Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid

[AdamHeard]

After just seeing 1114 and 1024's amazing hybrid modes illegally impeded, i have to post this.

CMON!

If you are going to call high speed ramming in hybrid, at least be consistent and call it when teams make their hybrid drive 3 feet forward to blatantly impede in hybrid.

I've seen 1114 lose multiple matches because impeding was allowed. Even with the 10 point penalty assessed, it is cheap; 1024 and 1114 could've easily scored another 12-20 points in hybrid there.

[Branden Ghena]

I believe an update allows impeding in hybrid mode.

[AdamHeard]

Okay, based on update 2 and 5, I see that no mention of impeding exists in hybrid mode.

Still, I don't like that high speed ramming is called, when it is clearly an unintentional act, and impeding is. Also, I will be very upset to see any team get called for ramming in hybrid after they hit a robot that drove 3 feet to impede traffic in hybrid (that would not be illegal, as the 3 foot drive is attempting to get hit, and you can't draw penalties). It's a shady strategy overall.

I understand it is legal per the rules now, I'm just venting.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Okay, based on update 2 and 5, I see that no mention of impeding exists in hybrid mode.

Still, I don't like that high speed ramming is called, when it is clearly an unintentional act, and impeding is. Also, I will be very upset to see any team get called for ramming in hybrid after they hit a robot that drove 3 feet to impede traffic in hybrid (that would not be illegal, as the 3 foot drive is attempting to get hit, and you can't draw penalties). It's a shady strategy overall.

I understand it is legal per the rules now, I'm just venting.

I think one difference is that high speed ramming can cause damage to the other robots, while impeding doesn't (unless the other robot is going to fast and cannot stop). I actually like the strategy of having a defensive autonomous. I don't think they are attempting to draw ramming penalties, because that would be wrong.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I think one difference is that high speed ramming can cause damage to the other robots, while impeding doesn't (unless the other robot is going to fast and cannot stop). I actually like the strategy of having a defensive autonomous.

I think it sucks. You aren't allowed to intentionally impede anyone during teleoperated mode, so why should you be able to in hybrid?

[Uberbots]

Originally Posted by Cory

I think it sucks. You aren't allowed to intentionally impede anyone during teleoperated mode, so why should you be able to in hybrid?

What if you arent "intentionally" impeding? sure if you have an auto mode that drives forward 3 feet and stops, its impeding, but so could an auto that hits the middle wall and breaks. A rule preventing impeding during hybrid would be very subjective considering the large potential for error.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Uberbots

What if you arent "intentionally" impeding? sure if you have an auto mode that drives forward 3 feet and stops, its impeding, but so could an auto that hits the middle wall and breaks. A rule preventing impeding during hybrid would be very subjective considering the large potential for error.

I really think it's pretty obvious who has an auto mode that does something, and goes wrong, and who has an auto mode that's sole purpose is to impede other robots.

In the above situation, you could easily tell by assessing whether it stopped short of the divider, hits the divider and keeps spinning it's wheels, starts madly spinning in circles, etc.

-To anyone playing devil's advocate, an impeding team could certainly have their robot do the above things to mimic a hybrid mode gone bad, but seeing as impeding teams is already illegal, I should hope nobody would stoop to such lows.

[Vogel648]

As the robocoach of one of the teams(along with 16, bombsquad), who impeded 1114 and 1024's hybrid mode in the semi-final matches of Chicago, I would like to say, that there was concern about the legality of the strategy. We specifically asked the refs if that would be called a penalty.

Saying that a low numbered team(team 16 bombsquad) should have known better is ridiculous. The rules allowed it and it did not cause any excess risk of damage to robots or humans.

Honestly I would be fine seeing this change over to a penalty, but don't rip on us for playing with some strategy.

[AdamHeard]

Just so we are clear on what we mean by 3 feet and stop, look at what 48/16 did to 1114 in quals/elims.

They were probably under the influence it was a legal move, as this is a grayish area in the minds of most.

I believe it should be illegal, because of the Q&A ruling that states it is. However, it seemed liked very few people knew about it.

And, this argument isn't even for our own benefit; 973 has yet to run a hybrid mode on our competition bot. We have some decent modes for past robots (so were not all that behind).

[jgannon]

It sounds like there may be some confusion about what actually constitutes an impeding penalty. Please, before complaining any more about this, reread <G40>, and then review a few videos on TBA.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by jgannon

It sounds like there may be some confusion about what actually constitutes an impeding penalty. Please, before complaining any more about this, reread <G40>, and then review a few videos on TBA.

Actually, I think if you revisit the Q&A answer provided on the second page, you'll see the GDC makes no mention of "IMPEDING" as defined in the rulebook.

They simple say strategies designed to block traffic will not be permitted. In my opinion, this has no relevance whatsoever to <G40> furthermore <G40> applies only to teleoperated mode, not hybrid.

They do specifically mention that "The purpose of these modifications is not to permit the intentional blocking of the Track during Hybrid Period.", after saying that <G40> does not apply.

[Zyik]

What if a team is just beginning to develop their autonomous? If they had something that told the robot to go forwards x amount of feet to cross the first line, but somehow came out as x amount of inches, it might be seen as a "defensive autonomous" when it wasn't. If a robot hit them the first time they tested this and they didn't know it did this, should they be given a yellow card?

If they were, that would really discourage teams from attempting to write and autonomous mode in the middle of a regional. Writing code halfway through Friday is a time honored tradition, and I'd hate to see it go away.

The point being, until you see the team do this multiple times in a row, don't assume anything.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Zyik

What if a team is just beginning to develop their autonomous? If they had something that told the robot to go forwards x amount of feet to cross the first line, but somehow came out as x amount of inches, it might be seen as a "defensive autonomous" when it wasn't. If a robot hit them the first time they tested this and they didn't know it did this, should they be given a yellow card?

...

YES! FIRST has been raising the bar and aiming high for some time now. A failure to prepare should have consequences.

[Zyik]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

YES! FIRST has been raising the bar and aiming high for some time now. A failure to prepare should have consequences.

Until you give every team the same programming know how, the same resources and the same experience it is not a failure to prepare.

For example, and I love examples:
Team A might not have any mentors who know anything about code and are relying entirely on one self taught student who hasn't been able to touch the robot because it was still being built all season. They don't have many resources, especially no big sponsors who can machine things for them. Most of their code was tested on Thursday and they are still working out the kinks.

Team B has many mentors. They've been around for a little while and know all about what makes FIRST tick. They've got a couple of decent sponsors, and even have their own practice field and practice robot. They've been able to work on the code all build season and beyond. Their hybrid mode has been tested time and again, so they are able to lend a hand to Team A.

Should these two teams be judged the same? One of them has the resources, the other doesn't. This isn't a case of failure to prepare and consequences for something that you cannot change is unfair. You can hold up a bar yes, but every year FIRST has rookie teams who don't have the same advantage as the rest of us. Some veteran teams don't even have some of the resources that the rookies do. FIRST is so diverse that no one standard can encompass everyone.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Zyik

Until you give every team the same programming know how, the same resources and the same experience it is not a failure to prepare.

For example, and I love examples:
Team A might not have any mentors who know anything about code and are relying entirely on one self taught student who hasn't been able to touch the robot because it was still being built all season. They don't have many resources, especially no big sponsors who can machine things for them. Most of their code was tested on Thursday and they are still working out the kinks.

Team B has many mentors. They've been around for a little while and know all about what makes FIRST tick. They've got a couple of decent sponsors, and even have their own practice field and practice robot. They've been able to work on the code all build season and beyond. Their hybrid mode has been tested time and again, so they are able to lend a hand to Team A.

Should these two teams be judged the same? One of them has the resources, the other doesn't. This isn't a case of failure to prepare and consequences for something that you cannot change is unfair. You can hold up a bar yes, but every year FIRST has rookie teams who don't have the same advantage as the rest of us. Some veteran teams don't even have some of the resources that the rookies do. FIRST is so diverse that no one standard can encompass everyone.

I feel their pain, but...

On January - 5 of this year every team was given the same opportunity. What they did with it was up to them. Should the rules be applied differently based on the ability to follow them? Should a team be allowed to go over the weight limit because they had no way to weigh their robot? I don’t think so. The failure to prepare in your scenario could have included the failure to test in the designated practice area. They could have chosen to try it out first. They may have chosen instead to just put it on the floor in a match and make their problem a problem for everyone else. Not one team goes out there looking to get penalties. Should FIRST conclude that, due to lack of intent, no rule will be enforced?

What we need here is a clear ruling on the matter; one without any mention of intent. IMO, if you block that far turn for any reason, you are not playing the game the way it was designed to be played. Imagine what would happen to NASCAR if they allowed roadblocks.

// OAO