capping the tower

[EricH]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Right, but the action took place during teleop, and this is the big question I have, if you do something during telelop can you be penalized for it during the end game.

If I pin your robot at the end of teleop, can the penalty be called in the endgame?

If you do something during teleop and you can't be called for that action in the endgame, boy will there be a lot of pins when the lights start flashing.

It's a deliberate action taken to prevent a minibot from climbing. The rule does not say, In the End Game, you can't interfere with deployment/climbing. It says, You can't interfere, with no time limit given. So if I slam an Ubertube over your post's target autonomously, and it interferes with minibot deployment (which it probably will), and I don't get a red card, you're going to be in the question box explaining to the ref that you couldn't deploy because I slammed an Ubertube over your target. (In that case, I'd also get a penalty. But I might view the penalty as minor compared to the race points.)

Deliberate interference=red card.

[MarcD79]

RE: SteveGpage. Human player may only offer robot a tube via the designated slot. It can't be tossed into the arena over the player station.

[DavidGitz]

Originally Posted by EricH

Read the rest of the post.

1) Field reset will want to do mean things to you. They have to remove the tubes.

I understand where you're coming from, and I know that the volunteers put in a lot of work at competitions (I've been one of them), but if there is are no rules specifically saying you can't do something, and there is not an update to change that rule, it really doesn't matter what the field reset people think or not. My team is not going to design a robot based on what the field reset people think about what work will be required of them, we are going to design it to win the competition within the spirit and written word of the rules.

Obviously safety does play a big factor into this kind of thing, but if this is foreseen an update should clarify it if the GDC does indeed to believe it to be a safety issue. Otherwise the field reset people should have a ladder.

Also, I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with this idea (which I do think is a good idea, if it proves legal) but discussing this specific point.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by MarcD79

RE: SteveGpage. Human player may only offer robot a tube via the designated slot. It can't be tossed into the arena over the player station.

I'm tired of quoting the manual for today so all I will say is "Try again".

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

I'm tired of quoting the manual for today so all I will say is "Try again".

RTFM! Read the FIRST manual!

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by MarcD79

RE: SteveGpage. Human player may only offer robot a tube via the designated slot. It can't be tossed into the arena over the player station.

See <G57>

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

RTFM! Read the FIRST manual!

Haha. thanks for clarifying, that was awesome.

[Rion Atkinson]

Originally Posted by DavidGitz

I understand where you're coming from, and I know that the volunteers put in a lot of work at competitions (I've been one of them), but if there is are no rules specifically saying you can't do something, and there is not an update to change that rule, it really doesn't matter what the field reset people think or not. My team is not going to design a robot based on what the field reset people think about what work will be required of them, we are going to design it to win the competition within the spirit and written word of the rules.

Eric was a volunteer. Field reset people are volunteers. You were a volunteer. The head ref is a volunteer. We are all humans. We all read the rules, we all interpret the rules. I'm with Eric. I don't see this as being legal. And I also see it as making the field reset people mad. Who aren't exactly going to be willing to give you a sort bit longer to mess with your robot, if you're the reason they have to wrestle this tube off the tower every match.

[PAR_WIG1350]

<G48>?
Strategies aimed at the... entanglement of... MINIBOTS... are not allowed... Violation: PENALTY, plus potential... YELLOW CARD

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350

<G48>?
Strategies aimed at the... entanglement of... MINIBOTS... are not allowed... Violation: PENALTY, plus potential... YELLOW CARD

note the title of the section: "Robot-Robot Interaction"

*Section 3.1.9 GO 319!

[Grim Tuesday]

Another issue here is the definition of deployment "the act of positioning a minibot on the tower"

Well, if interfering with deployment could be considered as interfering from a robot getting in position to position the minibot on the tower.

[Zoughtbaj]

Just an observation...

Legal or not, the tower for your opponents team is not the closest to the feeder, but the farthest. The plausibility of accurately throwing an innertube that far and that high seems doubtful.

As to the rule, I seriously doubt that they would like it if you stuck an innertube over a <10ft high pole. getting it off would be a nightmare. That being said, as previously mentioned, the rule <G48> is under robot-robot interactions, not human-robot. As much as I would like it to, that doesn't seem to apply.

HOWEVER,

<G24> The opposing ALLIANCE may not interfere with the DEPLOYMENT or climbing of a MINIBOT. Violation: RED CARD

Even though this is under the end game section, in the blue box, it clarifies that

Interference by an ALLIANCE refers to any action taken by that ALLIANCE that results in disruption of the MINIBOT’s progress

which does not stipulate a time period. So my overall guess is no.

[TD912]

There's a little something called sportsmanship and Gracious Professionalism. While they may not be official rules, they are a core part of the game.

The intent of the rules is to prevent interference to minibots attempting to climb the tower.

[GaryVoshol]

Rules <G18> to <G25> apply only to the End Game. That includes the box explaining <G24>.

Pinning <G50> is in the Robot-to-Robot interaction rules section; it applies the entire match.

The only thing that could vaguely apply here is the "strategy aimed at ... entanglement" in <G48>, and then only if you consider the game piece to be an extension of the robot. The use of game pieces in <G23> and <G24> do not necessarily consider them to be extensions of the robot. Those rules also prohibit interference by thrown game pieces. Since <G48> is a robot-to-robot rule, it would not cover thrown pieces - good luck throwing them that far.

I would consider this to be a legal (although not fair) strategy, unless the GDC changes a rule or gives a Q&A response that basically says, "No, you can't do it; the rules say so."

[mwtidd]

The "fairness" of almost every innovative bot is debated almost every year.

Take 469 in 2010 as the prime example.

When the box is broken some of the greatest innovations occur.