[FTC]: Issue in Get Over It! Rules?

[alphadog0309]

alright so i have found an issue in the rule book and i wonder if this seems right to you guys....

on pg. 10, under game definitions (2.3) the definition of Possess / Possessing a Baton reads as follows:

"A robot is said to be Possessing a Baton if any part of the Baton is in
contact with the robot."

this implies that if the robot is driving over a baton, it will count as being possessed therefore pushing a team over the maximum of 5 possessed batons, causing a 5 point penalty PER BATON IT DRIVES OVER. This is because to me it seems as if a robot that is driving over a baton therefore is in contact with the baton. Any thoughts?

[Chris is me]

That's the natural conclusion you draw from the rules, but there's nothing else in the rules that implies that the game wasn't meant to be ruled that way... Ask the Q&A. I doubt it was a mistake but you can't be too careful.

[PhilBot]

The flip side of this is is the robot is holding 10 battons in a hopper, but only 5 of the battons are actually touching the robot (and the other 5 are supported by those 5) then is this legal?

[team F.T.C 4240]

read this rule from 2.4.4 <G10> states that The actions of an Alliance or their robots shall not cause an opposing Alliance or robot to break a rule and thus incur penalties. Any rule violations committed by the affected Alliance shall be excused, and no penalties will be assigned.

[alphadog0309]

That's the natural conclusion you draw from the rules, but there's nothing else in the rules that implies that the game wasn't meant to be ruled that way... Ask the Q&A. I doubt it was a mistake but you can't be too careful.

well that is what i thought... the idea would be that the opponents batons would not draw a penalty but driving over your own might, which means that there would be a penalty if you dropped any batons. if this was intentional, it will really suck if you have a crappy alliance partner who drops their batons..... or you would have to build some method of sweeping batons up or out of the way or outright picking them up. the specifics of this rule would change certain strategies when it comes to alliance picking as well because a robot that never drops any batons would be a much better partner than a robot that has dropped some and become a liability to the other robots on the alliance.

read this rule from 2.4.4 <G10> states that The actions of an Alliance or their robots shall not cause an opposing Alliance or robot to break a rule and thus incur penalties. Any rule violations committed by the affected Alliance shall be excused, and no penalties will be assigned.

that only helps if you accidentally drive over an opponents baton but if you drive over your own then that means that you have broken the rule

[Mike o.]

Originally Posted by alphadog0309

that only helps if you accidentally drive over an opponents baton but if you drive over your own then that means that you have broken the rule

I would direct everyone to Rule <SG3>:
Robots may only contact and use the Baton Dispensers of their corresponding Alliance. Each violation of this rule will result in a penalty for the Alliance. Batons that have been dispensed and land on the field mat can be possessed and scored by any robot.

And also to the Field Construction Guide on Page 17 at point 5.1.2:
There is no scoring difference between Red and Blue batons, meaning that the red alliance can score Blue batons and vice versa. However to make field reset easier the batons will be identified with a single stripe of red or blue tape.

By deduction, it seems to me that really there is no difference in the batons besides just being able to easily identify and reset the field easily. So in all cases, there is really not your alliance's batons or your opponents batons. The only restriction is that you can only dispense batons from your own Alliances baton dispensers.

Hope this helps.

[Andrew Remmers]

I'm sorry, I can't resist.

"Get Over It" Im sure they realize this, and it is completely up to them to change it. If it is not changed it will be up to the ref to weather or not to count each "violation" of the rule. This rule was a huge discussion at our kickoff, we were told that they are talking about the rules and that could be changed, or be a little more lenient.

[VashonRobotics]

Another interesting rule to have Q&A clarify once it is open for posts:

<SG8> Robots may not intentionally lift, grasp or hold any of the Rolling Goals at any time except during the End Game. Rolling Goals may only be pushed around the field or over the Bridges, Cliffs or Mountain. Violations of this rule will result in a penalty for the team.

It sounds kind of humorous where a bot can push a rolling goal over a cliff! That of course is in direct violation of rule <SG9> where you cannot intentionally tip over a rolling goal. I don't know how a bot can push a rolling goal over the mountain or a cliff without this happening.

Looks like pushing a rolling goal is unavoidable due to where their starting positions are on the field.

[team F.T.C 4240]

Originally Posted by VashonRobotics

Another interesting rule to have Q&A clarify once it is open for posts:

<SG8> Robots may not intentionally lift, grasp or hold any of the Rolling Goals at any time except during the End Game. Rolling Goals may only be pushed around the field or over the Bridges, Cliffs or Mountain. Violations of this rule will result in a penalty for the team.

It sounds kind of humorous where a bot can push a rolling goal over a cliff! That of course is in direct violation of rule <SG9> where you cannot intentionally tip over a rolling goal. I don't know how a bot can push a rolling goal over the mountain or a cliff without this happening.

Looks like pushing a rolling goal is unavoidable due to where their starting positions are on the field.

now, what if you wanted to push you own goal to the other side so you din't need to keep going back and forth to score......

[normalmutant]

The 5-baton-only rule seems like it would make it hard on the refs to keep track. Some of the better robots will be sorting and scoring very fast, and the ref will need a sharp eye to watch for rule breakers.

Rule <SG8> isn't that restrictive. You could push the rolling goal over on the bridge and keep it on the other side where the dispensers are. The only problem is it makes sabatoge easier. The opposing alliance could just push the goal away.

Right now it sounds like the only reliable way to get points is balancing in the end game.

Some clarification or change from the designers would help a lot.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Joyride_67_1902

I'm sorry, I can't resist.

"Get Over It" Im sure they realize this, and it is completely up to them to change it. If it is not changed it will be up to the ref to weather or not to count each "violation" of the rule. This rule was a huge discussion at our kickoff, we were told that they are talking about the rules and that could be changed, or be a little more lenient.

So FIRST launched a game with a knowingly flawed rule they're going to change mid season?

Can't say I expect this game to be a smash hit.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by normalmutant

Right now it sounds like the only reliable way to get points is balancing in the end game.

This is my first impression as well. A 2nd-regression study using QFD methodologies with team competencies may prove otherwise though (i.e. an analytical approach to the scoring).

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Can't say I expect this game to be a smash hit.

Something tells me this game will be more about trying to achieve near perfection for those who want the glamor. Otherwise, I think it's a fairly complex game that has many ways for teams to score.

[Andrew Remmers]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

So FIRST launched a game with a knowingly flawed rule they're going to change mid season?

It might not be knowingly flawed. Look at breakaway for example. Rules were changed after the first week of competition. So, we never know what will happen.

I am just passing on what I remember from the Q&A at out kickoff event with a member of the GDC. The rule might be change it might not be, who knows. Or the refs might have a definition of incidental or accidental contact.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

So FIRST launched a game with a knowingly flawed rule they're going to change mid season?

It would only be flawed by your interpretation. I see this as an opportunity to develop a method of pushing a goal over a mountain or cliff without it tipping over, thus gaining an advantage over less creative teams.