Did anyone else see it this way?

[Travis Covington]

Originally Posted by Budda648

The problem is that they weren't intentional in the least. I was right there in on the sideline for those two matches. In sf-2, 107 hadn't moved their arm from their middle row scoring preset, so there couldn't have been intentional tipping with their arm. However, there isn't sufficient evidence in the video to support either opinion. In sf-3, the second match in which 254 tipped, 254 had gotten hung up on the rack trying to hang a tube. What happened, and is clear in the video on SOAP, 107 had just missed placing a tube and at the same time 254 was trying to place one on the same leg and 107's arm was stuck on the leg, when 254 started pushing on the leg it didn't move and they tipped over. There was no contact between 254 and 107 with their arms.

I'll go ahead and agree with SF2-3, but it was clearly contact outside of the bumper zone in SF2-2 that caused 254 to tip, whether it was intentional or not. I too was on the sidelines, and it was as clear as day to me. They were 5 feet away from the goal, neither robot anywhere near scoring position, and 107 had their arm straight out parrallel to the floor, extending a solid 18" outward from the front of the robot. It doesn't get any more clear than that. It has nothing to do with it being intentional or not... their arm was pointed straight out, and they proceeded to drive forward playing defense against 254. Clearly a pentalty at the very least, and more appropriately a DQ. The soap video only shows this contact for 1/2 a second or so, but it's there none the less.

[P.J. Baker]

Originally Posted by IndySam

That rule isn't any clearer.

Must not, but incidental will not be penalized.
Generaly won't be penalized?

I've gone back and forth trying to decide if this rule is clear - which leads me to conclude that it is not.

It is a catch all that should probably be listed as several rules in the future. Personally, I would like it to address the following items:

Pushing - Robots are expected to push each other during normal game play. Pushing must occur via robot to robot contact in the bumper zone. Penalties will be assessed for pushing outside the bumper zone. A DQ may be assessed at the discretion of the referee.

No fault entanglement - It is expected that robots will occasionally become entangled during normal game play. The entangled parties must attempt to become un-entangled. Penalties/DQ's will only be assessed if one party uses this situation to pull another more than is needed to break the entanglement, creating a risk for tipping or robot damage.

At fault entanglement - At the discretion of the referee, teams with robot design features and/or strategies which are considered to present an entanglement risk will be penalized if there is an entanglement during the match. Robot design features that present risk must be modified prior to that robots next match.

Pulling - Robots on opposing alliances are not expected to pull each other during normal game play. Some pulling is allowed between robots in a No Fault Entanglement. Outside of this situation, the pulling robot will be assessed and penalty and possibly a DQ.

Contact outside the bumper zone - Contact between robots outside the bumper zone is expected during normal game play as robots attempt to score on and defend against each other. However, this contact can easily lead to at fault entanglement, pushing outside the bumper zone and pulling, all of which carry penalties or DQ's. Please design your robots and strategies accordingly.

It's certainly not perfect, but it's a start and perhaps a little bit clearer. Please add, subtract and edit with your own thoughts.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Budda648

The problem is that they weren't intentional in the least. I was right there in on the sideline for those two matches. In sf-2, 107 hadn't moved their arm from their middle row scoring preset, so there couldn't have been intentional tipping with their arm. However, there isn't sufficient evidence in the video to support either opinion. In sf-3, the second match in which 254 tipped, 254 had gotten hung up on the rack trying to hang a tube. What happened, and is clear in the video on SOAP, 107 had just missed placing a tube and at the same time 254 was trying to place one on the same leg and 107's arm was stuck on the leg, when 254 started pushing on the leg it didn't move and they tipped over. There was no contact between 254 and 107 with their arms.

In SF-2

107 was not holding a ringer. 107 was not attempting to pick up a ringer .
107 was using their extended arm to push 254 up high (from the side).
107 was using their extended arm to push outside/above the bumper
zone.
254 was in possession of a ringer.
254 was moving towards the rack, presumably to score.
Neither 254 nor 107 were actively in the process of attempting to score.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z2XmhRZmMsM

<G35>Intentional ROBOT - ROBOT interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. In all cases involving robot-to-robot contact, the head referee may assess a 10-point penalty and/or the ROBOT may be disqualified.
However, Rack 'n' Roll is a highly interactive game, and some appropriate contact is allowed under the following guidelines:
[...]

• Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable, and the offending ROBOT will be assessed a 10-point penalty, and may be disqualified from the match if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT. Incidental contact will not be penalized. Contact outside the BUMPER ZONE that is a result of tipping caused by contact within the BUMPER ZONE will be considered incidental contact.
• If a ROBOT extends outside of its 28 inch by 38 inch starting footprint, it is responsible for the extension's contact with other ROBOTS and must not use the extension to contact other ROBOTS outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Likewise, other ROBOTS will not be responsible for contact with the extension outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Again, incidental contact will not be penalized.

[...]

Intention is never mentioned in the rule. Incidental, however, is (and I presume this is where many people infer the need for intention).

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

1. happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else.

Now, therefor, in order for contact to be deemed incidental, it would have to be proved unplanned and in conjunction with legal defense, or simply, an accidental side effect of legal defense. That raises the question, what is legal defense?
In pertaining to this situation, it would be the quotes outlined in <G35>, as 107 is clearly not defending a spider leg (<G36>), interacting with a game piece (<G36> and <G37>), entangling (<G38>), or pinning (<G39>). As 107s sole defensive mean (and sole means of contact with 254 period) at that moment was contact outside the bumper zone, I cannot possibly believe that it would fit the definition of incidental (meaning an subordinate side-effect of another action), and as such, must be penelized (minimum 10 point by the rule, maximum DQ).