Rosie stuffs Thrust

[Wayne Doenges]

I agree with Gracie, I would rather win a game where everyone is playing than disable an opponent and take advantage of them. My motto is "Do unto others as you would have do unto to you" That's just me.
I feel our team would right a tipped robot after the ten seconds have elapsed. We would probably score a ball (or two) before we righted you, but you would be back in the game. At BMR, Team 292 did but they didn't wit the 10 seconds. The driver was later asked why he did it and he said "It seemed like the right thing to do."
We probalby shouldn't attend the IRI because everyone now knows that we can be stuffed into the goal. Maybe we should make up some buttons that say "I Stuffed THRUST!" Maybe we can get Pizza Hut to sponsor us
I saw the video and you can clearly see that Rosie backs off but runs forward as we are tipping back upright. They are clearly trying to stop us from righting ourselves and should have been penalized.
What was funny was after we played dead, and Rosie left, we scored a ball before they could get back to us again.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by EricH

Daniel, I specifically called out the "egregious behavior". If a bully continually stuffed you into a locker, despite warnings from school administration, that's egregious behavior. If Rosie had, in subsequent matches, stuffed 1501 into the goal again, that would be egregious behavior if the refs had said something to them about not doing that. That would warrant a yellow card. It's almost the same as if a robot has a nasty habit of flying off the bump and landing on an opponent on the other side "unintentionally".

So you believe that because 1501 designed their robot in such a way that it will get trapped if it goes into a legal part of the field, that it is "egregious behavior" to push them there? Maybe we should all design our robots to get trapped if we get pushed up against the side rails of the field .

Originally Posted by EricH

I thought that I'd made it quite clear that <G37-c-ii> did not apply because the robot is righting itself. Apparently, some people have a hard time understanding what I write.

You were perfectly clear, and I was agreeing with you. I was adding that <G32> may have been enforced instead. I'm not always disagreeing with you

Originally Posted by EricH

Again, the penalty or red card would depend on what exactly happened. The fact that there wasn't either with the refs watching is disappointing, or it indicates that 1501 initiated the contact (at which point, there should have been a penalty anyway under the rule that prohibits robots from interacting with balls or other robots while righting themselves or a partner, just going the other way).

I stated that it would have to be a very loose interpretation of <G36>. It's one that would be so loose that any ref with that interpretation would probably be overruled by the Head Ref on the spot the first time it happened. Also, if a robot caused another robot to tangle with the field, then that might be grounds for calling it, assuming that it was done routinely (intent to entangle).

Again agreed. I would be very disappointed if it were interpreted that way considering the opening sentence of <G36>.

I'd actually like to know what rule the ref was referring to when he told Rosie that they would be red carded if they did it again. It might give more insight as to his thought process (maybe something I'm not grasping here)

Originally Posted by EricH

Again, penalty or red card possible for the contact with a tipped robot, no penalty for the goal-stuffing unless it was done repeatedly.

Agreed on the red card for contact with a tipped robot.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the goal stuffing.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

So you believe that because 1501 designed their robot in such a way that it will get trapped if it goes into a legal part of the field, that it is "egregious behavior" to push them there? Maybe we should all design our robots to get trapped if we get pushed up against the side rails of the field .

...
I'd actually like to know what rule the ref was referring to when he told Rosie that they would be red carded if they did it again. It might give more insight as to his thought process (maybe something I'm not grasping here)

I'm thinking this way.

It's not egregious behavior--the first time. It's just strategy. If the same team did it again, then you could argue proven intent to disable and use a combination of <T05> and <G36> (somewhat loosely interpreted) to issue a yellow card. If it happened a third time, with the same team, red card. At the same time, issue a warning to all future opponents that they need to be careful when this team is near the goals and suggest that design modifications be made to the robot that gets trapped to avoid the issue entirely.

That's the way I think the ref was thinking, and the reason that egregious behavior could be called. Because it didn't happen again, no penalty, no card, no foul, no nuttin'.

[pakratt1991]

I pretty much agree with Daniels post above. I saw this happen in Portland to a team with a 6 omni-wheel drive. They were sitting in front of a goal sideways trying to defend it and the offensive robot pushed it in sideways, it took a bit of time for them to free themselves of the goal.

If you design a robot that can't compete when it's pushed on the a legal part of the field then you may have an issue there. This may not be considered a "nice" move by some, but playing strong, but no over aggressive defense is vital to this game. Should it be red carded or a be penalty called? In my opinion no, although I'll go with whatever the refs say on this matter.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

So you believe that because 1501 designed their robot in such a way that it will get trapped if it goes into a legal part of the field, that it is "egregious behavior" to push them there? Maybe we should all design our robots to get trapped if we get pushed up against the side rails of the field .

Their robot is designed not to even go up those ramps. It's difficult to push them up, and the carpeting was torn afterward.

Just thought I'd clarify that it's not a robot that is designed that way...

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Their robot is designed not to even go up those ramps. It's difficult to push them up, and the carpeting was torn afterward.

Just thought I'd clarify that it's not a robot that is designed that way...

So, again, if a robot gets trapped against the side rails due to it's design (is designed not to interact with the side rails of the field), and damages them when it comes into contact with them, then it is a "egregious behavior" to push them up against the side rails?

It's no different than pushing a team over the bump if they are not designed to go there, or into the goal if they cannot get out.

If anything 1501 damaged the field due to their design.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

If anything 1501 damaged the field due to their design.

That's like saying if you flip a team that has a hook and push them across the floor, tearing up the carpet with said hook, the flipped team damaged the field with their design. 1501 didn't do anything, another robot manipulated them up a ramp, so how can THEY have damaged the field?

[EricH]

Team X damages carpet because they're doing something they aren't designed to do, under the influence of another team. <G13> is applied. No penalty is given.

[jblay]

It is my opinion that anything that can be done by simply pushing a bot cannot be ruled as illegal unless of course the opponent is trying to hang but that is because a bot is trying to pull itself off of the ground. All 839 did was push 1501 across the field.

This is the same thing as when teams push defensive bots into goals and trap them there. These teams are doing nothing wrong and 839 didn't do anything wrong either.

I have to admit when I first took a look at 1501's robot pushing them right into the goal was the first thing that came to my mind.

[MarcD79]

After all is said & done, you have to look at what each driver was going through at the heat of the moment. I was FTAA here & it is impossible to see everything that happens on the field. I didn't see the commotion about the tipping, but the pushing in the goal was really noticed by everybody. You can't say that just Rosie was the only team that did some things that were considered questionable. I saw many matches, but that was just what happens "in the heat of the moment" I only saw Thrust get shoved into the goal once, so in my opinion, they got caught up in the excitement. Thrust was & is a formidable robot, no question about it. Rosie was just trying to defend the goal. I saw other robots get shoved into the goals, it's just that Thrust's design denies them the ability to reverse out. As for the ripped carpet, this happens. The only penalties were called if a robot was spinning it's wheels intentionally & burning up the carpet. This happened at the Suffield Shakedwon & resulted in going through the carpet, plastic tarp & slightly scoring the gym floor.

All in all, I thought CT was a great competition. Rosie has built a robot that can go far in the competition.

To all teams headed to Atlanta, good luck!