Rules G-30 and G-18-1

[DjScribbles]

Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE .

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

Emphasis mine. I don't think you should ever be called for a technical foul if you are pushing a robot out of your way, regardless if it causes a foul; and I think it can be argued pretty effectively with a reasonable person. If you are pushing the opponent away from you, your goal is to get clearance to shoot (or to get to the other side of the field). If the referee chooses not to penalize your opponent that is understandable, but you should not be penalized if you have strategic intentions beyond causing foul points against your opponent.

If you repeatedly tap your opponent to score foul points as a deterrent, that is one thing, but if you are pushing them hard and physically getting them out of the way, then I don't think G18-1 should apply.

[2789_B_Garcia]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I think the best bet is to ask the Head referee how they are going to call it.
I can see it go either way...

We went to Lubbock in week 1 as a defensive robot that can hang and made it to finals. The ref crew was great, and did a good job of explaining ambiguities in the rules at the drivers meeting at the beginning of the regional, provided my drivers with some scenarios and explained how certain situations would be ruled. I can't sing their praises highly enough.

The next week we went to Houston, fresh off of going to finals and thinking we understood the rules, but the ref crew there interpreted the rules differently and we racked up some fouls early on. We had to drop half of our defensive strategies, but in the end, things still worked out for us.

This week we are heading to San Antonio for the Alamo regional, and we decided to make a play book with questions for the ref on how certain situations may play out. We've keyed out 7 primary defensive zones and have written down questions for the head ref on how specific rules will play out based on robot interactions we've seen. Our plan is we will ask these questions right off the bat and decide then which strategies are viable, and which are too risky. You might want to consider doing the same.

[Mr. Lim]

I seems like we've been playing Q&A tag with team 948 all season long!

I know you have seen all these already, and it was 948 who posed some of these questions, but here some of the Q&As that have been asked regarding these rules.

Q183:
Q. Rule G18-1 says that forcing the opposing ALLIANCE into a penalty is “not in the spirit of FRC and [is] not allowed” whereas G30 dictates: “regardless of who initiates the contact, a ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOT touching the carpet in its LOADING ZONE." Which rule will predominate?

A. If the Team is employing a strategy that tries to take advantage of [G30], [G18-1] takes precedence.

Q255:
Q. If our robot is in our protected loading zone and an opposing robot places itself directly in front of us such that we cannot leave the protected area without intentially striking the other robot (causing a penality), which robot is penalized?

A. The purpose of this forum is to answer specific questions about specific Rules. We cannot comment absolutely on hypothetical situations. With that said, if a ROBOT is perceived as trying to leave a protected area to play the game, this will not be considered a violation of [G18-1]. Conversely, if a ROBOT repeatedly rams an opponent ROBOT, drawing penalties on that ROBOT, even though there's a clear egress from the area, that would be considered a violation of [G18-1].

Q256:
Q. If we are actively shooting full-court shots from our protected loading zone and another robot attempts to defend against us and we push the other robot away to create space to shoot either with our robot's body or an extension, which robot will be penalized?

A. The purpose of this forum is to answer specific questions about specific Rules. We cannot comment absolutely on hypothetical situations. If contact in a protected area is made as an attempt to play the game, it will not be a violation of [G18-1]. Conversely, if a ROBOT repeatedly rams an opponent ROBOT, drawing penalties on that ROBOT, even though there's a clear egress from the area, that would be considered a violation of [G18-1].

Q347:
Q. With reference to Q255: "With that said, if a ROBOT is perceived as trying to leave a protected area to play the game, this will not be considered a violation of [G18-1]." In this case, can you confirm that the opposing alliance will still be penalized per [G30]?

A. The purpose of this forum is to answer specific questions about specific rules. We cannot comment absolutely on hypothetical situations. Generally, if [G18-1] is not violated during a violation of another Game Rule (e.g. [G30]), the violation of that Game Rule (i.e. [G30]) will be enforced.

Q348:
Q. With reference to Q256: "If contact in a protected area is made as an attempt to play the game, it will not be a violation of [G18-1]." Where a referee has determined that contact to create space to shoot satisfies the above condition, will the opposing alliance be penalized per [G30]?

A. The purpose of this forum is to answer specific questions about specific rules. We cannot comment absolutely on hypothetical situations. Generally, if [G18-1] is not violated during a violation of another Game Rule (e.g. [G30]), the violation of that Game Rule (i.e. [G30]) will be enforced.

I have my interpretation, but I am also not the ref who will be calling our matches, so YMMV:

1) If there is contact while you are protected, a penalty will be called one way or the other no matter what (either from G18-1 or G30). There should be no unpenalized contact - so someone will be getting points every time a protected robot and an opponent touch.

2) If your robot was "perceived as trying to leave a protected area to play the game" or the contact was otherwise "made as an attempt to play the game" the penalty will go against your opponent. This is where the ambiguity lies. Is pushing an opponent away to clear space for your full court shot "an attempt to play the game?" I'd like to say so...but again YMMV.

3) If the same situation happens over and over again, the penalties should be assessed the same way... over and over again. I don't see anything in the rules or Q&A which say "for the first X incidents it will be called one way, then automatically after that, it will be called differently." If you legitimately try and push an opponent back to clear space 30 times a match, and it's called a penalty on the opponent the first time, I would expect it to be called that way the 2nd-30th time as well.

[MrJohnston]

We had several conversations with the Head Referee at Seattle in order to get clarification. He was fantastic - and acknowledged the "gray areas" in the rules. We did not get a final answer until he had at least two long conversations with the other officials.

Here is what theycame up with:
* If we are in our protected feeder zone, all contact between us and an opponent would be called as a foul on the opponent - unless it was clearly obvious that we were only trying to draw fouls. He understood that we needed to line up perfectly with the feeder so that we could hit our three's as fast as we could load and that we, therefore, would wiggle about a bit. He also understood that if a taller robot was in front of us that we would need to clear it out in order to open our a shot - again, not trying to draw fouls, just shoot Frisbees.

* If we push a tall robot over the autoline, it would be its responsibility to drop beneath 60" unless, again, we are clearly looking to draw a foul. I instructed our drive team to only push forward (possibily pushing a tall defender across the line) if they had a full hopper and were going to line up for a shot.

It worked out quite well as the rules were clear. I do hope that such clarity is continued at other events.

[chmconkling]

I was a referee at North Carolina and we had this exact situation. What we called it as, as long as you are still "protected" you can hit somebody, they get the penalty. It goes back to last year with the bridges at champs. You put yourself in the situation on getting penalized, thats your fault.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

We are a tall full-court shooter. Our favorite activity is shooting 3's from the protected loading zone. A 60" robot can block us by stationing itself very close to us - inches away. If we push it back from us so as to clear a shot, are we called for the foul or is the other robot?

I'm not a referee, but I'll state my opinion anyway. The defender should get called for the 3 point penalty by default. The referee should only call a technical for G18 if it's obvious that the full court shooter is trying to abuse the G30 penalty. In this case, I don't think it would be obvious which of the following the full court shooter is trying to do:
A) Push the defender off of their position to get a clear shot
B) Get out of the feeder station to switch strategies
C) Force a G30 penalty

Choices A and B are legal strategies that certainly would not warrant a G18 penalty. From the perspective of the referee, there's significant uncertainty as to the shooter team's strategy, and I think one has to go out on a limb somewhat to call the G18 technical.

Let's say the shooting robot has no discs in its hopper, and the defensive robot is not moving. The shooting robot repeatedly drives forward and back to "tap" the defending robot a bunch of times in a row. That seems like a good time to call a G18.

If I'm the defensive driver, I don't want to park so close to the shooter that I get a penalty if they drive three inches forward. The defensive robot driver should be aware of the risk of sitting there, and park a few inches farther away if that risk is unacceptable.

[JesseK]

The conundrum that the GDC won't officially acknowledge with this combination of rules is that it's impossible for referees to judge intent. If intent could be captured, no penalty points should be assigned to either alliance in MrJohnston's scenario.

Yet let's take that a step further. In the end, 948 still loses since it's neither getting its full-court shots in nor is the other alliance gaining 948 any points via assigned penalties. Perhaps that's the most compelling reason the GDC won't address it directly: a ruling could further confuse things while the outcomes of matches would mostly remain the same.

Solution: If a FCS doesn't want to be blocked, it needs to find a different strategy. However, it's been noted around these forums that a FCS can easily tie up a defender that would otherwise be on a pyramid-cycling robot. So YMMV depending on the alliance.

[MrJohnston]

Jesse,

I disagree: G30 clearly states that any contact in the protected zone is a foul - regardless of who initiaties it or why. This is the purpose of a "protected zone." G18-1 is what confuses the situation for us - saying that we cannot employ a strategy with the sole purpose of causing the other team to foul us.

One thing that happened in Central Washington is that robots not quite tall enough to block us would get extremely close to us. Then, as we were trying to find that "magic spot" where we could feed Frisbees into the hopper and shoot them immediately, we'd bump the other robot - making it very difficult to get into position. Fouls were not called in these cases after the few qualifications.

We simply want to understand the rules.... It's a bit frustrating because we deal with them every match. Our kids built an extraordinary robot around the concept of full court shooting and we'd rather not have abandon our primary purpose over confusion about the rules. (A legal, stout defense is another matter entirely.)

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

Jesse,

I disagree: G30 clearly states that any contact in the protected zone is a foul - regardless of who initiaties it or why. This is the purpose of a "protected zone." G18-1 is what confuses the situation for us - saying that we cannot employ a strategy with the sole purpose of causing the other team to foul us.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing the point. The referee still has to make a judgement call as to whether or not your bumping of the other robot is intended to get the other robot a foul, which in turn would give you a technical foul if that's the case. The confusing part would be the repeated nature of your bumping the other robot. It's 100% subjective (IMO) and difficult for the GDC to resolve without further confusion or ambiguity. The only reprieve is to tell the refs about your intent ahead of time, supposing they have the bandwidth to listen.

We're going to find out this week how much of a bid deal it is (waiting for a Week 5 event is ... nerve racking to say the least)

[peirvine]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

Likewise, if a 80" tall robot stations itself in front of us and we push it across its autoline en route to our pyramid (to shoot), are we called with a technical? Or is it?

It will be you who is asses the technical foul, as you are causing them to be out of their auto zone (as per the Minnesota North Star Regional and the Minnesota Northern Lakes Regional).

[coldfusion1279]

Originally Posted by peirvine

It will be you who is asses the technical foul, as you are causing them to be out of their auto zone (as per the Minnesota North Star Regional and the Minnesota Northern Lakes Regional).

I don't know if I agree with this assessment. I know it's the way it has been called, but why is an offensive robot being defended by a 84 inch robot also limited to how it can defend itself because you might cause the defender to incur a penalty? IMO, you should be allowed to push them across the center line, but then give them space to get back. It was called this way at our recent competition.

Hopefully FIRST steers clear of ambiguous rules in the future.

[Jeffy]

Originally Posted by coldfusion1279

IMO, you should be allowed to push them across the center line, but then give them space to get back. It was called this way at our recent competition.

Or a more "in the spirit of the rules" type ruling might be to not penalize the tall bot, as long as they can be seen to be making an effort (not necessarily progress) towards getting back into the zone.
This weekend I saw 701 push multiple bots out of the auto zone so 2169 could shoot, and then 701 would limit the blockers motion to the other side of the field. The entire time, the blocker bot was receiving penalties.

It seems that if you want to be a blocker this year, you better have a clear superiority in traction. Or, alliances ought to just ditch this whole FCS thing because they risk calls (usually wrong if you ask me) being made against them too.

note: I also saw some misinterpretations of the pinning rule involving trying to block FCS, but this seems to be an isolated incident.

I'd really like to a few of the teams that have been successful using the question box to explain how they did it. I think that could help a lot of teams.

[MrJohnston]

We found that the best time to deal with these questions - in the question box - was the day before teh competition started, even before the drivers' meeting. By doing so, we had ample time to actually discuss concerns with the head referee and get clarity. In Seattle, he was great: He acknowledged the ambiguity in the rules and gave us a straight answer. He then had a couple of long discussions with his referee team and got back to us with a changed opinion.

The key part of the G18-1 rule is that, in order to be slapped with a technical, a robot must be adopting a tactic that has the SOLE purpose of trying to draw a foul.

We told the ref that were were a full court shooter and that our game was largely based around cross-court shots and makign sure that we had an open line of fire. When faced with an 84" defender, we would have challenges (duh).... We told him taht we would then want to push ourselves up across the autoline where the tall robot could not go so that we would have a clear shot. He agreed that, as long as we had Frisbees in our hopper and were going to shoot when getting to the line, we clearly had a purpose other than to draw the technical and that it would become the tall robot's responsibility to not cross teh autoline. Of course, if we were to manuever in such a way that the tall robot could not get back, the technical woudl be on us.

We also discussed the contact around the protected feeder. I did learn that one of hte questions on the referee-qualification-quiz asks whether or not a foul should be assessed every time there is contact in the protected zone. The answer is YES. Unless the protected robot is doing something for the SOLE purpose of trying to draw a foul, the foul will be called against the other bot. AGain, we spoke to the referee about our challenges in lining up with the feeder and target for targeting puposes and the need to clear shots against taller robots - and we never had an issue with it. The only question we still had was, "How many times can another robot foul us in the protected zone before it becomes a technical?"

We intend to have a simliar conversation with the referees at St. Louis so that we know the rules of engagement, so to speak. The G18-1 rulings have been called very differently at different regionals, so who knows what is going to happen at Nationals? We just want to know the rules before we start. We want it to be called once way consistently so that our drivers know what is and is not fair game.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by Jeffy

Or a more "in the spirit of the rules" type ruling might be to not penalize the tall bot, as long as they can be seen to be making an effort (not necessarily progress) towards getting back into the zone.
This weekend I saw 701 push multiple bots out of the auto zone so 2169 could shoot, and then 701 would limit the blockers motion to the other side of the field. The entire time, the blocker bot was receiving penalties.

It seems that if you want to be a blocker this year, you better have a clear superiority in traction. Or, alliances ought to just ditch this whole FCS thing because they risk calls (usually wrong if you ask me) being made against them too.

I do not fully agree. When a team creates a robot more than 60" tall, with no ability to lower itself, it accepts that it can only enter a very limited area of the field. If it is then going to block a FCS, it also most accept that the other alliance is going to desperately attempt to push it around - and, likely, out of the autozone, causing fouls. If you want to really effectively block a great FCS, you need a blocking mechanism that can be lowered - which many teams have done quite well. HOWEVER, once teh tall robot has been pushed out and is trying to get back, it seems to me that a robot preventing it from doing so would be guilty of G18-1. (It doesn't have to allow the tall robot back where it wants... just somewhere legal.)