arm was broken?
• Finally, I can never really tell if the blue ringer was ever officially scored per the rules. At the end, when 1114's arm was dangling off of it, the ringer was perched on top of the "stinger". Does this count as being scored? I really don't know - we aren't in the business of scoring ringers (save for an attempt to score a keeper in auton on Thursday).

I don't think I can agree that the driver couldn't see well enough to tell what was happening, especially given that Jay Trzaskos has mentioned that he clearly saw the arm snap while standing behind the 48 driver station. And I think we all know that announcers are very often watching a different part of the field (pinning is usually pretty boring to watch), so I don't think the delay in announcing proves anything.

To me, there are two key points. First is the celebration in the driver's station which, even in the heat of the moment, I think is completely unacceptable. I didn't see it myself, but I have been told about it from too many independent, reliable sources to discount it. Second is one that hasn't been pointed out - in the video, it is quite clear in the 2-3 seconds before the arm breaking that it is bending back significantly, so there was ample opportunity to realize what was going to happen. I'm not ready to say the entire incident was premeditated, but there certainly wasn't any particular effort to avoid it, and it would have been easy to (near the end, the 1114 robot was clearly pinned, and in no position to score, so 48 could quite safely have stopped pushing).

I'm less annoyed at the referees; I may disagree with how things were called, but at least in the case of pinning I can see there being confusion about the rule (since it was changed at the drivers' meeting) and aggressive play is ultimately a judgment call anyways. However, I think the situation could have used some judicious penalties, e.g. a 10 point pinning penalty and a 10 point aggressive play penalty, or two 10 point pinning penalties, either of which would have conveniently brought the score to 10-10 and allowed for a rematch. As has been pointed out, not scoring the keeper was the right call, and unless the ringer with the arm was jostled off the stinger onto the leg, not scoring it was the right call as well (although I was told that the head ref said it wasn't scored because the arm was attached - perhaps there was some sort of miscommunication).

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie

...can someone please explain why the pinned robot backing up with the pinning robot means the pinning count should stop?

Pinning is parenthetically defined by <G39> as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". As soon as the victim moves away from the field element, it is no longer being pinned.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Pinning is parenthetically defined by <G39> as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". As soon as the victim moves away from the field element, it is no longer being pinned.

Good point, although I think you could make an argument that "the count doesn't stop until the pinning robot has backed up 3 feet for 3 seconds" (the addition to the rule introduced at the drivers' meeting) takes precedence over whether pinning was actually interrupted by the pinned robot moving away from the field element. As the rules were originally written, you are correct, and we could get into a whole other discussion about whether rules should be changed for Championship, but that's beyond the point.

[Hadi379]

how can 48 backup 3' feet if 1114 backs up with them? Although 48 does attempt to backup, seperation is never created due to the fact that 1114 backs up with 48 and remains in contact with them.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Pinning is parenthetically defined by <G39> as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". As soon as the victim moves away from the field element, it is no longer being pinned.

Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie

As I interpret it, once pinning starts, to stop the count the pinning robot must back up 3 feet away from the pinning position, stay there for 3 seconds, and can then move back, regardless of where the pinned robot moves during that time.

It seems that the rules distinguish between the pinning itself (i.e. the definition that Alan quoted), and the time during which the robot is backing off.

My preferred interpretation of <G39> would be that the pinning count starts as soon as the pinning begins, and pauses whenever pinning ceases. When pinning ceases, the pinning team may back up 3 feet from the last position it occupied while it was still pinning, at which point a second, 3-second count begins. When that second count is exhausted, the first count is reset; but if the second count doesn't finish, and the team resumes pinning, the first count resumes from where it left off. This isn't the only possible interpretation, however, and I can understand that an alternate reading of the rule can greatly affect one's assessment of the situation in question.

By way of example of an alternate interpretation, there's a case to be made for the contention that the rule only specifies the 3-second retreat if pinning has occurred for a full and continuous 10 seconds. If pinning occurs for 8 seconds, is interrupted briefly for 1 second, and occurs again for another 8 seconds, you could argue that at no time did you "inhibit the movement of another ROBOT" "for more than 10 seconds" (at a time).* I'm skeptical that this was intended by the rule-writers, and I don't know if the rule was ever enforced this way, but as written, it seems that this interpretation is reasonably credible, and could lead to a misunderstanding regarding a referee's call. By this standard, and based upon the archived video footage, it seems like 48 was in full compliance with the pinning rule.

Originally Posted by Hadi379

how can 48 backup 3' feet if 1114 backs up with them? Although 48 does attempt to backup, seperation is never created due to the fact that 1114 backs up with 48 and remains in contact with them.

I believe that the rule calls for them to back up 3 ft from where they "release[d] the pinned ROBOT".

*This interpretation relies upon the fact that the rule specifies one reason why the 10-second count would be reset (10 s pinning, 3 s retreat), but does not enumerate any other reasons. Logically, we assume that the count resets if you stop pinning for long enough, but it isn't clear exactly when this occurs (assuming that the 10 s count and 3 s retreat are not completed). Since the precise formula for resetting the count (under the most obvious of circumstances) is left to the imagination, it isn't a stretch to speculate that the interpretation that I gave is legitimate.