Rosie stuffs Thrust

[JaneYoung]

I have been riveted to my seat reading this thread and looking at all of the photos and the video. 1501 being stuffed into a goal while scoring certainly adds to their wonderful history as a team. I can only imagine the lessons learned on so many levels for the teams involved and it is good to see that the teams involved have such excellent attitudes about the experience. Weighing the pros and cons of a design and making decisions and living with them while continuing to improve during the season - is part of the challenge. Understanding and playing by the rules is another part of the challenge.

Thank you, Chris Elston, for sharing your insight and wisdom regarding the experience. It reflects well on you and on 1501.

Jane

[TubaMorg]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

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.

I have to agree with Daniel here. There seems to be an awful lot of rule inventing in an effort to castigate Rosie. If I build a shoe box sized robot, do I get extra protection from all the mean 120 lbs robots? I hope not.

I will even go farther and say that the ":33 sec" bump may not even be a penalty. I saw Rosie tip an unstable robot on its side then move away. As it moved back, 1501 simultaneously actuated its righter and landed back into Rosie, causing them to retip. Despite the hot air bravado post, I think Rosie's driver played a good and stiff (but measured) defense. Retrospectively he let his mouth (er fingers) run a little too much which is why I assume he took his posts down. If his intent had been to disable 1501, he could have easily continued the tip onto it's back. Instead he left to go play defense elsewhere until 1501 was active again.

I say keep up the good work Rosie. You built a nice strong robot, use it to your advantage.

[EricH]

Daniel, under <T05>, a ref can assign a yellow card for "egregious robot behavior". If you told the team that they shouldn't do something (like push another team up the bump, knowing that they couldn't get off), and they did it anyway, the refs could bring out the yellow--the team knows that the refs could call that egregious behavior, and should try to avoid that.

The contact with a robot trying to right itself is a minimum of a penalty if it's inadvertent and a red card if it's intentional. I haven't watched the video yet, so I'll hold off on making that call until (and assuming) I see it. <G37-c-ii> does not apply if the robot is righting themselves, so that's a penalty and possibly a red card if contact was made intentionally or damages the robot substantially. (From the descriptions, penalty only would be the likely call.)

Stuffing a robot into the goal is less clear. I've seen mecanum robots go sideways into the goal under the influence of another robot and not be able to come out because their wheels on one side of their drivetrain were below the lip. No penalty was ever called. It's possible to get a yellow card, depending on how loosely <G36> is interpreted, specifically the "entanglement" part. Apparently, a robot stuffed in a goal and not able to get out is not considered "entangled", therefore, no penalty. This may change for the Championships, but we'll see about that tomorrow or next week.

In short, there was at least one possible penalty/red card for the hitting a tipped robot and a clean play that should not have netted a penalty or a card unless it was consistently repeated.

[efoote868]

I think one of the biggest compliments a team can receive for their robot is the fact that other alliances are forced to change their style of play.

1501's greatest strength is also a weakness. Their small, swift, light robot is just that - small, swift, and light.

[JohnBoucher]

I hope the interest in this thread translates into a very full and competitive field next year. It is a great regional. Aggressive and fair. Come to play

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by TubaMorg

I will even go farther and say that the ":33 sec" bump may not even be a penalty. I saw Rosie tip an unstable robot on its side then move away. As it moved back, 1501 simultaneously actuated its righter and landed back into Rosie, causing them to retip. Despite the hot air bravado post, I think Rosie's driver played a good and stiff (but measured) defense. Retrospectively he let his mouth (er fingers) run a little too much which is why I assume he took his posts down. If his intent had been to disable 1501, he could have easily continued the tip onto it's back. Instead he left to go play defense elsewhere until 1501 was active again.

From the video alone, you should be able to see Rosie drive toward 1501 as it began the righting action. I saw it in person too. They didn't "leave to go play defense", 1501 played possum to get them to stop defending.

This is something they agree on and the refs missed. No big deal overall, but what happened happened and it changed the outcome of the match.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

I hope the interest in this thread translates into a very full and competitive field next year. It is a great regional. Aggressive and fair. Come to play

Well, if you're going to use this opportunity to drum up some business, you should take advantage of Rosie's annual Ziti Dinner, too.

You could advertise and say:
Come one come all to Rosie's World Famous Ziti Dinner and get stuffed.
--
Sorry - there are just way too many opportunities to pass up here.

Jane

[JohnBoucher]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Well, if you're going to use this opportunity to drum up some business, you should take advantage of Rosie's annual Ziti Dinner, too.

You could advertise and say:
Come one come all to Rosie's World Famous Ziti Dinner and get stuffed.
--
Sorry - there are just way to many opportunities to pass up here.

Jane

Good thing it's not a blood drive!

[Dancin103]

This is very interesting. I do not think I have seen something like this in FIRST in a while. Made me giggle a little bit.

Cass

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by EricH

Daniel, under <T05>, a ref can assign a yellow card for "egregious robot behavior". If you told the team that they shouldn't do something (like push another team up the bump, knowing that they couldn't get off), and they did it anyway, the refs could bring out the yellow--the team knows that the refs could call that egregious behavior, and should try to avoid that.

The contact with a robot trying to right itself is a minimum of a penalty if it's inadvertent and a red card if it's intentional. I haven't watched the video yet, so I'll hold off on making that call until (and assuming) I see it. <G37-c-ii> does not apply if the robot is righting themselves, so that's a penalty and possibly a red card if contact was made intentionally or damages the robot substantially. (From the descriptions, penalty only would be the likely call.)

Stuffing a robot into the goal is less clear. I've seen mecanum robots go sideways into the goal under the influence of another robot and not be able to come out because their wheels on one side of their drivetrain were below the lip. No penalty was ever called. It's possible to get a yellow card, depending on how loosely <G36> is interpreted, specifically the "entanglement" part. Apparently, a robot stuffed in a goal and not able to get out is not considered "entangled", therefore, no penalty. This may change for the Championships, but we'll see about that tomorrow or next week.

In short, there was at least one possible penalty/red card for the hitting a tipped robot and a clean play that should not have netted a penalty or a card unless it was consistently repeated.

I'd suggest you watch the video, it's interesting, enlightening, and exciting.

I don't see <T05> coming into play as Pinning a team against the goal is no different than pinning a team against the side wall, with the exception that a team (through design) may not be able to get out of the goal on their own. I've seen much worse hits this year against the walls of the field with not a peep from the crowds here .

<G37-c-ii> is not in force because 1501 was trying to self right. <G32> may be enforced depending on if the ref believed Rosie initiated the contact or the contact was initiated by 1501s self righting mechanism, and whether or not the ref beliieved the contact was intentional. I cannot say what the ref was seeing/thinking but from the video I'd say Rosie should have recieved a penalty for inadvertant contact.

<G36> is specifically for Robot-to-Robot contact and therefore should not be enforced should the field entangle a robot. Also 1501 was not entangled, but instead was high centered.

[EricH]

Daniel, I specifically called out the "egregious behavior". If a bully continually stuffed you into a locker, despite warnings from school administration, that's egregious behavior. If Rosie had, in subsequent matches, stuffed 1501 into the goal again, that would be egregious behavior if the refs had said something to them about not doing that. That would warrant a yellow card. It's almost the same as if a robot has a nasty habit of flying off the bump and landing on an opponent on the other side "unintentionally".

I thought that I'd made it quite clear that <G37-c-ii> did not apply because the robot is righting itself. Apparently, some people have a hard time understanding what I write.

Again, the penalty or red card would depend on what exactly happened. The fact that there wasn't either with the refs watching is disappointing, or it indicates that 1501 initiated the contact (at which point, there should have been a penalty anyway under the rule that prohibits robots from interacting with balls or other robots while righting themselves or a partner, just going the other way).

I stated that it would have to be a very loose interpretation of <G36>. It's one that would be so loose that any ref with that interpretation would probably be overruled by the Head Ref on the spot the first time it happened. Also, if a robot caused another robot to tangle with the field, then that might be grounds for calling it, assuming that it was done routinely (intent to entangle).

Again, penalty or red card possible for the contact with a tipped robot, no penalty for the goal-stuffing unless it was done repeatedly.

[Pausert]

Originally Posted by Dancin103

This is very interesting. I do not think I have seen something like this in FIRST in a while. Made me giggle a little bit.

Cass

What's something "like this"? I thought everyone going into panic mode with loosely defined factions was normal for CD...

[cooker52]

Originally Posted by efoote868

I think one of the biggest compliments a team can receive for their robot is the fact that other alliances are forced to change their style of play.

1501's greatest strength is also a weakness. Their small, swift, light robot is just that - small, swift, and light.

I completely agree, the more you have to change your strategy, the better the game! We had to change our strategy and play a new way against Rosie, and it worked for a few points until they came back.

[MikeE]

I watched the match from the sidelines and was surprised there was no penalty called by the Referees for pushing 1501 into the goal, since at the time it looked to me like the defense crossed the line from "spirited" into over-aggressive. (In my younger years I used to referee a very physical contact sport so I'm familiar with policing that particular line, albeit when player safety was at risk.)

In hindsight after watching the video several times I don't see a egregious violation of any specific rule, so I'm not critical of the lack of penalty. Equally, if a penalty had been called, I would not be arguing that it was undeserved.

Finally, perhaps it's the context of a well established New England team against visiting team from a historically strong region, but the choice of thread title also seems unnecessarily provocative.

[Chris Fultz]

We played with and against 1501 at BMR. They were very quick and quick to score, and we noticed they got very close to going into the goal when scoring sometimes.

One of our alliance partners specifically asked the refs about "what if they got pushed into the goal when they were scoring?". The response was if it happened once it would probably be considered inadvertent contact, and no penalty. If it happened twice, it would probably be considered intentional and a yellow card.