Final YMTC of 07-08: Bluabot hits the E-stop in an awkward spot

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Derek Bessette

<G36> specifically says that robots that are disabled after becoming incapacitated will not receive further penalties. Bluabot in this situation cannot be ruled incapacitated unless they try and move out of the way. You cannot receive protection under G36 because you are scared of receiving a penalty which doesn't exist. If they damage the field they will be disabled by the referee (no penalty). Until that decision is made or they have shown that they trully cannot move, then they must at least try and move out of the way.

I wan't to change my answer.
-10 Blue
-10 Red

Same result, different reason.

Derek, they've already disabled because they are incapacitated. They can't drive, pretty much. If they do try, the refs will disable them (instead of disabling themselves). No impeding call (there was a passing lane), no field damage call. Just a <G22> on the other alliance.

Then again, as I said before, it's a pretty good trick to have a robot that's disabled hurdling.

[Derek Bessette]

Originally Posted by EricH

Derek, they've already disabled because they are incapacitated. They can't drive, pretty much.

My argument is that they aren't incapacitated. As a referee you can't make that determination until they try to move. I have seen many robots move around with one tread. Heck, we've done it in the past. It didn't drive straight, but we would have been able to move out of the way.

As a referee, I couldn't see myself calling a penalty on red because blue's robot failed. With the rules as written, I can make a pretty good argument that there should be no penalty or one penalty each.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Derek Bessette

My argument is that they aren't incapacitated. As a referee you can't make that determination until they try to move. I have seen many robots move around with one tread. Heck, we've done it in the past. It didn't drive straight, but we would have been able to move out of the way.

As a referee, I couldn't see myself calling a penalty on red because blue's robot failed. With the rules as written, I can make a pretty good argument that there should be no penalty or one penalty each.

Ah, OK.

Now, how do you call a penalty on Red in the scenario AS WRITTEN?

[Derek Bessette]

Originally Posted by EricH

Ah, OK.

Now, how do you call a penalty on Red in the scenario AS WRITTEN?

I can't, the scenario is written all wrong.

[dtengineering]

I can't see anywhere in the rules where crossing the line is "forgiven". If the trapped Redabot wants to avoid a G22 penalty, perhaps they need some help from an alliance partner to push the disabled Bluabot out of the way.... or needed to design a machine with a bit more "push"...

G36 is pretty specific about this:

"ROBOTS that are disabled in this manner can not incur further PENALTIES (e.g. can not receive a PENALTY for IMPEDING). Disabled ROBOTS may be pushed out of the path of travel without PENALTY."

This means that it is clearly the intent of the GDC that robots be able to push disabled robots out of their way.

And thanks for making the effort to find the YMTC scenarios, however, here's an addendum to this one...

So what if one of Redabots' alliance partners pushed Bluabot backwards, thus pushing Redabot backwards over the line? G23 comes into play... Does Bluabot still count as an "opposing robot"? Does being disabled and pushed count as an "action"? Bluabot can't get any further penalties (and wouldn't even if they were still active, as they are being pushed), but does Redabot get a G22 penalty in this case?

Jason

[Derek Bessette]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I can't see anywhere in the rules where crossing the line is "forgiven".

<G23> can cause a penalty to be "excused" if the opposing alliance causes he penalty to happen. I could argue that red wouldn't have taken a penalty if blue hadn't lost a tread and therefore blue caused red to take a penalty.

I prefer the other argument better. It's more interesting.

Originally Posted by dtengineering

"ROBOTS that are disabled in this manner can not incur further PENALTIES."

The "in this manner" portion of this rule is referencing the line before that says the robot was disabled after being incapacitated. My argument is that the referee cannot know that they are truly incapacitated unless they at least make an attempt to move out of the way.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Derek Bessette

<G23> can cause a penalty to be "excused" if the opposing alliance causes he penalty to happen. I could argue that red wouldn't have taken a penalty if blue hadn't lost a tread and therefore blue caused red to take a penalty.

I prefer the other argument better. It's more interesting.



The "in this manner" portion of this rule is referencing the line before that says the robot was disabled after being incapacitated. My argument is that the referee cannot know that they are truly incapacitated unless they at least make an attempt to move out of the way.

I appreciate the first argument, and contemplated it while formulating my initial response. I feel that Bluabot did not cause Redabot to cross the line, but rather placed it in a situation where it was forced with the choice of crossing the line or remaining immobile.... or having an alliance partner assist in moving Bluabot. In no case, however, did Bluabot cause Redabot to incur a G22 penalty.

The second argument, I agree, bears perhaps a bit more weight in that the definition of "incapacitated" and who makes the determination of incapacitated is not specific. It does not, however, require a referee to make the decision that a robot is incapacitated. Rather it infers that the decision is up to the team by stating that the disablement must come through the pushing of the E-Stop in the player station. Secondly, when it states "robots that are disabled in this manner", I believe there is room to argue that "in this manner" refers simply to the pushing of the E-Stop button.

I always figure it is a good YMTC when experienced FIRSTers can interpret the same situation in different ways. I see your points and would... if I were in Redabot's shoes, put forward the same ones.

Jason

[Derek Bessette]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

The second argument, I agree, bears perhaps a bit more weight in that the definition of "incapacitated" and who makes the determination of incapacitated is not specific. It does not, however, require a referee to make the decision that a robot is incapacitated.

I believe that lword was put in there to specifically prevent a team or alliance from blocking the field and pressing the E-Stop. Otherwise, why would it be there.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Look at the examples again

Just because it's not in the example doesn't mean blueabot can't be considered as causing the penalties.

Heck, if we go on that theory, then my other argument bears even more weight. I don't see losing a tread in the examples of what makes a robot incapacitated.

I agree that the cause and effect here is a lot less clear than a robot pushing another backwards. The way I look at it is this. If blueabot didn't break then redabot wouldn't have taken a penalty, therefore, I can argue that bluabot caused the penalty.

Originally Posted by dtengineering

...if I were in Redabot's shoes, put forward the same ones.

If I were in Blueabots shoes I would call my arguments weak. But these threads or no fun if everyone agrees.

[Brandon Holley]

Guys, maybe i am misreading, but this looks pretty cut and dry...

Bluabot has been e-stopped and is now barred from receiving penalties. Redabot is in the exact situation described in update #15 which states:
"When a robot gets stuck between a Finish Line or Lane Marker and an opponent
Robot, because they would have to incur a <G22> penalty by backing across the
line in order to gain access to a free passing lane (see figure), that Robot is to be
considered to be IMPEDED and not to have a free passing lane. Therefore <G40>
and <G41> apply and a six-second count will be started on the Robot causing it to
be stuck there. This will give the stuck Robot an opportunity to begin moving again
six seconds later without having to incur a penalty."


Because Redabot pushed for 8 seconds (which would give them 2 seconds over the time period needed to wait as per update #15), they now have the opportunity to begin moving without incurring a penalty.

No penalty for redabot because they waited the 6 seconds, no penalty for bluabot because they hit the e stop.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Because Redabot pushed for 8 seconds (which would give them 2 seconds over the time period needed to wait as per update #15), they now have the opportunity to begin moving without incurring a penalty.

No penalty for redabot because they waited the 6 seconds, no penalty for bluabot because they hit the e stop.

Update #15 is worded a little funny, but my understanding is that the update didn't change <G22>, it just added an additional example to <G40> and <G41>. I wouldn't swear to this, but I'm reasonably confident that "an opportunity to begin moving again six seconds later" refers to the other robot moving out of the way to avoid the <G41> penalty. In any case, there is no leeway in <G22> that would allow what you suggest.

Originally Posted by Derek Bessette

If blueabot didn't break then redabot wouldn't have taken a penalty, therefore, I can argue that bluabot caused the penalty.

How loose of a chain of actions would you permit to be considered causal? If Redabot took possession of Bluabot's trackball, I don't think you'd excuse the penalty on the grounds that it wouldn't have happened if Bluabot hadn't knocked the ball down in the first place. How about when Redabot gets tangled up in the overpass by Bluabot, and Redabot2 backs up over the line to free them? The only way this rule makes sense is if somebody else forced you to violate a rule when you didn't want to. Redabot's hand is not forced here; they have other options.

(It is worth noting that something very similar to the original scenario happened in finals match 2 at Buckeye, with the added trickiness that Redabot's gripper ended up stuck pretty deeply into Bluabot, and continuing to try to push them could cause serious damage to Bluabot. After at least six seconds, Redabot backed out, and the head ref flagged them for a game-deciding <G22>. Perhaps that isn't the right call, but at least it's some indication of how this rule is being interpreted elsewhere.)

[Aren_Hill]

In this situation the only thing i see about it is consider both bots just 28"by38" boxes, place on sideways and the other one inbetween the sideways one and the finish line. Does the "trapped" bot have a way to go? yes sideways, it'd just require your bot to be able to drive sideways

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Update #15 is worded a little funny, but my understanding is that the update didn't change <G22>, it just added an additional example to <G40> and <G41>. I wouldn't swear to this, but I'm reasonably confident that "an opportunity to begin moving again six seconds later" refers to the other robot moving out of the way to avoid the <G41> penalty. In any case, there is no leeway in <G22> that would allow what you suggest.

Joey,
I cannot see that update #15 is written to make a team sit there for 6 seconds, only to determine if another robot will move or not. I think it is very clear that the rule is there to allow a team to break <G22> by "bumping to pass" waiting the full 6 seconds, and then proceeding without incurring a penalty...i believe that is the instance. <G22> doesn't change....however "proceed without incurring a penalty" seems to me that it is made to allow an instance for a team to go around a robot that is impeding them. In this case the bluabot is impeding, however because of the e-stop they do not incur that penalty.

[Elgin Clock]

In every one of these Dogwood Regional Innaugural events we've seen since the first YMTC of this year, I would have to think that the timing of the regional would play into this.

Update 15 was released March 6, 2008.

Since Dogwood Regional was obviously brought into our lives way before then, the clarification does not exists as spelled out in Update 15 & the call is up to the referees at the regional. (And a tough one I may add)

I don't like to think that calls would be different if Dogwood was the same week as NYC (the last week) than NJ (the first week) but it is what it is.

Now, past technicalities (sort of) & onto what I would do if I was a ref:

My personal choice would be to give each team something that would lead it to a tie, or replay the match - the latter of those preferred since pretty much when it comes down to it both teams had a game play limiting match due to a weird action on the field.

And remember kids, all referee calls are final.
Replaying a match (after discussing it with both teams who obviously didn't have the best match they could play because of a set of weird circumstances) is one of those calls a referee could make & have made in the past.
That would be my choice.