Interesting rule calls from the Detroit District

[Colin P]

Originally Posted by RMiller

The two closest are <G05> which is prematch and <G17> which only applies to the minibot crossing the tower cylinder, not the hostbost/robot.

WOW. Two events and 80 robots later i have yet to see someone take advantage of that...
I'd been running under the assumption that the hostbot cannot enter the vertically projected border, but it clearly only talks about the minibot. That makes 469's alignment perfectly legal, then.
I'm really surprised more people haven't done this, then.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Colin P

WOW. Two events and 80 robots later i have yet to see someone take advantage of that...
I'd been running under the assumption that the hostbot cannot enter the vertically projected border, but it clearly only talks about the minibot. That makes 469's alignment perfectly legal, then.
I'm really surprised more people haven't done this, then.

You must not have been looking hard enough!

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/36706

Team 148 is another that uses this similar deployment method as well. There are a few others doing this too.

-Brando

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Colin P

HOWEVER, after watching the video about 10 times to look at the upward force, I noticed you broke a much more obvious and important rule. Your alignment device, two pieces of metal, broke the plane of the tower base perimeter. I don't really feel like tearing through the rules right now, but to the best of my knowledge, no part of your robot can enter the base perimeter until the finale starts. This might be worth investigating before you head over to Troy.

Originally Posted by RMiller

I would be interested to know what rule it is you are referring to as none I know exist. The two closest are <G05> which is prematch and <G17> which only applies to the minibot crossing the tower cylinder, not the hostbost/robot.

I had the same mistaken thought as Collin until I re-read the rules recently. The confusion stems from the multiple revisions of the definition of DEPLOY. One of the earlier definitions was something along the lines of any part of your robot crossing the tower perimeter = deploying. Thus some of us have internalized a non-existent rule that no part of your robot may cross the tower perimeter until endgame.

Rereading the rules as they currently stand makes it clear that this is no longer the case and all the pre-alignment mechanisms are perfectly legal, provided the minibot doesn't cross the boundary before the endgame.

[GGCO]

Given 469's design last year, I can see why some teams could say that they once again found a loop hole or (depending on your perspective) lawyered the rules.

However, I think it's clear that there is vertical motion that is assisting the minibot up the pole and is therefore illegal. Nice looking bot though.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by GGCO

Given 469's design last year, I can see why some teams could say that they once again found a loop hole or (depending on your perspective) lawyered the rules.

...but last year, 469 neither found a loophole nor lawyered the rules. They looked at what was allowed, asked for clarification from the GDC in public where everyone could see what they were asking and what the answers were, and then built a robot that was completely and unambiguously in line with those rules.

[GGCO]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

...but last year, 469 neither found a loophole nor lawyered the rules. They looked at what was allowed, asked for clarification from the GDC in public where everyone could see what they were asking and what the answers were, and then built a robot that was completely and unambiguously in line with those rules.

Not going to get into this right now. It's a matter of perspective. Personally, I respect their design from last year tremendously, and I know it encouraged us to attempt to think outside of the box many times this year.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by RMiller

This is a separate issue, but I think it is worth discussing as it is on topic.



This is a hard one to judge. First, I don't know enough to disagree or agree with the ruling as there are two possibilities.

1) Other alliance ends up pushing dead robot into tower <G61> causes no problems.
<G61> The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.
Unless otherwise noted, all PENALTIES assigned by referees are applied to the entire ALLIANCE.

I'll keep this short since I have already had this discussion for an hour on the car ride home and I always agreed with the call (I expected it before the endgame even started) even though it went against my alliance. I also don't want to completely hijack this thread (although it is related), I just wanted to warn people about a rule they might not think about.

G61 does not apply here for an opponent pushing this dead robot into the tower once the pinning period (back away > 6ft for more than 3 sec) has ended (they are no longer causing it, and there is no rule violation yet). As a veteran of FIRST it is easy to get used to the old rules where you could hit the E-Stop and be immune from further penalties. Those days are gone and you now get a Red Card for hitting your E-Stop unless it is a safety emergency. There is no protection for dead robots or even mention of dead robots in the rules (so there is no way for a ref to declare them dead and exempt from penalties), they are the alliance's responsibility to clear those dead robots or they will get penalties if they sit there until the End Game.

However, the real grey area is if an opponent tips a robot onto the tower, since there are rules about tipping. I say no penalty/red card in this case, but it is open to interpretation.

[RMiller]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

I'll keep this short since I have already had this discussion for an hour on the car ride home and I always agreed with the call (I expected it before the endgame even started) even though it went against my alliance. I also don't want to completely hijack this thread (although it is related), I just wanted to warn people about a rule they might not think about.

G61 does not apply here for an opponent pushing this dead robot into the tower once the pinning period (back away > 6ft for more than 3 sec) has ended (they are no longer causing it, and there is no rule violation yet). As a veteran of FIRST it is easy to get used to the old rules where you could hit the E-Stop and be immune from further penalties. Those days are gone and you now get a Red Card for hitting your E-Stop unless it is a safety emergency. There is no protection for dead robots or even mention of dead robots in the rules (so there is no way for a ref to declare them dead and exempt from penalties), they are the alliance's responsibility to clear those dead robots or they will get penalties if they sit there until the End Game.

However, the real grey area is if an opponent tips a robot onto the tower, since there are rules about tipping. I say no penalty/red card in this case, but it is open to interpretation.

I guess with the key of "there is no rule violation yet" it is ultimately the correct way to call this, which is not a ruling a like. It seems too easy too take advantage of. I guess it falls under the category of "Team "X" did <G##> unintentionally. Sorry, design better."

[IKE]

Thanks for posting these up. I had heard about the deployment system, but it is good to actually see it. After watching, you can find a Q&A that warns about this type of system.

The tube touching the tower thing is rough, but by rules the right call. I don't think it is in the "spirit" of what the rule was intending, but this is consistent with what I have seen on other fields.

I have been curious how the last one would get called since they starteddoing the revisions. What 3096 was initially doing was completely legal. Pushing them into the base is completely legal up to the "pinning" time limit thus the count. Because 469 did not back up more than 6 feet for 3seconds, then they were essentially still implementing the pin.
<G50> An ALLIANCE may not pin an opponent ROBOT that is in contact with a field border or TOWER for more than 5 seconds. A ROBOT will be considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least 6 feet. The pinning ROBOT(S) must then wait for at least 3 seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again. Violation: 10 PENALTIES
BLUE BOX: If the pinned ROBOT chases the pinning ROBOT upon retreat, the pinning ROBOT will not be penalized per Rule <G61>, and the pin will be considered complete.
<G61> The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.
Unless otherwise noted, all PENALTIES assigned by referees are applied to the entire ALLIANCE.

What is interesting is that had 3096 come back after 469, the pin would have ended and they may have gotten a tower violation.

These are 3 rough calls that definitely head to the grayer areas of the rules, but likely the right calls.

P.S. Amazing robot/team. I can't wait to play with/against you guys at Troy. Hoping for more with than against...

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

I just wanted to post a couple of things I found interesting that happened at the Detroit District this past weekend.

This is in no means criticism of the refs or any team's gameplay. Just some things that might affect the way you play for the rest of the season so to make you aware...

First...since I've received several PM's concerning our "illegal" mini-bot deployment mechanism and what we "tried to get away with this year"... Here's a quick video of it deploying at the end of one of our matches. The item in question was since that the 4-bar is slightly traveling in an upward motion when the mini-bot hits the pole, it is contributing to the upward motion of the mini-bot which is illegal... You be the judge, but we promptly removed it after it was brought to our attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5hmtndWAs8

Unfortunately, yes this is illegal .
They are being very strict that no upwards motion can be imparted on the minibot by the hostbot.

Originally Posted by Don Wright

In this match, we no longer have a mini-bot so we are scoring tubes until the end of the match. We received a red card for this match because the last tube we picked up touched the tower base as we picked it up and it was during the end game. Right or wrong...you decide... Just be careful around those towers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQoHIFCLWs

The letter of the rule is you cannot touch the tower, even with a tube with no opponent near.

Originally Posted by Don Wright

The final one is one I really still have a question about. In this match, excellent defense was being played on us and when we tried to go for the tower, they got between us and the tower and we pushed them into the base of the tower. We then backed off slightly, they didn't move, and then pushed them again... You can see the video (although there are some refs in the way, you still can get the point)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP5sGFJJv-M

My question is this...is this pinning (you can see we are getting a countdown for pinning)? Should this be a red card for the red team for contact with the tower in the end game (regardless of pinning)? If not, is it a viable defense now to just "get pinned" between a team wanting to deploy and their tower?

Again, no fault on the refs as I feel this is a slightly gray area that needs clarification...

Thoughts?

As far as pinning goes, yes thats pinning. You did not back away far enough or long enough.

As far as your opponent getting a red card ... that depends.<G61> protects them from you causing a penalty against them, but If the referee believed that your opponent did not attempt to get away from the tower then yes they could get a red card.

[pfreivald]

From looking at the videos, it appears to me that the refs made the correct calls in all three cases...

Thanks for posting these up -- it's a good heads-up for teams that have not yet competed!

[Paul Copioli]

So after watching the third video and going strictly by the rules the blue alliance should have received 10 penalties for pinning, or am I missing something?

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

So after watching the third video and going strictly by the rules the blue alliance should have received 10 penalties for pinning, or am I missing something?

I can't tell when the pin countdown started from the video...

...but maybe, yeah.

[Starke]

Don,

You bring up a great point, and I wanted to post something similar that happened at the Chesapeake Regional this past weekend that had opposite outcomes (Two Red Cards Given). Check out what I posted over the weekend:

Originally Posted by Starke340

SemiFinal 1 Match 3 - Two Red Cards Given

Video Link here: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13429939

Time of Red Cards in Match- Starts at 4:20
Head Referee Explanation- Starts at 11:20

Team Update #16 Link: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...nt.aspx?id=450

Please do not misinterpret this post. I am posting this with the utmost gracious professionalism possible. I wanted to share this information with everyone that has seen this match and had an issue with the decision. I know that a head referee's decision is final. Our alliance ended up coming just short on the redo of the match. We fought hard and tried our best!

[Tom Line]

Let me warn of an 'interesting' call at West Michigan.

In the qualifications matches, if a human player throws a tube and it accidentally brushes a hanging tube and descores it, it isn't a DSQ.

In the eliminations - it's an instant loss for that human player's team, AND their alliance.

We had a fairly precariously seated uber-tube that we had hung. It (evidently) was brushed by a tube thrown by the other alliance's human player. It fell, and they were DSQ'ed from the 2nd quarterfinals match, ending their day.

It's a lousy way to lose, but it's in the rules. Watch out.