Rosie stuffs Thrust

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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

[Tom Bottiglieri]

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

[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.

[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? :-)

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Rosiebotboss

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.

I do not think the refs can threaten a red card if perfectly legal actions are done again.

I'm not sure if the actions were legal or not. But when the refs say 'if you do it again, it will be a red card,' I wouldn't feel confident calling the actions legal.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Nigel]

I think we all agree that the hit during the self righting mode aka contact under the robot was a bit shady/very illegal...

My question is why is everyone giving so much flak about pushing THRUST into the goal? THRUST designed their robot so that it was a triangular robot... which was small enough to fit in the goal........... AND their shooter was on one of the points............... to me... they're asking for it are they not? in my mind it is obvious that a simple push from behind sticks the triangle which is point first into the perfect little cubby hole for it... the goal... It's like when a mechanum robot would play defense on us... are we not supposed to take advantage of their design? we had plaction wheels and pushing gearboxes... we literally back into one defender and moved him across the floor... we got no criticism for this because we were simply trying to do our role as best we could while taking advantage of any and all possible facets of the opponent's design... if we were a smaller robot/a triangle we would have been stuck in the goal many many times when we scored and our defender hit us from behind, except we shot down both those ideas quickly for stability's sake and for the fact that the goal is a perfect fit for storing our robot during the match if we use a triangle frame

All in all my $.63 adds up to a penalty and a yellow for the tipping issue and a pat on the back and applause for Rosie for taking advantage of an aspect of THRUST's design.