Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid

[Raul]

FYI - I submitted a request for clarification to the Q&A Forum. Let's see what comes out of it.

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by Raul

FYI - I submitted a request for clarification to the Q&A Forum. Let's see what comes out of it.

Hopefully it comes out before regionals start this week.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

Where have you found this hierarchy of power which you reference? I have found no statement which says the manual supersedes the Q&A and it would seem much more logical that the Q&A supersedes the manual. Similarly the rules you mention only refer to teleoperated mode so the manual is not clear on the subject.

It's not in the manual. But Paul is basing that order of precedence on the one which was circulated a couple years ago, and which is generally used by the officials to this day, in the absence of an official statement.

But like Travis says, FIRST is doing a poor job of managing rule changes and updates. Effectively, officials need to be aware of two sometimes-disparate interpretations: what the most recent rules say, and what the Q&A says. (And before someone cops out with a comment about how FIRST is not composed of awyers, and therefore can't be expected to spend time on minutiae like this, I'll just point out that managing rule changes is just like version control—which is typically an engineering function.)

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

When the GDC uses the word block, they seem to throw in "the entire track" or "the flow of traffic." Look at St. Louis finals match 1 where 45 blocked by driving 7 feet and stopping. They clearly did not impede as both robots passed by them just fine.

Clearly. True.

Ugh... team 292, who played you guys in the quarterfinals, told us to go out 8 feet and stop. I looked at the corner where we were planning on stopping, and figured that 7 feet was a better number.

Low and behold, 148 missed our front bumper by less than 1 inch, and 217 missed our back bumper by the same amount.

For match two, we changed our position to 8 feet out, as our friends on 292 originally suggested. That worked and held up 148. 217 hit the wall, so they didn't make it to the corner.

Since only one team on our alliance had a blocking position, there was obviously a clear path around our robot. From a design perspective, the blocked robot could do a variety of things to adjust to our blocking position and continue on their goal of crossing lines in hybrid mode.

Andy B.

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Stud Man Dan

I guess I can understand the ambiguity of the statement because "Block" is not specifically defined ...

... For the Q&A's sake partial applied weight doesn't make sense to me, either make it equal to the updates OR get rid of it as a public forum. I realize at a competition this is kind of what a referee group does by specifically clarifying intent in driver meetings and by established a precedence in their calls. This all comes by what was handed down to them by FIRST. But to have one FIRST document say one thing and one say another is ludicrous, its wishy washy, it creates confusion, and those who can't adapt to the clarification at competition suffer greatly, when they did all they could to prepare before they got there.

Dan (and others), I respect your opinion and your right to voice it, and VERY MUCH respect your desire to "avoid the gray areas". However, since you continue to use the Q&A as the basis of your disdain for this strategy, how do you explain this apparant inconsistency WITHIN THE Q&A ITSELF (as referenced in my earlier post):

FRC86 02-07-2008 04:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrid Period

Scenario A: Blue 1 is a fast robot capable of scoring 28 points in the hybrid period by knocking down 2 balls and crossing 3 lines. The Red Alliance sets up Red 2 and Red 3 to block Blue 1 by setting up Red 3 to stop after moving 10 feet while Red 2 stops after moving 5 feet. Blue 1 turns the corner during the hybrid period and hits a blocking robot.
Is this a deliberate entanglement which is a violation of rules 37, 39, & 40?

Scenario B: Same as Scenario A with the addition that Blue 1 is tipped over by hitting the blocker?
Can Blue 1 be righted if a penalty is called against the Red Alliance?

Scenario C: Same as Scenario B with the addition that Blue 1 is damaged by hitting the blocker?
Will the red blocker(s) be disqualified?

GDC 02-11-2008 01:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hybrid Period

The described situation is too context-dependent to provide a definitive analysis of the situation. The rules and policies guiding the game will be implemented as well as possible by the referees, based on the conditions and actions that are observed at the time.

Please note that we can not provide an analysis of every potential hypothetical situation that may arise during game play. Please review the rules as written to gain an understanding of whether a particular technique would be permissible.

This response was issued more than two weeks after the one that is causing all of this "heartache", and the question describes a much more severe case of "blocking" during hybrid - using TWO robots. While I agree the addition of all of the detailed scenarios in this question somewhat complicates things, would this not have been a perfect opportunity for the GDC to clarify their intent/position with regard to "blocking" in hybrid mode if they intended it to be illegal? They chose NOT TO.

And - also from my earlier post:

Note, in fact, that the only time ANY form of the root "block" (non-electrical, non-hotel) is used in the rules is in section 7.3.5.2, rule G43, which refers to "effectively blocking the width of the TRACK", and NOT just a single robot blocking a path. (THANKS FIRSTsearch on team358.org !)

[Ryan Dognaux]

Until it's deemed illegal, I think it's a perfectly valid strategy and we'll probably have this option in our back pocket, just in case. One robot blocking another robot's selected path isn't blocking the entire track. I guess it's an 'if you can't beat them, stop them' sort of situation. It's interesting how defense can still be a part of this game even when the game's goal was to essentially take out any form of defense this year.

[Wayne TenBrink]

We don't plan to do this, but....

What if the blocking robot used robocoach controls for forward and backward movements, and then actively tried to block (intercept) oncoming opponents?

Someone is sure to take this next step.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

We don't plan to do this, but....

What if the blocking robot used robocoach controls for forward and backward movements, and then actively tried to block (intercept) oncoming opponents?

Someone is sure to take this next step.

If someone did that, they'd probably get called for impeding. That's part of the definition of impeding--one way is moving back and forth across the track with intent to block. Active blocking would get that penalty probably 90% of the time.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Dan (and others), I respect your opinion and your right to voice it, and VERY MUCH respect your desire to "avoid the gray areas". However, since you continue to use the Q&A as the basis of your disdain for this strategy, how do you explain this apparant inconsistency WITHIN THE Q&A ITSELF (as referenced in my earlier post):

This response was issued more than two weeks after the one that is causing all of this "heartache", and the question describes a much more severe case of "blocking" during hybrid - using TWO robots. While I agree the addition of all of the detailed scenarios in this question somewhat complicates things, would this not have been a perfect opportunity for the GDC to clarify their intent/position with regard to "blocking" in hybrid mode if they intended it to be illegal? They chose NOT TO.

And - also from my earlier post:

Stu, the GDC never examines specific hypothetical situations that teams lay out in Q&A, from my experience following it (somewhat) closely. I don't think we can read into their lack of a response meaning consent.

Originally Posted by EricH

If someone did that, they'd probably get called for impeding. That's part of the definition of impeding--one way is moving back and forth across the track with intent to block. Active blocking would get that penalty probably 90% of the time.

You can'it impede in hybrid. It only counts in teleoperated mode.

[AmyPrib]

You better believe that I darn well hope this "blocking" thing doesn't become illegal in hybrid mode. What a downer to not be able to do ANYthing about watching the powerhouses drive laps around you and get a huge lead in the first 15sec of the match. The defense has become just about ZERO in this game, and by negating any possibility of putting a damper on the hybrid awesomeness just plain sucks IMO. If the hybrid is that awesome, they can find a way to go around, or use their robocoaches. To expect everyone else to sit idly by and wave as they fly past you in hybrid, is sorta ridiculous.

So.. let's see.

We have "blocking and obstructing traffic". If I were on 4 lane expressway and stopped in one lane - it will suck for whoever is behind me, but they have 3 other lanes in which to get around me. I may be slowing them down a bit, but I'm not "preventing" them from getting around me (see reference to preventing below).

We have a definition of "impeding" - which we should logically carry it's definition over to whatever mode we're in... so again, preventing or obstructing an opponent robot's abiility to get around the track. One robot in it's way doesn't prevent it from getting around the track in another lane. Even if you want to argue that it IS impeding, then as long as there is 6sec left on the clock, there's no impeding penalty...... but it's not impeding.

"During teleoperated mode" you'll be impeding if you're "preventing" a team from going around the track (Update 2). Moving back and forth to prevent them from passing you could be considered "preventing" and "impeding" but that hasn't been specifically called out yet. But regardless, if there's a lane around you in which a robot can maneuver through, you're not "preventing" them from going around the track - you're just in their way in that particular spot.

Yes, 45 blocked 148 in the finals at St. Louis. But in the match prior to that, they went around us. So... in both cases, we moved out XX distance and stopped hoping to get in the way of one of those beasts. In one case we got in the way, in another we didn't. So because we happened to get in the way once, as opposed to not the other time, we should be penalized for that? We got lucky and they ran into us the second time - so we should be penalized? They could have changed their automode to go around us the next time after seeing what we did. Why do I have to change mine? One could argue - by them not changing THEIR automode, they ran right into us hoping to draw a penalty on us for impeding - which is also illegal in the rules....(I'm not arguing that though - just devil's advocate).
We had trouble with our automodes each day - so except for us, who's to say it didn't simply move out and stop with no particular intention? Maybe we wanted to drive past the finish line, but due to an error in the last modification, it stopped short..... I won't debate the intention thing - it's been beaten already.

Anyway, maybe I repeated a few things, but I for one hope they don't make it illegal unless it blocks the entire track, just as in tele-mode. With virtually no defense in this game, this is one little glimmer of possible tactics that can work. Just because you have an awesome automode doesn't necessarily mean we have to allow you to repeatedly crush us with it, right? Those who have already mastered the automode need some sort of added challenge, right?

[SgtMillhouse648]

As Vogel said earlier, we did ask the refs ahead of time to see if it was legal or not. In previous years, it has always been a legitimate autonomous strategy to block the opponent's robot. I remember quite a few robots last year who circled around behind the rack and blocked the robots trying to score. For those of you who don't know, Bomb Squad's robot is MASSIVE. I believe on it's longest axis it is 56 inches long. This is why when they start the match, they lean up against the rear wall, and during autonomous, drop down onto the flat.
As for the pushing approach 1024 talked about earlier, that's a nice idea, but a 4 wheel robot with tractions also facing perpendicular to where you want to go really doesn't move. Believe me, we've tried on last years' robot. The conveyor belting almost acts like velcro on the carpet of the field. We got hung up numerous times on the carpet where it was taped down on the field. When we would drive over it, the carpet decided it was going to try to come up with the wheels.
All in all, it was an awesome regional, and some very exciting eliminations, and had the opposing robots not run into 16, we would have lost that first match as well to the 30+ point autonomous.
Malhon

[Jack Jones]

I have to admit that I thought the GDC’s definition of impeding defied intuition. But today I noticed the following signs on I-75:

[T3_1565]

lmao.... its about time humor got into this thread!

[Cory]

Can we PLEASE stop referring to "IMPEDING"

you CANNOT impede in hybrid mode. Team Updates have modified <G40> to specifically state that they apply to Teleoperated mode only

This round and round discussion of whether you can bump to pass, or impede as long as there aren't more than 6 seconds left is totally irrelevant, as you cannot impede in hybrid in the first place.

[Diriye]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

"Wah. We have Q/A Rules Compliance Officer Steve who spends half his life refreshing the Q/A every 2 minutes so we are always in compliance with every last response."

How ironic... http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/member.php?u=4068