Rosie stuffs Thrust

[Chris is me]

Rosie played excellent defense at WPI and CT. 2791's robot received several tears in bumper fabric as well as a completely destroyed pneumatic solenoid with their high acceleration drivetrain (6 motor?). But there were instances in that video of red card worthy action.

When they tipped 1501, then 1501 activated their righter, Rosie pushed against them so they'd stay tipped. Watch the video 2 or 3 times, they CLEARLY saw it start to right and hit it again.

<G32> ROBOT Protection while Righting – Before the FINALE, ROBOTS attempting to right themselves or their ALLIANCE partners have one 10-second grace period per fallen ROBOT in which they may not be contacted by an opposing ROBOT. This protection continues for either 10 seconds or when the protected ROBOTS have completed the righting operation, whichever time comes first. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

In addition, the goal thing could be considered a violation of intentional entanglement, as that is exactly what it was.

I hope the GDC adds a rule prohibiting such a move explicitly. That you can take a robot and goal simeltaneously out of commission like that is insane. If that's 100% legal, I guess I'll tell my drivers to shove robots into goals in the offseason.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

But there were instances in that video of red card worthy action.

When they tipped 1501, then 1501 activated their righter, Rosie pushed against them so they'd stay tipped.

After watching the video again, I believe you are absolutely correct.

Aside from the intentional tipping attempts, 1501 should've been given 10 seconds to attempt to self-right before anyone could've touched them again.

I did like how 1501 played dead once they realized that even their attempt to self-right would be defended.

[Travis Hoffman]

I have one thought - pinning against the goal is a commonplace occurrence this season. If the pinned robot is small enough to fit entirely inside the goal and ends up there as a result of said pin, I would think the defender should not be held responsible for that result, as that is a natural risk of pursuing a smaller, more mobile design.

The act in the video appears more aggressive than simply pushing 1501 into the goal after they score a ball, but I don't believe what they did was illegal. Unfortunately, the video gets jittery right when the "stuffing" occurs, making it hard to see exactly how hard they were pushed into the goal. A gentle escort would be far more appropriate than a full force slam dunk.

Relating to the tipping and subsequent extra nudge that happened earlier in the match, I actually feel the initial tipping was incidental (look at the angle Rosie contacted 1501 - it wasn't head-on contact). I would not qualify that as a penalizable offense. The subsequent contact could be flagged, but...

...when does the act of "completing the righting operation" (per <G32>) end? When at least one robot drive wheel returns to contacting the ground? If so, then Rosie violated the 10-second protection rule. If self-righting is defined as extending the self-righting mechanism, then Rosie contacted 1501 again after 1501 deployed their mechanism and started to fall back to normal orientation. I imagine the GDC prefers the former definition, but that's just an assumption. Someone might want to ask for further clarification.

I second the playing possum strategy as a smart ploy to get heavy defenders off your back...even if you aren't tipped. Add histrionics behind the controls to express puzzlement and anger over a faux communication issue, and see if you can dupe your assailants into leaving or at least giving you more room - can you tell I've been watching "Life" on the Discovery Channel of late? :-)

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

...when does the act of self-righting end? When at least one robot drive wheel returns to contacting the ground? If so, then Rosie violated the 10-second protection rule. If self-righting is defined as extending the self-righting mechanism, then Rosie contacted 1501 again after 1501 deployed their mechanism and started to fall back to normal orientation. I imagine the GDC prefers the former definition, but that's just an assumption. Someone might want to ask for further clarification.

I figured it ended when the robot was righted... Isn't that what righting aims to do? I mean, robots tip onto 2 wheels a lot, are they banned from righting?

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I figured it ended when the robot was righted...

I think you're right.

<G32> ROBOT Protection while Righting – Before the FINALE, ROBOTS attempting to right themselves or their ALLIANCE partners have one 10-second grace period per fallen ROBOT in which they may not be contacted by an opposing ROBOT. This protection continues for either 10 seconds or when the protected ROBOTS have completed the righting operation, whichever time comes first. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

[samir13k]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I figured it ended when the robot was righted... Isn't that what righting aims to do? I mean, robots tip onto 2 wheels a lot, are they banned from righting?

When the robot has righted itself and has returned to normal playing configuration. There shouldnt be contact while the righter is engaged

[BradMello]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

I have one thought - pinning against the goal is a commonplace occurrence this season. If the pinned robot is small enough to fit entirely inside the goal and ends up there as a result of said pin, I would think the defender should not be held responsible for that result, as that is a natural risk of pursuing a smaller, more mobile design.

The act in the video appears more aggressive than simply pushing 1501 into the goal after they score a ball, but I don't believe what they did was illegal. Unfortunately, the video gets jittery right when the "stuffing" occurs, making it hard to see exactly how hard they were pushed into the goal. A gentle escort would be far more appropriate than a full force slam dunk.

I totally agree with everything here, and as a driver I would have done the exact same thing provided I was in this situation. THRUST was pushing a ball into the goal just before they were pushed in, which meant that they were already driving in the direction of the goal. It would have been a different situation if the robots were driving head to head against each other and rosie forced them in the opposite direction, but from what I see in the video it didn't take much effort by rosie to scoot them the rest of the way into the goal.

Reasons why I don't have a problem with this play:

1.) The THRUST Driver obviously was aware that the robot he was controlling could fit into the goal. The defensive play that Rosie played on them was commonplace throughout many regionals this season, and ultimately it was their robots design that trapped them inside the goal.

2.) The goal is part of the field. Robots can drive inside the goal. Getting pushed in the goal and becoming entangled is in essence the same as my teams robot being pushed up the ramp by a defender and being trapped in a way such as this.


(if our frame touches the ground in the back our wheels become lifted off of the floor)

Would you think this is illegal?



.02