Rosie stuffs Thrust

[Dantvman27]

I was there, and i saw it as a clean hit and move and a good strategy and i dont know why they would get red carded for it. They were not pushing thrust into an illegal position:
<G22> ROBOT Range - ROBOTS must remain within the FIELD perimeter and asymmetric funnels
of the GOALS during a MATCH


If I have read that correctly, the funnels before the ball counter are considered in bounds, so I believe rosie's hit was legal and they shouldn't be penalized for it, if the robot fits inside the goal, its a risk they have to take whilst scoring that they might get stuffed

[Vermeulen]

Originally Posted by Dantvman27

If I have read that correctly, the funnels before the ball counter are considered in bounds, so I believe rosie's hit was legal and they shouldn't be penalized for it, if the robot fits inside the goal, its a risk they have to take whilst scoring that they might get stuffed

That part of the hit was legal, but that rule is meant to apply to offensive robots shoving balls into the goal. The parts that aren't legal are that the hits were made with the intention of entangling and tipping over the robot, and for not allowing a 10 second grace period for the tipped over robot. Those parts are illegal, and should have resulted in a yellow card or a red card.

[Dantvman27]

Originally Posted by Vermeulen

That part of the hit was legal, but that rule is meant to apply to offensive robots shoving balls into the goal. The parts that aren't legal are that the hits were made with the intention of entangling and tipping over the robot, and for not allowing a 10 second grace period for the tipped over robot. Those parts are illegal, and should have resulted in a yellow card or a red card.

Now I could be wrong, but I do not think there was intent to entangle the robot nor tip it by stuffing it in the goal. I do agree that they may have violated the grace period after Thrust righted itself over by the bump, but I stand by my belief that everything involving the goal was a legal and strategic move

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Dantvman27

Now I could be wrong, but I do not think there was intent to entangle the robot nor tip it by stuffing it in the goal. I do agree that they may have violated the grace period after Thrust righted itself over by the bump, but I stand by my belief that everything involving the goal was a legal and strategic move

There's intent to tip it when you rush to keep it on its side as it falls back down.

There was a robot that wasn't attempting to self right at WPI that was "tipping back" that 2791 got in the way of (sorry about that ) and we got a penalty and yellow card.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by cziggy343

we are questioning whether the robot was actually ok... we are questioning the legality of the move and why they were so proud as to put a video up of it.

Did the refs call it? Then it was legal. Was it a NICE move? Probably not. But they did not intentionally destroy 1501's robot. I have heard their defense in other matches was less nice but regarding the issue at hand I feel that since the refs did not call any penalty they felt it was within the spirit of the rules.

EDIT: I do agree that they should have been called for tipping

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Dantvman27

Now I could be wrong, but I do not think there was intent to entangle the robot nor tip it by stuffing it in the goal. I do agree that they may have violated the grace period after Thrust righted itself over by the bump, but I stand by my belief that everything involving the goal was a legal and strategic move

Judging by the hit, I would say the intent was to shove Thrust in the goal so that they could not get out, or so they'd at least struggle to get out.

I would consider that entanglement.

[JamesBrown]

Intentional tipping is pretty much impossible to prove, with the elimination of contact outside the bumper zone there is no reason a robot should tip because another bot hits it onflat ground.

As for the legality of pushing THRUST into the goal, I can't see why it would be illegal, quite frankly had they not lost power they should have driven in front of the other goal and prevented all goal scoring the rest of the game.

I have been impressed by THRUST's robots since they started in this competition but quite frankly it doesn't make sense to design a bot that can get pushed into a goal but cant drive out.

As for the entanglement rules, I have only seen them enforced when a robot entangles another robot (i.e. if I have a net on my robot then I need to make sure your robot can't get stuck in it.) It is the responsibility to the team to make sure their own robot can't get entangled with field elements.

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Did the refs call it? Then it was legal. Was it a NICE move? Probably not. But they did not intentionally destroy 1501's robot. I have heard their defense in other matches was less nice but regarding the issue at hand I feel that since the refs did not call any penalty they felt it was within the spirit of the rules.

EDIT: I do agree that they should have been called for tipping

but i dont think that you can automatically say that just because the ref didn't call it that it was legal. refs miss calls all the time.

[Dantvman27]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Judging by the hit, I would say the intent was to shove Thrust in the goal so that they could not get out, or so they'd at least struggle to get out.

I would consider that entanglement.

I don't see that as entanglement, but I could be wrong, it depends on how exactly you define entanglement. If they did something to say get them caught in the netting by the goal or stuck on the chains, I would say that is entanglement because they are caught up on a field element. But being stuck on a lip, I wouldn't call that entanglement. But I haven't gone through referee training so I might be wrong on what the FIRST definition of entanglement is, and if i am, then I apologize, but I liked the hit and the strategy from a defensive standpoint(still citing that the goal is considered in bounds)

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by cziggy343

but i dont think that you can automatically say that just because the ref didn't call it that it was legal. refs miss calls all the time.

Really? I can see a ref missing a touch that lasts a second but when a robot ends up in a part of the field most robots avoid with another robot in front of them it is pretty obvious what happened. There are calls that are easy to miss (intentional tipping/carrying) but there are calls that are so obvious that the ref is either blind or completely inept. Since I highly doubt that all of the refs at the event were blind or inept I have to go with it is legal.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

Intentionaltipping is pretty much impossible to prove, with the elimination of contact outside the bumper zone there is no reason a robot shouldtipbecause another bot hits it onflat ground.

I agree with you, intentional tipping is very difficult to prove.

Except when a team contacts a robot multiple times and the offensive robot almost tips, and the defensive robot continues to do that until the offensive team actually tips, and then the defensive team prevent the offensive team from righting themselves.

[LLogan]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Did the refs call it? Then it was legal.

I do not understand the logic. Refs cannot possibly make correct calls in every possible situation. Just because a ref doesn't call something doesn't mean that it's legal.

<G36> outlaws any "entanglement" hazards. I would definitely consider a robot wrapped inside the chains of a goal to be an "entanglement".

When Thrust was trying to right itself at :33 and Rosie pushed it again, Rosie was, in my opinion, in direct violation of <G38a>

<G38> Prohibited ROBOT to ROBOT Contact - Except as permitted in Rule <G37>, contact is
prohibited under the following conditions:
a. Aggressive or intentional contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Violation:
PENALTY; plus a RED CARD if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT.

With the wording of this rule, I think that Rosie intentionally contacted Thrust outside of the bumper zone, meaning that this play should have resulted in at least a penalty. Whether the contact was "egregious" is an entirely different matter.

I know that during the Finals Match 1 of Palmetto, a team on my alliance (343, actually) accidentally tipped a robot, causing it to become off-balance, and then accidentally bumped into it again below the bumper zone, causing it to fall over. There was a two-second delay in between the driver's commands and the robot's actions. It wasn't even intentional, but it sure looked that way. We were red-carded for this play.

With all this being said, I am unsure if this was an entirely fair and legal play and I am even more unsure as to why this team would want to post this proudly.

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Really? I can see a ref missing a touch that lasts a second but when a robot ends up in a part of the field most robots avoid with another robot in front of them it is pretty obvious what happened. There are calls that are easy to miss (intentional tipping/carrying) but there are calls that are so obvious that the ref is either blind or completely inept. Since I highly doubt that all of the refs at the event were blind or inept I have to go with it is legal.

if you agreed that the intentional tip was a missed call, look at the ref in the video. he is watching at that time. missed call. im not saying its terrible that it was missed, im just saying that they CAN be missed.

[samir13k]

Originally Posted by cziggy343

but i dont think that you can automatically say that just because the ref didn't call it that it was legal. refs miss calls all the time.

The real time scoring did show the score being blue (thrust) up 6-5, i went to the ref station (i am 1501's driving) and asked the ref to call the penalty, he said that they did not see it, even though there were two refs watching very closely.

Note* I talked to the ref BEFORE ELIMINATIONS and talked to him about robot righting and penalties he said "The robot will not be called for a penalty if they are trying to right the overturned robot"... and i said "So if our robot is over on its side, and they contact us from the underside, then it will be a penalty?" and he stated that i was correct. Clearly we were hit on the underside while our robot was tipped over, and the penalty wasnt called. Rosies driver was also in the question box ready to dispute any penalty that would have been called. (None were called)...

In the end, 1501's alliance did eliminate Rosies alliance after a gruesome 4th match. The robot does have some damage, the base plate has been bent and the bumper bolts have sheared through some sheet metal, but its still functional.

I did talk to some members of Rosie after the finals, and made sure everything was ok between our teams, no fueds or anything are held between our teams.

Was it legal? Yes i guess.
Would i do it to another team? Never in a million years
Do I hope the rules change for championships? Deffinately

[Rosiebotboss]

Ok, here we go-

All of the contact with THRUST was legal bumper to bumper. The bumper zone this year being higher and the fact that 1501 has a triangular robot makes them easily unstable. They know that, that's why they put on the self righting arm.

The push into the goal is perfectly legal and within the rules. Ref <G22>. Triangular goal mouth, triangular robot.

Our style of defense during both regionals we attended was to disrupt the opposing teams aim, keeping them off the ball and denying access to a ball.

At no point during ANY match were we intentionally trying to destroy the opponents. What people do not realize is that after all of our matches we would congratulate out opponents and ask if they were broken or damaged. None replied they were, including THRUST. See the picture I posted of the two drive coaches shaking hands AFTER the match! A well fought semi final match.

Edit: Our driver was not in the "question box" to dispute any penalty. He was there to clarify a real time scoring issue. A ball was not counted that should have been.

We posted the video because I was asked numerous times after the play if I had video of the match that could be posted.