Rosie stuffs Thrust

[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.

[LLogan]

Originally Posted by 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..

However, as evidenced by :33 in the video, not all contact was within the bumper zone. Several teams in both regionals I attended, including mine, were penalized for contacting robots (intentionally and unintentionally) outside of the bumper zone. Sometimes, in very crucial matches like the finals, they were red-carded.

While the legality of pushing 1501 into the goal can be debated, surely the legality of bumping a robot in the act of self-righting cannot.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Awesome defense... probably the best I have seen. Will Rosie be at the Championship this season?

[rulesall2]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

Awesome defense... probably the best I have seen. Will Rosie be at the Championship this season?

At what point does awesome defense end and ridiculous violations of the rules begin? Unfortunately, I missed this match, but this video confirms our thoughts of Rosie being too aggressive defensively the entire year.

Regardless of weather the self righting period wad ended, Rosie made contact with a robot outside of the bumper zone.That is a cut-and-dry violation of the rules and deserved a penalty. As for stuffing the robot in the goal, it was clearly intentional, because if you look Rosie was touching the bump before they started pushing 1501, and they didn't stop until they were completely in the goal. I would not call the play entanglement, as our robot got caught on the ledge multiple times, but it may be the most un-GP play of the season.

839 is not attending the championships as of now, they could be on the wait list.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by rulesall2

Regardless of weather the self righting period wad ended, Rosie made contact with a robot outside of the bumper zone.That is a cut-and-dry violation of the rules and deserved a penalty. .

Accidents happen. If called for incidental contact, it's a one point penalty. I'm sure they stopped more than one point from being scored.

Originally Posted by rulesall2

As for stuffing the robot in the goal, it was clearly intentional, because if you look Rosie was touching the bump before they started pushing 1501, and they didn't stop until they were completely in the goal. I would not call the play entanglement, as our robot got caught on the ledge multiple times, but it may be the most un-GP play of the season.

If I didn't want to get stuck in a goal, I wouldn't build a robot that could get stuck in a goal. I don't see how this is an issue. Looks like smart play to me. Can someone cite a portion of the rules that proves me wrong?

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

If I didn't want to get stuck in a goal, I wouldn't build a robot that could get stuck in a goal. I don't see how this is an issue. Looks like smart play to me. Can someone cite a portion of the rules that proves me wrong?

I agree 100%. We never got pushed into a goal but I am fairly confidant we couldn't get stuck there if we were. This was something that was thought about during our design process.

[SafetyGracie]

I (personally) don't really care about the legality, we didn't argue that at the time of the match. It was the later comment that has been deleted.... we didn't bring this up.

That being said, I guess I just don't see the pride in beating a team by taking out their robot.... I'd rather lose to a team knowing we both competed at our best than to win by taking them out....

It's how I coach my 5th grade basketball team, how I'll coach my FLL team, and how I'd call it if I were a drive coach. If that's how a team preferred to play, then regardless of how good there bot was, I wouldn't choose them for my alliance.... if you can't win/don't want to win 3 on 3, than you probably don't deserve to win, in my estimation.

Not saying it's necessarily right or wrong, it's just how I prefer to go about things. Feel free to blast me now.

[Dantvman27]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

I like that style of defense and was exactly what this game called for in my opinion, and as you stated, it was a legal clean hit and I was surprised we didnt see it happen earlier. Great Job

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.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree: you say illegal and entanglement, I say clean hit and design flaw

[Chris_Elston]

While everyone can debated whether this was legal or not. Frankly is ok with me and our team. We shook hands afterwards, joked about it. etc. There are no hard feelings. I am glad the video was posted I certainly wanted to see it again and after the match, I grabbed my Blackberry and snapped a picture of it as well and shook my head. My second thought, was 1024 Kil-o-bytes at Boilermaker joking at me they would do that, and then I see it actually happen.

Samir my driver e-stopped the robot like we were suppose to do, there was no way we can drive out of the goal with memory foam with only 1" of ground clearance. With only 1" of ground clearance, you can not push our robot UP the goal, you can not drive the robot up the ramp. So by design, it wasn't suppose to go up the goalie ramp. There was a gash in the goalie ramp carpet that had to be taped up after the stuffing.

Surely when we designed the robot, we knew a defensive robot was going to be our biggest weakness. It was a risk 1501 took to play the game as we have done. We did not have the self-righter at Boilermaker which was the first time we saw our robot tip and contribute to our upset in the semi's. As you can see our righter was very effective at the CT Regional this weekend and used SEVERAL, SEVERAL times....

GP from Rosie's team was displayed afterwards and we were welcomed by "New England Defense" early in the first quarters match we played and tipped twice in the quarters 12 (seen on our Youtube Channel) as I heard all weekend by various teams New England likes defense. Rosie played the hardest defense I have ever seen in FRC to date. If we could not withstand the defense Rosie was dishing out, then we have not designed a robot that could withstand the defense that probably will be seen in Atlanta. We faked Rosie out several times in the SEMI 1 by traversing the tunnel and playing possum in SEMI 2 which seemed to work, so not all was lost, much needed driver experience was learned from Rosie and how to deal with driving under much pressure.

Our lesson is to learn by these experiences and move on. The most poetic thing was we had a ball in the front when we went into the goal, which was the tie game ball 6-6. Ball first, then robot next.

The triangle design was mostly contributed by the kiwi and 3-wheel drive system along if a robot was pushing us bumper to bumper we would be angled at the goal to make a clear shot anyway. We never thought about fitting into the goal. Small in foot print was by design as we noted Brazil's robot was the best scoring robot at CT we felt and deserved the Gold along with Uberbots. We clearly as a team felt good to be in the finals and wanted to go to Atlanta, put up a great fight with the best team we have ever worked with to date, Gaelhawks 230 and John Niski (230 coach) you are one amazing dude. I appreciated your willingness to work together and you have one heck of a team, we will never forget you. We are certainly honored to meet you and your team. Thanks for the great New England experience.

So before this thread gets too out of hand, there is no reason for anyone to analyze if Rosie did right or wrong, or if we are upset or not because I have written to tell you where we stand.

My students follow and learn from experiences this is how I lead them always in positive ways. They learn by losing, they learn by bad luck, they learn by improving, they learn the dumb FRC rules we all learn to not like, they learn how to cope with defeat, and learn how to overcome. These are all the things this 2010 season has brought us. These experiences can not be learned unless examples like these are set.

I am sure some maybe scratching your heads to my words, but I assure you, all of us Indiana Teams think alike, except some of us Indiana teams have a 5 year head start. The world is never "fair", there is certainly no GP in the real world of competitive products or two companies work against each other to beat up each other to become "king" of the market. That's really the message I want to teach my students to prepare them for college and work. That's the whole reason I do this. Yes ONE blue banner would be nice one of these days, but I've never lost focus of why we as mentors do what we do. It's about preparing the students for "defense" in life, and laugh when your robot gets scored into a goal.

Next time, I'll try and think faster and coach my alliance to use the end of the trident to dig it out of the goal instead of e-stopping and come right back fighting again.

[MamaSpoldi]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

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.

Originally Posted by thefro526

And, a large portion of this debate stems from a post that was subsequently deleted, stating that the intend was to shove 1501 into the goal and have them stay there.

Speaking as a member of Team 230 a partner of Team 1501 in that alliance, I must agree that if it was completely legal they would not tell you you would get a red card next time. In particular it was indicated that the only reason you did not get it initially was because they did not see you do it. This was very much not GP, it made me sad to read the subsequently-deleted post stating that your driver was proud of doing it.

Originally Posted by shortone1320

being with gaelforce...one of their alliance partners...
-it was good defense, you gotta give them that(slightly biased i know lol )
-they did threaten a red card(i do recall hearing)
-and you have to remember it is a new england regional... these regionals are known to be aggressive and destructive...last year we were the victum of some aggression when our robot was drilled in the front destroying our front wooden bumper and bottom two rollers. nothing was given for that. but we all knew it was new england where defense is everything. the only reason we won the ct regional last year was because of defense(thank you 1902 ) the teams in new england all build very durable robots for this reason.

i do believe their will be a change in rulings because of it though, i dont think the GDC thought teams would build such a small and light robot to be able to get pushed in the goal

I also hope that GDC clarifies their position on this, the rules should not change in New England because some of the teams are so big on defense.

Originally Posted by Chris_Elston

... We faked Rosie out several times in the SEMI 1 by traversing the tunnel and playing possum in SEMI 2 which seemed to work, so not all was lost, much needed driver experience was learned from Rosie and how to deal with driving under much pressure.

Our lesson is to learn by these experiences and move on. The most poetic thing was we had a ball in the front when we went into the goal, which was the tie game ball 6-6. Ball first, then robot next.

The triangle design was mostly contributed by the kiwi and 3-wheel drive system along if a robot was pushing us bumper to bumper we would be angled at the goal to make a clear shot anyway. We never thought about fitting into the goal. Small in foot print was by design as we noted Brazil's robot was the best scoring robot at CT we felt and deserved the Gold along with Uberbots. We clearly as a team felt good to be in the finals and wanted to go to Atlanta, put up a great fight with the best team we have ever worked with to date, Gaelhawks 230 and John Niski (230 coach) you are one amazing dude. I appreciated your willingness to work together and you have one heck of a team, we will never forget you. We are certainly honored to meet you and your team. Thanks for the great New England experience.

So before this thread gets too out of hand, there is no reason for anyone to analyze if Rosie did right or wrong, or if we are upset or not because I have written to tell you where we stand.

My students follow and learn from experiences this is how I lead them always in positive ways. They learn by losing, they learn by bad luck, they learn by improving, they learn the dumb FRC rules we all learn to not like, they learn how to cope with defeat, and learn how to overcome. These are all the things this 2010 season has brought us. These experiences can not be learned unless examples like these are set.

I also agree with Chris here... and thank him for pointing out that in real life things are not always fair and we all need to teach our students to deal with those situations. There are many, many lessons to be learned in FIRST... often times they are beyond the technical aspects of the competition.

It was great meeting you and working with your team. (I personally noticed and LOVED the fake outs that had the defense confused. ) We were a great alliance - unfortunately just not quite good enough in the end to get you that blue banner.

We hope to see you in CT again... maybe next year???

[cooker52]

I was watching on the side when our robot was scored into the goal (the flood of photographers was quite amusing). The first thing that flew through my mind was "how in the world is that possible?" Before we started any regional we went and put our robot into the goal to see if it was even possible and if we could get out. We knew before hand the risk. Personally I never expected it to happen (unless 1024 was going to do it for us).

Rosie was a tough defense. We had seen something close to it in our semifinals at Purdue, which was when we decided if we went any further we would need a righter device. Aside from the penalty at :33, I don't believe any other penalty was deserved. As the discussion has brought up, the rules say it is legal to be in the goal. If we had attempted to, I'm sure we could have found a way to have gotten ourselves out, so I do not believe we were "entangled" in any way, just unluckily sitting on our base rather than our wheels.

I personally inspected our robot right after that match and found no major problems with the robot. We had a tough time getting the bumpers off of our robot and a couple of decent dents on two of our sides, nothing that goes to show that they were intentionally trying to shut us down permanently.

I believe that Rosie was giving us a fight for our money and did so successfully. Rough housing isn't against the rules (but I wouldn't mind the high speed ramming rule to come back) and as has been stated, our teams shook hands after that match.

Thank you Team Rosie for giving us the fight of our year during those semifinals. It was great playing against you.

[billbo911]

What I find a bit humorous about this really has nothing to do with the rules or GP. To me what I find funny is, our team had placed a sticker on the inside of our Drivers Station that read "Robots are not Points!". This was placed there as a reminder/joke for our driver this year.
You see, during practice in our lab, her jammed the robot into the goal three times, literally blowing it apart each time.

"Robots are not Points" is now one of our team motto's.

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by cooker52

I was watching on the side when our robot was scored into the goal (the flood of photographers was quite amusing).

I'm proud to say I was part of that flood of photographers. Here are a few of the shots I got-

(Click for larger versions)