Rosie stuffs Thrust

[Rosiebotboss]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

(this was after they tipped over, you can see their righter open)

Ok, you got me. That play should have been a penalty.

[LLogan]

Originally Posted by Rosiebotboss

Ok, here we go-

All of the contact with THRUST was legal bumper to bumper. The bumper zone this year being higher and the fact that 1501 has a triangular robot makes them easily unstable. They know that, that's why they put on the self righting arm.

The push into the goal is perfectly legal and within the rules. Ref <G22>. Triangular goal mouth, triangular robot..

However, as evidenced by :33 in the video, not all contact was within the bumper zone. Several teams in both regionals I attended, including mine, were penalized for contacting robots (intentionally and unintentionally) outside of the bumper zone. Sometimes, in very crucial matches like the finals, they were red-carded.

While the legality of pushing 1501 into the goal can be debated, surely the legality of bumping a robot in the act of self-righting cannot.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Awesome defense... probably the best I have seen. Will Rosie be at the Championship this season?

[rulesall2]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

Awesome defense... probably the best I have seen. Will Rosie be at the Championship this season?

At what point does awesome defense end and ridiculous violations of the rules begin? Unfortunately, I missed this match, but this video confirms our thoughts of Rosie being too aggressive defensively the entire year.

Regardless of weather the self righting period wad ended, Rosie made contact with a robot outside of the bumper zone.That is a cut-and-dry violation of the rules and deserved a penalty. As for stuffing the robot in the goal, it was clearly intentional, because if you look Rosie was touching the bump before they started pushing 1501, and they didn't stop until they were completely in the goal. I would not call the play entanglement, as our robot got caught on the ledge multiple times, but it may be the most un-GP play of the season.

839 is not attending the championships as of now, they could be on the wait list.

[Dantvman27]

Originally Posted by Rosiebotboss

Ok, here we go-

All of the contact with THRUST was legal bumper to bumper. The bumper zone this year being higher and the fact that 1501 has a triangular robot makes them easily unstable. They know that, that's why they put on the self righting arm.

The push into the goal is perfectly legal and within the rules. Ref <G22>. Triangular goal mouth, triangular robot.

Our style of defense during both regionals we attended was to disrupt the opposing teams aim, keeping them off the ball and denying access to a ball.

At no point during ANY match were we intentionally trying to destroy the opponents. What people do not realize is that after all of our matches we would congratulate out opponents and ask if they were broken or damaged. None replied they were, including THRUST. See the picture I posted of the two drive coaches shaking hands AFTER the match! A well fought semi final match.

We posted the video because I was asked numerous times after the play if I had video of the match that could be posted.

I like that style of defense and was exactly what this game called for in my opinion, and as you stated, it was a legal clean hit and I was surprised we didnt see it happen earlier. Great Job

Originally Posted by thefro526

Entanglement refers to the state of being entangled.

Entangled can be defined as: to make tangled; ensnarl; intertwine

I would say that according to the above definitions, Thrust was entangled in the goal, with no way of getting out.

As a person coming from a driver's background, I look at the game in a certain way. I look at pushing 1501 into the goal as an easy way to remove them from the match, because I know that they cannot get out of the goal, because I saw that they cannot even navigate the ramp going up to the goal. I would say that most people were aware of this when playing defense against Thrust.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree: you say illegal and entanglement, I say clean hit and design flaw

[Chris_Elston]

While everyone can debated whether this was legal or not. Frankly is ok with me and our team. We shook hands afterwards, joked about it. etc. There are no hard feelings. I am glad the video was posted I certainly wanted to see it again and after the match, I grabbed my Blackberry and snapped a picture of it as well and shook my head. My second thought, was 1024 Kil-o-bytes at Boilermaker joking at me they would do that, and then I see it actually happen.

Samir my driver e-stopped the robot like we were suppose to do, there was no way we can drive out of the goal with memory foam with only 1" of ground clearance. With only 1" of ground clearance, you can not push our robot UP the goal, you can not drive the robot up the ramp. So by design, it wasn't suppose to go up the goalie ramp. There was a gash in the goalie ramp carpet that had to be taped up after the stuffing.

Surely when we designed the robot, we knew a defensive robot was going to be our biggest weakness. It was a risk 1501 took to play the game as we have done. We did not have the self-righter at Boilermaker which was the first time we saw our robot tip and contribute to our upset in the semi's. As you can see our righter was very effective at the CT Regional this weekend and used SEVERAL, SEVERAL times....

GP from Rosie's team was displayed afterwards and we were welcomed by "New England Defense" early in the first quarters match we played and tipped twice in the quarters 12 (seen on our Youtube Channel) as I heard all weekend by various teams New England likes defense. Rosie played the hardest defense I have ever seen in FRC to date. If we could not withstand the defense Rosie was dishing out, then we have not designed a robot that could withstand the defense that probably will be seen in Atlanta. We faked Rosie out several times in the SEMI 1 by traversing the tunnel and playing possum in SEMI 2 which seemed to work, so not all was lost, much needed driver experience was learned from Rosie and how to deal with driving under much pressure.

Our lesson is to learn by these experiences and move on. The most poetic thing was we had a ball in the front when we went into the goal, which was the tie game ball 6-6. Ball first, then robot next.

The triangle design was mostly contributed by the kiwi and 3-wheel drive system along if a robot was pushing us bumper to bumper we would be angled at the goal to make a clear shot anyway. We never thought about fitting into the goal. Small in foot print was by design as we noted Brazil's robot was the best scoring robot at CT we felt and deserved the Gold along with Uberbots. We clearly as a team felt good to be in the finals and wanted to go to Atlanta, put up a great fight with the best team we have ever worked with to date, Gaelhawks 230 and John Niski (230 coach) you are one amazing dude. I appreciated your willingness to work together and you have one heck of a team, we will never forget you. We are certainly honored to meet you and your team. Thanks for the great New England experience.

So before this thread gets too out of hand, there is no reason for anyone to analyze if Rosie did right or wrong, or if we are upset or not because I have written to tell you where we stand.

My students follow and learn from experiences this is how I lead them always in positive ways. They learn by losing, they learn by bad luck, they learn by improving, they learn the dumb FRC rules we all learn to not like, they learn how to cope with defeat, and learn how to overcome. These are all the things this 2010 season has brought us. These experiences can not be learned unless examples like these are set.

I am sure some maybe scratching your heads to my words, but I assure you, all of us Indiana Teams think alike, except some of us Indiana teams have a 5 year head start. The world is never "fair", there is certainly no GP in the real world of competitive products or two companies work against each other to beat up each other to become "king" of the market. That's really the message I want to teach my students to prepare them for college and work. That's the whole reason I do this. Yes ONE blue banner would be nice one of these days, but I've never lost focus of why we as mentors do what we do. It's about preparing the students for "defense" in life, and laugh when your robot gets scored into a goal.

Next time, I'll try and think faster and coach my alliance to use the end of the trident to dig it out of the goal instead of e-stopping and come right back fighting again.

[MamaSpoldi]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I agree that at the time it is difficult to determine intent. But when their driver says "i went back and hit them again to make sure they would stay in" I think the intent is clear.

Originally Posted by thefro526

And, a large portion of this debate stems from a post that was subsequently deleted, stating that the intend was to shove 1501 into the goal and have them stay there.

Speaking as a member of Team 230 a partner of Team 1501 in that alliance, I must agree that if it was completely legal they would not tell you you would get a red card next time. In particular it was indicated that the only reason you did not get it initially was because they did not see you do it. This was very much not GP, it made me sad to read the subsequently-deleted post stating that your driver was proud of doing it.

Originally Posted by shortone1320

being with gaelforce...one of their alliance partners...
-it was good defense, you gotta give them that(slightly biased i know lol )
-they did threaten a red card(i do recall hearing)
-and you have to remember it is a new england regional... these regionals are known to be aggressive and destructive...last year we were the victum of some aggression when our robot was drilled in the front destroying our front wooden bumper and bottom two rollers. nothing was given for that. but we all knew it was new england where defense is everything. the only reason we won the ct regional last year was because of defense(thank you 1902 ) the teams in new england all build very durable robots for this reason.

i do believe their will be a change in rulings because of it though, i dont think the GDC thought teams would build such a small and light robot to be able to get pushed in the goal

I also hope that GDC clarifies their position on this, the rules should not change in New England because some of the teams are so big on defense.

Originally Posted by Chris_Elston

... We faked Rosie out several times in the SEMI 1 by traversing the tunnel and playing possum in SEMI 2 which seemed to work, so not all was lost, much needed driver experience was learned from Rosie and how to deal with driving under much pressure.

Our lesson is to learn by these experiences and move on. The most poetic thing was we had a ball in the front when we went into the goal, which was the tie game ball 6-6. Ball first, then robot next.

The triangle design was mostly contributed by the kiwi and 3-wheel drive system along if a robot was pushing us bumper to bumper we would be angled at the goal to make a clear shot anyway. We never thought about fitting into the goal. Small in foot print was by design as we noted Brazil's robot was the best scoring robot at CT we felt and deserved the Gold along with Uberbots. We clearly as a team felt good to be in the finals and wanted to go to Atlanta, put up a great fight with the best team we have ever worked with to date, Gaelhawks 230 and John Niski (230 coach) you are one amazing dude. I appreciated your willingness to work together and you have one heck of a team, we will never forget you. We are certainly honored to meet you and your team. Thanks for the great New England experience.

So before this thread gets too out of hand, there is no reason for anyone to analyze if Rosie did right or wrong, or if we are upset or not because I have written to tell you where we stand.

My students follow and learn from experiences this is how I lead them always in positive ways. They learn by losing, they learn by bad luck, they learn by improving, they learn the dumb FRC rules we all learn to not like, they learn how to cope with defeat, and learn how to overcome. These are all the things this 2010 season has brought us. These experiences can not be learned unless examples like these are set.

I also agree with Chris here... and thank him for pointing out that in real life things are not always fair and we all need to teach our students to deal with those situations. There are many, many lessons to be learned in FIRST... often times they are beyond the technical aspects of the competition.

It was great meeting you and working with your team. (I personally noticed and LOVED the fake outs that had the defense confused. ) We were a great alliance - unfortunately just not quite good enough in the end to get you that blue banner.

We hope to see you in CT again... maybe next year???

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Rosiebotboss

All of the contact with THRUST was legal bumper to bumper. The bumper zone this year being higher and the fact that 1501 has a triangular robot makes them easily unstable. They know that, that's why they put on the self righting arm.

The push into the goal is perfectly legal and within the rules. Ref <G22>. Triangular goal mouth, triangular robot.

I do not think the refs can threaten a red card if perfectly legal actions are done again.

I'm not sure if the actions were legal or not. But when the refs say 'if you do it again, it will be a red card,' I wouldn't feel confident calling the actions legal.

[Nigel]

I think we all agree that the hit during the self righting mode aka contact under the robot was a bit shady/very illegal...

My question is why is everyone giving so much flak about pushing THRUST into the goal? THRUST designed their robot so that it was a triangular robot... which was small enough to fit in the goal........... AND their shooter was on one of the points............... to me... they're asking for it are they not? in my mind it is obvious that a simple push from behind sticks the triangle which is point first into the perfect little cubby hole for it... the goal... It's like when a mechanum robot would play defense on us... are we not supposed to take advantage of their design? we had plaction wheels and pushing gearboxes... we literally back into one defender and moved him across the floor... we got no criticism for this because we were simply trying to do our role as best we could while taking advantage of any and all possible facets of the opponent's design... if we were a smaller robot/a triangle we would have been stuck in the goal many many times when we scored and our defender hit us from behind, except we shot down both those ideas quickly for stability's sake and for the fact that the goal is a perfect fit for storing our robot during the match if we use a triangle frame

All in all my $.63 adds up to a penalty and a yellow for the tipping issue and a pat on the back and applause for Rosie for taking advantage of an aspect of THRUST's design.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Nigel

I think we all agree that the hit during the self righting mode aka contact under the robot was a bit shady/very illegal...

My question is why is everyone giving so much flak about pushing THRUST into the goal? THRUST designed their robot so that it was a triangular robot... which was small enough to fit in the goal........... AND their shooter was on one of the points............... to me... they're asking for it are they not? in my mind it is obvious that a simple push from behind sticks the triangle which is point first into the perfect little cubby hole for it... the goal... It's like when a mechanum robot would play defense on us... are we not supposed to take advantage of their design? we had plaction wheels and pushing gearboxes... we literally back into one defender and moved him across the floor... we got no criticism for this because we were simply trying to do our role as best we could while taking advantage of any and all possible facets of the opponent's design... if we were a smaller robot/a triangle we would have been stuck in the goal many many times when we scored and our defender hit us from behind, except we shot down both those ideas quickly for stability's sake and for the fact that the goal is a perfect fit for storing our robot during the match if we use a triangle frame

All in all my $.63 adds up to a penalty and a yellow for the tipping issue and a pat on the back and applause for Rosie for taking advantage of an aspect of THRUST's design.

All legal robots should have at least one side that can fit in the goal. Which means that for all of our sakes we should be asking whether or not this is a legal move. I have my team drive into the goal all of the time, does this mean that a team is allowed to push my team into the goal in such a way that we cannot get out? This is a question all of us should ask.

And, a large portion of this debate stems from a post that was subsequently deleted, stating that the intend was to shove 1501 into the goal and have them stay there.

[shortone1320]

being with gaelforce...one of their alliance partners...
-it was good defense, you gotta give them that(slightly biased i know lol )
-they did threaten a red card(i do recall hearing)
-and you have to remember it is a new england regional... these regionals are known to be aggressive and destructive...last year we were the victum of some aggression when our robot was drilled in the front destroying our front wooden bumper and bottom two rollers. nothing was given for that. but we all knew it was new england where defense is everything. the only reason we won the ct regional last year was because of defense(thank you 1902 ) the teams in new england all build very durable robots for this reason.

i do believe their will be a change in rulings because of it though, i dont think the GDC thought teams would build such a small and light robot to be able to get pushed in the goal

[carolynn4848]

Originally Posted by SafetyGracie

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

...Neither do I....

[GBilletdeaux930]

My thoughts on this are that everything (except that underside blow) they did was legal and fell under the definition of GP.

Being the big defensive robot at Wisconsin, I've found that the community creates a very fine-line between defense and over-aggression that eliminates our ability to compete to our fullest.

Pushing 1501 into the goal was an amazing strategic move. They backed off for a second to make sure they weren't shoving them through to endanger the human player. Then, anticipating 1501 to come back out, they moved forward again to combat them. No different then pinning.

There is nothing wrong with this maneuver. It is just plain, good defense. The way you guys are arguing is telling me that teams that play defense should back off a bit so the offensive teams have a better chance of scoring. We spent 6+ weeks building a robot that directly combats that and we have the right to compete to our fullest within the rules.

If this community allows teams to build offensive robots of the level of those like 217, 148, 1114, and 234, then why aren't we allowed to build and use defensive robots of that level?

And just for good measure, how do we feel about this match? We were in a pushing match with team 2826, and they tipped. Them and 2194, were some of the better scorers up against our alliance with not-so-good ones. So instead of allow 2194 to right 2826, we decided to play defense on them and not let them do that. They wasted the rest of the match, only scoring one more ball after that tip. Defense or overly-aggresive?

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by GBilletdeaux930

And just for good measure, how do we feel about this match? We were in a pushing match with team 2826, and they tipped. Them and 2194, were some of the better scorers up against our alliance with not-so-good ones. So instead of allow 2194 to right 2826, we decided to play defense on them and not let them do that. They wasted the rest of the match, only scoring one more ball after that tip. Defense or overly-aggresive?

The camera work in that recording keeps cutting away so it is tough to tell exactly what happened

Did 2194 ever contact 2826 to try to right them?
If so then did 930 contact either robot within the 10 after the righting attempt started?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions then I would say 930 violated <G32> which is a penalty and possibly a Red Card. However if 930 prevented 2194 from ever getting to 2826 to start righting then that is legal (provided there was no other rule violates, pinning, etc...).

Originally Posted by G32

ROBOT Protection while Righting – Before the FINALE, ROBOTS attempting to right themselves or their ALLIANCE partners have one 10-second grace period per fallen ROBOT in which they may not be contacted by an opposing ROBOT. This protection continues for either 10 seconds or when the protected ROBOTS have completed the righting operation, whichever time comes first. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

It is like tower protection during the finale. You dont have to let a opposing robot get to the tower (or fallen robot in this case) but once they are there you shouldnt be in contact with them. Much like tower defence the defender is walking a fine line and should be aware of the risks of penalty and Red Card associated with their actions (not confused and mad when they violate a rule and get penalised as we have seen on this forum)

I have watched a lot of matches and at most regionals I dont see G32 being enforced. Even worse it seems like most defensive robot drivers react to an opposing robot trying to right a partner by hitting them. That should be a penalty and probably a Red Card. However, if they are not penalised it only reinforces that habit. I hope that <G32> will be a point of emphasis in Atlanta. Also, as a general strategy point, if you are defending and you flip someone (which happens a lot because the bumpers are so required to be so high off the ground this year but that is another rant) leave the flipped bot alone until they are righted, they aren't likely to score from their back. Go defend another bot (that is not righting them) or clear some balls out of the zone. You are only risking penalties by being around the flipped bot.