Rosie stuffs Thrust

[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?

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by 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.

All legal robots should have at least one side that can fit in the goal. Which means that for all of our sakes we should be asking whether or not this is a legal move. I have my team drive into the goal all of the time, does this mean that a team is allowed to push my team into the goal in such a way that we cannot get out? This is a question all of us should ask.

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[samir13k]

Originally Posted by shortone1320

being with gaelforce...one of their alliance partners...
-they did threaten a red card(i do recall hearing)
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 am fine with how everything worked out in the end, but i am concerned about this... especially since it was an eliminations match...

If a play deserves a red card, then A red card should be called. There is a practice day for calls to slide by, but in eliminations, every penalty fitting should be called.

my $.02

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by shortone1320

-and you have to remember it is a new england regional... these regionals are known to be aggressive and destructive...

I know people joke about "New England Defense", but it's really the same as Midwest defense and stuff. Besides, the rules should be the same everywhere, no?

[rulesall2]

I would say G36, G37, and G40 for penalties. One of which expressly prohibits the strategy of entangling other peoples robots, and even mentions it being against the spirit of FIRST. I would put this on the border of entangling, and at the very least against the spirit of FIRST.

[shortone1320]

Originally Posted by samir13k

I am fine with how everything worked out in the end, but i am concerned about this... especially since it was an eliminations match...

If a play deserves a red card, then A red card should be called. There is a practice day for calls to slide by, but in eliminations, every penalty fitting should be called.

my $.02

thats just what we heard in the stands. and it is also one of those incidents not clearly defined in the rules...and red cards are for those infractions in direct violation of how the rules are written and since this was a gray area it dictated a warning. it may be deemed illegal in the future but idk

the entanglement rule is there for a robot having a mechanism directly designed for disabling another in competition it doesn't necessarily apply to the field of play

with that being said, your robot also scared the crap out of us...it was such a great and agile design. we were very impressed with your team's design. you guys easily could've taken the regional with your alliance(nothing against the winning alliance)

[shortone1320]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I know people joke about "New England Defense", but it's really the same as Midwest defense and stuff. Besides, the rules should be the same everywhere, no?

i totally agree, that is why i think it will be addressed in an update of the rules

[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.

[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.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I know people joke about "New England Defense", but it's really the same as Midwest defense and stuff. Besides, the rules should be the same everywhere, no?

I don't think they are. Some of our referees have been around since the days of the overcrowded Manchester high school gym. The rules might be the same on paper, but the way they get interpreted is different.

In 2007, arms got whacked all over the place at BAE. Not a single penalty was called, but IIRC this was a big source of penalties around the country.

Same thing in Triple Play (2005). There was tons of arm contact, but no (or at least very few) penalties. IMHO, it was a much more interesting game when played defensively.

At least, this was true in Manchester. BAE recently got a new head ref, so this era may be at an end. I certainly saw way more yellow/red cards this year than ever before.

[Meredith Novak]

Dana Henry is one of my favorite people in FIRST - a real hero. Chris Elston is one of my newest favorite people in FIRST - another real hero. Great job, mentors!

[Lil' Lavery]

I do not think Rosie's move to push 1501 into the goal was illegal. If you look at the greater context of the "entanglement" usage in other rules (and it's roots in the 2002 game), you can reach the conclusion that it's based on entangling another bot with your robot.

<G40> ROBOT to ROBOT Entanglement – ROBOTS may not entangle other ROBOTS. The TEAM will be required to repair the entangling elements before the ROBOT will be permitted to participate in subsequent MATCHES. Violation: Disablement if attempts to disengage are causing damage or a dangerous situation or if entanglement occurs repeatedly, plus a RED CARD if a ROBOT intentionally entangles an opposing ROBOT.

It isn't explicitly stated that's what "entanglement" means in <G36>, but my educated guess leads me to believe that's the spirit of the rule.

Originally Posted by Chris_Elston

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.

I would suggest you don't do that, as you'll receive a penalty and become disabled.

<G15> BALL Handling – BALLS may be handled by any TEAM member when BALLS are in the CORRAL or ALLIANCE STATION. BALLS may not be handled until they have exited from the BALL COUNTER and are in the CORRAL. Violation: PENALTY.

<S02> TEAM Member Safety – For reasons of personal safety, contact with ROBOTS and/or entering the FIELD are prohibited during a MATCH.
a. TEAM members may not directly contact any ROBOT at any time during the MATCH. Violation: PENALTY and Disablement.
b. TEAM members may not extend any part of their body into the FIELD during the MATCH. Violation: PENALTY.