Rosie stuffs Thrust

[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.

[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.

[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)

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Dantvman27

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)

Entanglement refers to the state of being entangled.

Entangled can be defined as: to make tangled; ensnarl; intertwine

I would say that according to the above definitions, Thrust was entangled in the goal, with no way of getting out.

As a person coming from a driver's background, I look at the game in a certain way. I look at pushing 1501 into the goal as an easy way to remove them from the match, because I know that they cannot get out of the goal, because I saw that they cannot even navigate the ramp going up to the goal. I would say that most people were aware of this when playing defense against Thrust.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Entanglement refers to the state of being entangled.

Entangled can be defined as: to make tangled; ensnarl; intertwine

I would say that according to the above definitions, Thrust was entangled in the goal, with no way of getting out.

As a person coming from a driver's background, I look at the game in a certain way. I look at pushing 1501 into the goal as an easy way to remove them from the match, because I know that they cannot get out of the goal, because I saw that they cannot even navigate the ramp going up to the goal. I would say that most people were aware of this when playing defense against Thrust.

By your own definition, they are NOT entangled. They are held in the goal by the lip at the front edge of the goal and 1501s inability to climb that lip. The goal area is legal for robots to enter, and thus teams are allowed by the rules to pin (for up to 5 seconds) another robot in the goal. Thats what Rosie did.

Was it nice? no. Was it legal? Yep. Was it GP? It's within the rules so yes.

As far as contact during self righting goes ... it probably should have been a yellow card, but it's difficult to see what the refs saw. Rosies driver is on the other side of the field and may not have seen the self righting attempt or even the full orientation of THRUST (they are a small bot). I'm not excusing Rosie on that count, but it's a refs judgement call on a split second action.

Anyways, THRUST, welcome to New England style defense . I hope nothing was damaged. Your little bot is pretty cool. Good luck and it's nice to see other 4-H teams doing well.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

By your own definition, they are NOT entangled. They are held in the goal by the lip at the front edge of the goal and 1501s inability to climb that lip. The goal area is legal for robots to enter, and thus teams are allowed by the rules to pin (for up to 5 seconds) another robot in the goal. Thats what Rosie did.

Was it nice? no. Was it legal? Yep. Was it GP? It's within the rules so yes.

Perhaps I have interpreted the definition of Entanglement wrong. I was looking more towards it's meaning of to ensnare, which I thought could be applied in this situation.

Also, a lot of my opinion and arguments were based on a post that was later deleted, stating that the intent of the defensive move was to put Thrust's robot in the goal and have them stay there for the rest of the match. If this were done again the offending team was going to be red-carded - to me it sounds like this defensive tactic was considered against the rules by the referees.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Anyway, I think I'm done debating this point for now, I think it might get me into trouble. (If anyone would like to continue this feel free to PM me)

[scott]

I would agree that the intent was to force 1501 into the goal, but I would disagree that that they intended for them to stuck in the goal. There was no way for Rosie to know whether Thrust would have the ability to remove itself from the goal or not. I do not think I would have had my drive team do something similar, but when playing such a high caliber scoring team (like we did at BMR) you try to find anyway to slow their scoring (we just parked in front of the tower keeping them from their near zone). The tipping and then the contact afterwards was aggressive and not within the spirits of the game/rules/FIRST in my opinion, but it happens and I've seen worse.

In short, the tipping and following contact deserves the red card. The pushing into the goal, a grey area.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by scott

I would agree that the intent was to force 1501 into the goal, but I would disagree that that they intended for them to stuck in the goal. There was no way for Rosie to know whether Thrust would have the ability to remove itself from the goal or not.

I agree that at the time it is difficult to determine intent. But when their driver says "i went back and hit them again to make sure they would stay in" I think the intent is clear.

I'm just glad this gray error did not affect the outcome of the event.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Rosiebotboss

Ok, here we go-

All of the contact with THRUST was legal bumper to bumper.

(this was after they tipped over, you can see their righter open)

[Rosiebotboss]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

(this was after they tipped over, you can see their righter open)

Ok, you got me. That play should have been a penalty.