No Penalty for causing the other team to get one?

[Lavapicker]

I don't see a rule excluding you from pushing a defending bot into the scoring zone except one that say's they will not get a penalty. Does that mean we can push a defending bot into our zone if they are blocking us? They would then have to leave the zone. I believe in the past you got a penalty for an action that could force an opposing team to get one. What about the dropping a game piece on another robot so it cannot control two at the same time situation. Is that now legal too??

[EricH]

There are no penalties assigned, period, in that situation, per <G61>. If you force your opponent into your zone or lane, despite their active opposition, they get no penalty. Now, if they were to be foolish enough to stay there after you backed off, then there probably would be a penalty, because it's now voluntary, but I don't think anybody would stick around there for very long unless their robot broke (in which case, the E-stop could be hit).

[Crusty0628]

I asked my team the same thing today, but I believe it's illegal. If it's unintentional it would be fine, but purposely pushing would be a penalty.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Crusty0628

I asked my team the same thing today, but I believe it's illegal. If it's unintentional it would be fine, but purposely pushing would be a penalty.

Can you cite the rule? Because I just cited one (<G61>) that says you need to read the 2011 manual again and refine your opinion.

[nighterfighter]

Originally Posted by Crusty0628

I asked my team the same thing today, but I believe it's illegal. If it's unintentional it would be fine, but purposely pushing would be a penalty.

Why? They were in your way. You had a stronger robot.

[Lavapicker]

exactly my point. G61 says no penalty shall be given for a bot forced to penalize but says nothing about the opposing bot that caused it, therefore, it is legal to push a defending bot into the scoring zone if you can. I agree, they would have to immediately get out or that could be considered a penalty.
Anyone have any ideas about the idea of putting tube on another robot? I know this comes up with games like this every year. We had to encase our robot in past years to avoid a ball getting stuck and thus making us unable to control another ball. It seems that placing a scoring object on opposing robots would render them useless unless they could remove it??

[GaryVoshol]

As long as I can remember, there has been a rule that robots cannot cause the other team to commit a penalty. But that did not result in a penalty for the other alliance.

In 2007, game pieces that were intentionally placed on an opponent robot were considered not to be there.

[1631JD]

Originally Posted by Lavapicker

Anyone have any ideas about the idea of putting tube on another robot? I know this comes up with games like this every year. We had to encase our robot in past years to avoid a ball getting stuck and thus making us unable to control another ball. It seems that placing a scoring object on opposing robots would render them useless unless they could remove it??

<G48> Strategies aimed at the destruction, attachment, damage, tipping or entanglement of ROBOTS, MINIBOTS, or HOSTBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Contact with another ROBOT or HOSTBOT inside it’s FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed. Violation: PENALTY, plus potential disablement and YELLOW CARD

Putting a tube on another robot is therefore not allowed

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by 1631JD

<G48> Strategies aimed at the destruction, attachment, damage, tipping or entanglement of ROBOTS, MINIBOTS, or HOSTBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Contact with another ROBOT or HOSTBOT inside it’s FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed. Violation: PENALTY, plus potential disablement and YELLOW CARD

Putting a tube on another robot is therefore not allowed

How is a tube on another robot "destruction, attachment, damage, tipping, or entanglement"?

[1631JD]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

How is a tube on another robot "destruction, attachment, damage, tipping, or entanglement"?

Accidental seems fine, like as a result of a collision but intentionally doing it to render them useless would not be allowed because you are trying to damage the bot to render them useless.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by 1631JD

Accidental seems fine, like as a result of a collision but intentionally doing it to render them useless would not be allowed because you are trying to damage the bot to render them useless.

Not necessarily. You could just be trying to make it so they can't play the game anymore - no damage intended.

(disclaimer: 2791 is not pursuing this strategy)

[1631JD]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Not necessarily. You could just be trying to make it so they can't play the game anymore - no damage intended.

(disclaimer: 2791 is not pursuing this strategy)

You can always be defense, even if you cannot score. Yet I think this rule allows for the robot with the tube on it to continue playing:

G61: The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.
Unless otherwise noted, all PENALTIES assigned by referees are applied to the entire ALLIANCE.

It wasn't their option and was caused by another team, so any penalties arising from the tube could be excused.

[GBIT]

Though I will not speak to the strict legality of it, as I haven't RTFM completely yet, I will say that both strategies, Pushing bots in to your defensive zone and capping them to render them useless, And not in the Spirit of FIRST and are most certainly not GP. I believe though on just my memory alone, which fails me from time to time, in Rack n' Roll any tube that was intentionally placed by an opposing team in order to prevent the robot to posses a tube was considered non-existant.