Disclaimer: I have no part in this match I am not advocating for anything just making sure I understand the rules and how they should be called correctly. This is not intended to blame anyone.
Here is the clip in question:
First I think red should be given 3 G22 fouls (that robot didn’t use them but sure made it easier for their team to put cubes on the scale). I would then initially argue against giving 2 more G22 on their way back but then they decide to intentionally push them further out so would give 1 G22 there.
The real question is regarding G16 (copied below) I see great defense played initially and then a lot of contact around the corner of the null zone / platform area. I expected this (1:16:16) to be called G16 but the head ref is standing right there and repeatedly indicated that he saw things and decided there was no penalty. Is there a rule interaction I am missing?
The NULL TERRITORY is safe. A ROBOT whose BUMPERS are breaking the plane of its NULL
TERRITORY and not breaking the plane of the opponent’s PLATFORM ZONE may not be
contacted by an opposing ROBOT, regardless of who initiates the contact. A ROBOT forced into
breaking the plane of an opponent’s NULL TERRITORY resulting in it being wedged underneath
the SCALE is not a violation of this rule.
Oh hey that’s my alliance.
First, the cube interaction is a hard thing to judge, because the difference between “herding” and “bulldozing” is intent. I don’t believe 358 intended to push those cubes initially to the opponent’s side of the scale, as that doesn’t help our alliance at all.
The second interaction is really, really close to the line, and a different refereeing crew may have called it differently. If you look at the instant 145 pulls into the Null Territory, 358 is in the process of pulling away.
We were letting 358 play really close to the line, and if they started getting Tech Fouls, we’d have them reign it back in. 358’s driver was a smart dude who really knew the rules and how to avoid the kind of bait 145 was trying to pull, and we couldn’t have gotten to the finals without them.
One POWER CUBE per ROBOT. ROBOTS may not control more than one (1) POWER CUBE at
Violation: FOUL per additional POWER CUBE. Repeated violations of this rule are likely to
escalate rapidly to YELLOW or RED CARDS
Moving or positioning a POWER CUBE to gain advantage is considered
“control.” Examples include, but are not limited to:
Section 7 Game Rules
V7 56 of 131
A. “carrying” (holding a POWER CUBE inside a ROBOT)
B. “herding” (intentionally pushing a POWER CUBE to a desired
location or direction)
C. “trapping” (holding a POWER CUBE against a FIELD element in an
attempt to shield or guard it)
D. “launching” (shooting POWER CUBES into the air, kicking across the
floor, or throwing in a forceful way)
Examples of interaction with POWER CUBES that are not “control”
include, but are not limited to:
E. “bulldozing” (inadvertent contact with POWER CUBES while in the
path of the ROBOT moving about the FIELD)
F. “deflecting” (being hit by a POWER CUBE that bounces into or off of
G. “plowing” (brief contact with a large quantity of POWER CUBES
while attempting to break up a pile, or gain access to an area of the
FIELD. Sustained contact or contact after the brief plowing action will
be subject to “herding”)
H. “nudging” (contact with a POWER CUBE that is on a PLATE while
attempting to place additional POWER CUBES on that PLATE)
If a POWER CUBE becomes lodged in or on a ROBOT, it will be
considered controlled by the ROBOT. It is important to design your
ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or unintentionally control
more than the allowed maximum.
What is more important is if an advantage is created even if it could be argued unintentional (I think it is unclear). The first crossing over to the far scale may not be intentional but it is clearly advantageous. Also on the trip back to the near side I agree with you that pushing those 3 cubes initially didn’t benefit but then clearly pushing 2 cubes away from the scale for no reason other than to get them further away seems like control and trying to create an advantage.
I am not talking about the first few interations moving the length of the field I think 358 did a great job there. I am talking more about when they had them pinned up against the corner and are clearly touching them. See this shortened clip
From my observation as an observer of the grainy video of a past event posted above… I saw ‘definite intent’ as the small 358 red bot did the exact same move pattern on other switch later with similar intent. It was fairly obvious to me initially as a move designed to feed (decrease cycle time) the other two red bots on the scale and solidified watching them later as they positioned the other cubes then played defense. They were probably slightly bumbed initially the driver missed all 6 on the initial herding only got 5.
Nice driving by the way it* almost* looked unintentional, the driver was good and in control.
This was an elimination match and I surmise the strategy was probably a calculated risk to feed the scale bots and risking taking possible foul points and clearing those cubes. Also increased good vision on the cubes and effectively put those 5 cubes under red control the entire match. 1678 did a similar move and scored 433…wonder if this “backside switch herding advantage strategy” will be tightened up in calls in week 2? I think if so, many yellows and reds possible.
*In above game…the net result was RED was ahead by 100 most of the game with five cubes ready for the Scale to insure an ownership edge… even IF a foul had been called that would have been 4x5pts=20 or a net plus of 80 they then starved BLUE of more cubes on the other switch while playing defense in essence always owning the scale from the initial move. The second infraction could have been a YELLOW so it was risky however at the end NO Red penalty. BLUE had penalties likely created by the initial pressure RED did with the herding move…effective strategy and was a big part in who won that game
*It could have backfired though…
Repeated G22 can get yellow and red flags too, after the intial herding
So this is most likely a one and done strategy if called at an event. Since I saw this multiple times it will be a thing this year assuredly
The other seemed like normal gameplay to me in neutral zone from my perspective, of course I am looking only at a grainy video so don’t know really what happenned at the event.
I came for some rule clarification but stayed for the defense. 358’s driver played such a scarily effective shutdown of the scale. I will definitely be showing this to my drive team.
I watched the rest of the alliances elimination matches and 358 didn’t touch any more cubes until the second match of the finals.
This looked more intentional but no G22 call. I’m interested to see how this is called in later weeks.