Rosie stuffs Thrust

[JohnBoucher]

IMHO 1501 was the class robot of the regional. In hindsight, I wish we had built that robot. Fast, accurate and agile, 1501 had all the moves.
It was terrific meeting all of them. We were very happy to have them in the house.
I agree that Rosie contacted the underside, but they backed off. More importantly it was bumper to bumper all the way into the goal.

[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)

[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???

[carolynn4848]

Originally Posted by SafetyGracie

I really don't know how to feel about that statement....

...Neither do I....

[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.

[GBilletdeaux930]

My thoughts on this are that everything (except that underside blow) they did was legal and fell under the definition of GP.

Being the big defensive robot at Wisconsin, I've found that the community creates a very fine-line between defense and over-aggression that eliminates our ability to compete to our fullest.

Pushing 1501 into the goal was an amazing strategic move. They backed off for a second to make sure they weren't shoving them through to endanger the human player. Then, anticipating 1501 to come back out, they moved forward again to combat them. No different then pinning.

There is nothing wrong with this maneuver. It is just plain, good defense. The way you guys are arguing is telling me that teams that play defense should back off a bit so the offensive teams have a better chance of scoring. We spent 6+ weeks building a robot that directly combats that and we have the right to compete to our fullest within the rules.

If this community allows teams to build offensive robots of the level of those like 217, 148, 1114, and 234, then why aren't we allowed to build and use defensive robots of that level?

And just for good measure, how do we feel about this match? We were in a pushing match with team 2826, and they tipped. Them and 2194, were some of the better scorers up against our alliance with not-so-good ones. So instead of allow 2194 to right 2826, we decided to play defense on them and not let them do that. They wasted the rest of the match, only scoring one more ball after that tip. Defense or overly-aggresive?

[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.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by MamaSpoldi

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.

I must disagree. The reason it is not illegal the first time is because the Referees don't expect the drivers to know whether Robot A is going to get stuck in the goal when Robot B pushes him in.

The reason it IS illegal the second time is because the Referees expect you to understand that essentially removing a robot from the competition by pushing them into a goal after you KNOW what the result will be is thoroughly un-GP and can be ruled illegal a couple different ways.

In this case they were playing defense solely to disable the other robot. Pinning is one thing - shoving them in the goal and planting them there is another. There was no ball, they weren't trying to keep them out of the goal. So the second time around, it clearly should be a red card (once they know the result of putting that other robot in the goal).

[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)

[cooker52]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

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

Thank you so much Marc! I was going to hunt some of those down later today. These are some great shots, too! Thanks man!

[Chris_Elston]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

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

Did you get any TOP DOWN views?

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by GBilletdeaux930

And just for good measure, how do we feel about this match? We were in a pushing match with team 2826, and they tipped. Them and 2194, were some of the better scorers up against our alliance with not-so-good ones. So instead of allow 2194 to right 2826, we decided to play defense on them and not let them do that. They wasted the rest of the match, only scoring one more ball after that tip. Defense or overly-aggresive?

The camera work in that recording keeps cutting away so it is tough to tell exactly what happened

Did 2194 ever contact 2826 to try to right them?
If so then did 930 contact either robot within the 10 after the righting attempt started?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions then I would say 930 violated <G32> which is a penalty and possibly a Red Card. However if 930 prevented 2194 from ever getting to 2826 to start righting then that is legal (provided there was no other rule violates, pinning, etc...).

Originally Posted by 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.

It is like tower protection during the finale. You dont have to let a opposing robot get to the tower (or fallen robot in this case) but once they are there you shouldnt be in contact with them. Much like tower defence the defender is walking a fine line and should be aware of the risks of penalty and Red Card associated with their actions (not confused and mad when they violate a rule and get penalised as we have seen on this forum)

I have watched a lot of matches and at most regionals I dont see G32 being enforced. Even worse it seems like most defensive robot drivers react to an opposing robot trying to right a partner by hitting them. That should be a penalty and probably a Red Card. However, if they are not penalised it only reinforces that habit. I hope that <G32> will be a point of emphasis in Atlanta. Also, as a general strategy point, if you are defending and you flip someone (which happens a lot because the bumpers are so required to be so high off the ground this year but that is another rant) leave the flipped bot alone until they are righted, they aren't likely to score from their back. Go defend another bot (that is not righting them) or clear some balls out of the zone. You are only risking penalties by being around the flipped bot.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

The reason it IS illegal the second time is because the Referees expect you to understand that essentially removing a robot from the competition by pushing them into a goal after you KNOW what the result will be is thoroughly un-GP and can be ruled illegal a couple different ways.

Tom,

Please quote the "couple" of rules you believe Rosie broke.

*Note: Entanglement isn't one since 1501 was just high centered, not entangled. Pinning isn't one since once 1501 was in there Rosie backed off. Disablement isn't one since the robot was fully functional, just unable to move.*

... and unless you can show a rule then I challange your assertation that it is UN-GP. GP is something you strive to live by, not measure others by.

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by Chris_Elston

Did you get any TOP DOWN views?

Unfortunately I didn't, just from the side and front. I'll double check when I get home to see if I have any better perspectives from the side that show how far in the robot went. I believe the bumpers were sticking out no more than an inch, while the base stuck out 3-4".

I didn't want to intrude on the drivers station during the match, and didn't think to take any shots from behind or above after it ended (I forgot there was transparent lexan on the top of the goal). In retrospect, that would have been a great shot.