How does 469 not violate <R19>?

[robself705]

If you guys haven't checked their standings from their first regional weren't so hot. I'm not too worried, get a good defender and he won't have too much problem keeping them from scoring. Also, just start your bot partially in front of the tunnel, as long as you are on one side of the center line and your bot is touching the bump you are good. Great strategy they have though, however their publicity will be their downfall

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Radical Pi

Suppose there have been 2 balls scored. 1 of them has passed through the chute switcher and is on its way down the main ramp. The 2nd ball is on the ball return chute. A 469 (or any similar bot) driver sees the defender speeding to block the active chute, and, while the 1st ball is still on the chute, switches to the 2nd chute. For the period of the chute switching directions, does that turn their return system into an active mechanism?

While the chute switcher is moving, it is an active mechanism, at least if I understand the Q&A's on the topic correctly. As soon as it stops, it is a passive mechanism.

Originally Posted by Radical Pi

If that were true, what if a bot drove up on the bump and put themselves up against the 469 ball return. Since they are on the bump it is legal to touch out of the bumper zone. If a ball were to be caught on said chute, would an attempt to bypass the block be considered an active mechanism above the bumper zone manipulating the balls?

That would depend on the method of bypassing the block. Again, if the switcher is moving, it would be. However, you do risk a <G38> (intentional outside the bumper zone), depending on how the ref calls it, or a <G13> (can't make your opponents get a penalty). It's a risky move, and only effective on one side.

[wendells]

well done team 469, you studied the game and built a winner, not just a robot to play the game , but a player to win the game.

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by EricH

That would depend on the method of bypassing the block. Again, if the switcher is moving, it would be. However, you do risk a <G38> (intentional outside the bumper zone), depending on how the ref calls it, or a <G13> (can't make your opponents get a penalty). It's a risky move, and only effective on one side.

I don't think G38 would apply because I believe the blocking team is on the bump, which is an explicit exception to the rule. G13 also may not apply since it was 469's choice to run the switcher. The only thing that was forced by the other team is the balls being jammed on the return, which may or may not count as multiple possession, although G13 would null that penalty. It does depend on the ref's call though

[EricH]

I'm looking at the intentional part. You're getting onto the bump, where you intentionally contact another robot above the bumper zone.

Yes, <G37> says that that contact is expected and generally permissible during that timeframe. However, it also calls out incidental contact. <G38-A> makes it clear that intentional contact outside the bumper zone is a penalty at best. After the first time or two, it will be painfully obvious that this is intentional, and you'll start getting penalized, would be my guess as to what would happen.

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by G38

<G38> Prohibited ROBOT to ROBOT Contact - Except as permitted in Rule <G37>, contact is prohibited under the following conditions:

Note my bolding. G37 specifically permits it, which overrides G38

Anyways, it is possible to hold the balls in place without the robots touching. There can be a fairly wide gap there

EDIT: also, both robots are really falling under G37. The defender is taking c.i, 469 is taking c.v (in the process of elevating before finale, and technically 469 is considered attempting to elevate. They just are horrible at it and their lifter also happens to be diverting balls)

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by robself705

If you guys haven't checked their standings from their first regional weren't so hot. I'm not too worried, get a good defender and he won't have too much problem keeping them from scoring. Also, just start your bot partially in front of the tunnel, as long as you are on one side of the center line and your bot is touching the bump you are good. Great strategy they have though, however their publicity will be their downfall

I believe they were 3rd or 4th after qualifications, id say that that is pretty good standings...

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Radical Pi

EDIT: also, both robots are really falling under G37. The defender is taking c.i, 469 is taking c.v (in the process of elevating before finale, and technically 469 is considered attempting to elevate. They just are horrible at it and their lifter also happens to be diverting balls)

This is a ridiculous assumption to make. They're clearly not elevating or suspending. VERY clearly. Since they don't HAVE a lifting mechanism (that I can see).

So, I've posted a Q&A to see if this is a purposeful oversight by the GDC or not. I assume they'l get back to us sometime relatively soon. Perhaps not in time for this weekend of regionals, as I only asked yesterday.

[nskerven]

I don't care how you say it, what 469 built and how they use it is 100% AGAINST Gracious Profesionalism. You want to win, fine; but don't go running up the score 26-1. Also, there is NO WAY they are lifting regardless of how you try and qualify their "lift."

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by nskerven

I don't care how you say it, what 469 built and how they use it is 100% AGAINST Gracious Profesionalism. You want to win, fine; but don't go running up the score 26-1. Also, there is NO WAY they are lifting regardless of how you try and qualify their "lift."

469 makes no attempt to hang. No part of the rules implies they have to.

Define Gracious Professionalism. Spell out what 469 built. How do they have any connection?

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by nskerven

I don't care how you say it, what 469 built and how they use it is 100% AGAINST Gracious Profesionalism. You want to win, fine; but don't go running up the score 26-1. Also, there is NO WAY they are lifting regardless of how you try and qualify their "lift."

Originally Posted by Squeakypig

O, and seriously, let's face it, we weren't winning that match-up lol.
(for reference 313, 2851, 314 vs 217, 469, 2960)

Is it weird that after it was 16-1 our team started cheering for the opposing alliance to break a record? lol

I disagree with basically everything in your post.

First: running up the score. Let's put this 26-1 blowout in context. It was a semi final match not a qualifier. The whole arena (including some opponents as quoted above) is cheering for them to put up a high score. Would you stop after 10 goals and have your whole alliance do nothing for the rest of the match? I think that would "show up" the losing alliance more than continued scoring. 469, 217, and 2960 put their full effort into engineering their bots to score and that's what their comp teams should put their full effort into scoring on the field. Who wants to see bots out on the field that aren't trying? When I think of running up the score in sports I think of taking unnecessary risks to embarrass your opponent while you are ahead and can just easily win. Personally, if I'm going to lose to an alliance, there is comfort in the fact that you are losing to the best.

National and regional high score is a goal that teams should strive for. It is a measure of your success and it gets everyone excited about robotics. When they announce a high score the arena goes crazy and that is not just the teams that got the high score. Isnt FIRST supposed to make robotics exciting?

Second: quality of their "lift": I am not sure exactly what you mean by this argument, but I am guessing you mean that they are expanding without elevating. <G30> allows them to expand to their finale config while touching their tower. It makes no mention (even in a blue box) of attempting to elevate. Would it make you feel better if 469 re-engineered their bot to make it to elevate at the last second? (even if it makes them "run up the score" more?) I'm sure if they had another 10 lbs to work with, their robot would also do that. Do you have the same feelings about Team 51 that elevates and redirects balls?

Third: interpreting Gracious Professionalism. One thing I don't like about these forums is all the posters that interpret Gracious Professionalism to argue with each other. It takes a good concept and makes it cliché or even negative. This being said I will refrain from interpreting Gracious Professionalism myself but I will propose a rule for everyone's consideration:

Rule: To interpret Gracious Professionalism on these forums, you must spell it correctly in your post.

[JohnBoucher]

More than once this season, I have heard unique definitions of GP. If I understand your definition, they are not GP because they are doing their best.
Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by nskerven

I don't care how you say it, what 469 built and how they use it is 100% AGAINST Gracious Profesionalism. You want to win, fine; but don't go running up the score 26-1. Also, there is NO WAY they are lifting regardless of how you try and qualify their "lift."

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by nskerven

I don't care how you say it, what 469 built and how they use it is 100% AGAINST Gracious Profesionalism. You want to win, fine; but don't go running up the score 26-1. Also, there is NO WAY they are lifting regardless of how you try and qualify their "lift."

How is it against GP? You could make an argument about coopertition, but GP is just...no. One of the main parts of FIRST is teaching kids to think outside the box (or sizing box, in this case ). Anyways, this design was discussed on chief delphi. 469 just decided to try and implement it, and did very well. The GDC has even ruled in favor of 469's design multiple times, some not too early in the season so any team could have picked up on it and gone for it.

[pfreivald]

I think that _perhaps_ one _might_ be able to present a case that 469's robot goes against the spirit of the game -- but that would not at all be the same thing as saying it is anti-GP.

(Don't get me wrong... I do *not* think that 469's robot goes against the spirit of the game, and frankly I think that you most absolutely can defend against them -- block in autonomous until you get the balls cleared away, and their strategy falls apart and it becomes a ball-starvation mid-zone dominance game. Don't block in autonomous and/or don't get the balls cleared away, and lose.

All I'm saying here is that if there is a legitimate complaint -- and I do not believe there is -- it would be in that direction. It has nothing to do with GP.)

[Sandee]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

I believe they were 3rd or 4th after qualifications, id say that that is pretty good standings...

Yes, they seeded third after Regionals...