Rosie stuffs Thrust

[Rosiebotboss]

Rosie stuffed Thrust into the goal at the CT Regional during semi final match 3 (which tied at 6-6).

A triangular robot into a triangular goal...let's see if it fits! Easily the most talked about play during the elims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhzVK20i5uo

[Chickenonastick]

Interesting, was the red alliance robot disabled by mechanical issues or by default for unsafe play?

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by robotking

No actually while i was driving i went back and hit them again to make sure they would stay in and the main breaker popped and i lost power cause of our 4 cims heating up, and it was legal to do that, just they said if i did it again i would be red carded

if it was legal, why were they going to red card you?

[SafetyGracie]

Originally Posted by robotking

No actually while i was driving i went back and hit them again to make sure they would stay in

I really don't know how to feel about that statement....

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by SafetyGracie

I really don't know how to feel about that statement....

im not sure how i would feel about it either

[AcesJames]

Up until CT this weekend, I'd never seen Rosie play defense....and I'd hardly ever seen a team play such aggressive defense...

I'm not calling anyone on Rosie out, and getting into the game is always a good thing, but remember GP, and always treat other robots as you'd like yours to be treated.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by AcesJames

Up until CT this weekend, I'd never seen Rosie play defense....and I'd hardly ever seen a team play such aggressive defense...

I'm not calling anyone on Rosie out, and getting into the game is always a good thing, but remember GP, and always treat other robots as you'd like yours to be treated.

Reading this I was reminded of 494 in 2004. Their defense was legal (except when they hit 1501 when they were trying to self right) but a little more aggressive than most.

I agree it wasn't the NICEST move but it was effective and didn't damage the robot in any way correct?

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Reading this I was reminded of 494 in 2004. Their defense was legal (except when they hit 1501 when they were trying to self right) but a little more aggressive than most.

I agree it wasn't the NICEST move but it was effective and didn't damage the robot in any way correct?

we are questioning whether the robot was actually ok... we are questioning the legality of the move and why they were so proud as to put a video up of it.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by cziggy343

we are questioning whether the robot was actually ok... we are questioning the legality of the move and why they were so proud as to put a video up of it.

Did the refs call it? Then it was legal. Was it a NICE move? Probably not. But they did not intentionally destroy 1501's robot. I have heard their defense in other matches was less nice but regarding the issue at hand I feel that since the refs did not call any penalty they felt it was within the spirit of the rules.

EDIT: I do agree that they should have been called for tipping

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Did the refs call it? Then it was legal. Was it a NICE move? Probably not. But they did not intentionally destroy 1501's robot. I have heard their defense in other matches was less nice but regarding the issue at hand I feel that since the refs did not call any penalty they felt it was within the spirit of the rules.

EDIT: I do agree that they should have been called for tipping

but i dont think that you can automatically say that just because the ref didn't call it that it was legal. refs miss calls all the time.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by cziggy343

but i dont think that you can automatically say that just because the ref didn't call it that it was legal. refs miss calls all the time.

Really? I can see a ref missing a touch that lasts a second but when a robot ends up in a part of the field most robots avoid with another robot in front of them it is pretty obvious what happened. There are calls that are easy to miss (intentional tipping/carrying) but there are calls that are so obvious that the ref is either blind or completely inept. Since I highly doubt that all of the refs at the event were blind or inept I have to go with it is legal.

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Really? I can see a ref missing a touch that lasts a second but when a robot ends up in a part of the field most robots avoid with another robot in front of them it is pretty obvious what happened. There are calls that are easy to miss (intentional tipping/carrying) but there are calls that are so obvious that the ref is either blind or completely inept. Since I highly doubt that all of the refs at the event were blind or inept I have to go with it is legal.

if you agreed that the intentional tip was a missed call, look at the ref in the video. he is watching at that time. missed call. im not saying its terrible that it was missed, im just saying that they CAN be missed.

[samir13k]

Originally Posted by cziggy343

but i dont think that you can automatically say that just because the ref didn't call it that it was legal. refs miss calls all the time.

The real time scoring did show the score being blue (thrust) up 6-5, i went to the ref station (i am 1501's driving) and asked the ref to call the penalty, he said that they did not see it, even though there were two refs watching very closely.

Note* I talked to the ref BEFORE ELIMINATIONS and talked to him about robot righting and penalties he said "The robot will not be called for a penalty if they are trying to right the overturned robot"... and i said "So if our robot is over on its side, and they contact us from the underside, then it will be a penalty?" and he stated that i was correct. Clearly we were hit on the underside while our robot was tipped over, and the penalty wasnt called. Rosies driver was also in the question box ready to dispute any penalty that would have been called. (None were called)...

In the end, 1501's alliance did eliminate Rosies alliance after a gruesome 4th match. The robot does have some damage, the base plate has been bent and the bumper bolts have sheared through some sheet metal, but its still functional.

I did talk to some members of Rosie after the finals, and made sure everything was ok between our teams, no fueds or anything are held between our teams.

Was it legal? Yes i guess.
Would i do it to another team? Never in a million years
Do I hope the rules change for championships? Deffinately

[LLogan]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Did the refs call it? Then it was legal.

I do not understand the logic. Refs cannot possibly make correct calls in every possible situation. Just because a ref doesn't call something doesn't mean that it's legal.

<G36> outlaws any "entanglement" hazards. I would definitely consider a robot wrapped inside the chains of a goal to be an "entanglement".

When Thrust was trying to right itself at :33 and Rosie pushed it again, Rosie was, in my opinion, in direct violation of <G38a>

<G38> Prohibited ROBOT to ROBOT Contact - Except as permitted in Rule <G37>, contact is
prohibited under the following conditions:
a. Aggressive or intentional contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Violation:
PENALTY; plus a RED CARD if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT.

With the wording of this rule, I think that Rosie intentionally contacted Thrust outside of the bumper zone, meaning that this play should have resulted in at least a penalty. Whether the contact was "egregious" is an entirely different matter.

I know that during the Finals Match 1 of Palmetto, a team on my alliance (343, actually) accidentally tipped a robot, causing it to become off-balance, and then accidentally bumped into it again below the bumper zone, causing it to fall over. There was a two-second delay in between the driver's commands and the robot's actions. It wasn't even intentional, but it sure looked that way. We were red-carded for this play.

With all this being said, I am unsure if this was an entirely fair and legal play and I am even more unsure as to why this team would want to post this proudly.

[Dancin103]

This is very interesting. I do not think I have seen something like this in FIRST in a while. Made me giggle a little bit.

Cass