Has anyone else found that G208 doesn’t seem to be called consistently? My viewing leads me to believe sometimes it’s awarded properly and other times not, although granted it’s an infrequently encountered foul to begin with.
For example, I believe in Quals 35 at Orlando (https://youtu.be/QF00AM_REvY, advance to about 2:20), there should have been 2 traversal hangs awarded as the fouling robot clearly makes contact with both robots already in the hangar zone with less than 30 seconds remaining. This can be most clearly seen in the “hangar cam” view.
In this particular example there’s no material change to the match outcome other than 5 points missing from the final score but it would be pretty awful if it were more consequential.
Hoping others can provide additional examples, this can really be a match-changing penalty when not called correctly.
I believe that G208 is too much of a hammer, the punishment does not fit the crime. Rule is clear but allows no discretion as written. Two cases I saw was a bot was attempting to go for cargo in last 30 seconds near opposing hanger. Opposing bot was not climbing but was on the hanger line and spinning. Their bumpers grazed each other and foul was called. The opposing bot had no capability to climb high and was not even trying to line up at that time.
Second was a case where there was strong defense and a bot was being blocked from getting to their climb area. They were forced to go all the way around the field to avoid them and as they passed the other opposing climb area, brush against the bumper where the opposing bot was just touching their climb area line.
Lesson is stay far away of their climb area during last 30 seconds but rule IMHO is too harsh and can lead to a team purposely initiating contact to cause the violation. Clear from what I saw, that some judge discretion needed to be added to this rule. “No harm, no foul” needs to be a guiding rule.
Agreed… it’s an easy rule to not get dinged for, just stay well away from the opposing hanger at the 30sec mark.
I can’t see how they make it a less severe penalty and still have it be effective. Anything less and you start to have gambles that the penalty would be less than the potential climb score and then you’ll just have people bashing around in the hanger.
You also just want to strongly discourage anything other than climbing in there at that time so bots don’t get wrecked when they’re hanging or trying to hang.
I tend to agree with this perspective. The punishment is definitely harsh but it’s simple to avoid being in the area to get called for the foul, and this year having robots crash down from 3+ feet can do serious damage to them, potentially event-ending damage. If you’re on the opposite alliance, you don’t belong there at that time so stay out.
So I’m generally good with the penalty, but it should be called consistently.
Check out Hatboro Horsham Qual 8, red alliance. 2234 during end game entraps themselves in the blue alliances hangar, resulting in the blue alliance collecting the extra endgame points.
Afterwards, on a different note, once they finally did free themselves, 2234 drove back to their own hangar, and contacted 2539’s (ally) climb, resulting in them losing that climb. Rough match for the red alliance lol. Regardless though, the rule is simple and clear. There isn’t much room for discretion because of its simplicity. Also, keep in mind the hazards to the other robot if a robot were to fall while climbing. No team wants to see that, and it’s not that great when another team knocks them off. Markings and signs are typically pretty clear if true contact was made anyways. Of course, this includes the refs have to be paying attention, which they can sometimes make mistakes at, but im not looking to point fingers. They are just human. One rule that could be debated is G209. Both these rules have been seen the pasty few years, and our team has had much more problems with G209 and “supporting contact”. G209 I feel is just harder to enforce because you need to be supporting them not just a accidental tap then you move away.
Edit - I think it was 2234 and not 2095 but I can’t really tell…
Does G208 take precedence over G201? If a team is forced into the hanger and made to contact opponents, which rule(s) should apply? I don’t see exemptions for G201 for robots outside the hanger, only for robots already in the hanger. Thoughts?
I don’t think G201 applies there because I do not think 2830 strategy is “clearly aimed at forcing an opponent alliance to violate a rule”. Perhaps they were but it’s also very likely they were entering the hanger to climb with <20 seconds left in the match and 112 was in the way. If refs did call G201 in situations like this, the strategy would be to park outside their hanger, get pushed in, and get in the way of their climb, preventing the opponents from climbing.
You assume incorrectly. I was not referring to any match nor do I wish to debate anything here that happened in a match. I am asking a question to spur discussion. I fully expect the answers to start with “It depends on…” and those are the nuances I am interested in. I fully expect there to be more robots near hangers after 30 seconds as the level of play continues to increase and scoring needs to continue until the absolute last second possible.
The word “clearly” is a good place to start. To me, it depends on where other robots in the hanger are already and what open lanes exist for a robot to get to a hanger if an opposing robot is in the way. If there is a path around the opponent but it is not taken, that seems clear and deliberate to me…but seeing that in real time? Hard call to make.
If the opponent robot (let’s say blue) is deliberately blocking access (parking can only restrict access, not block completely), so that they are forcing the red robot to push them in, I would say that g201 does not apply and they (blue) are putting themselves at risk. G201 is given some explicit exemptions but nothing relating to robots outside the hanger.
And the other robot was where they should not have been, in the way of someone going to hang, regardless of other paths. Hanging where you need to is a valid strategy, blue can avoid.
No G201.
Now, if the opposing robot is being pinned in the Hangar by a different robot, we have a different discussion on our hands. That, IMO, is G201 on top of any pinning calls.
I’ve been wondering how this kind of play would (and should) be called as well. To me pushing an opponent into the hangar is a G201 penalty, but to avoid it being called against us we’ve tried to ensure our alliance only engages well outside of the hangar ie. leave a 5 foot berth and just try to delay the other robot getting to their hang. If they push you in with 5 feet given that should be sufficient ammo to make a strong case for G201. In very close elim matches it means you’ve probably already made your opponents cut it way closer than they wanted, possibly not having enough time to complete their hang, while it also might come at the expense of one of your own climbs. If it’s not close, don’t risk it in any way.
If a robot is merely try to snuffle up balls real close to the hangar (ie within a foot of the hangar perimeter) at endgame, it is a very risky and potentially game-losing strategy to pursue and G201 should not be called. If most robots have fled for hangars, there should be available cargo for scoring without needing to be in such a high-risk area.
Making these calls in the heat of a match as to what is the right call is extremely difficult, both for teams and referees so best to not put them or yourself in the position of having to make it in the first place.
I have noticed it hasn’t been called consistently. Over my years in frc I have noticed that lower ranked teams really don’t get the calls that bigger teams do, and as frustrating as it is there’s nothing that can be done on our end.
Doesn’t the blue box on G201 address this and say it would not be G201?
G201 does not apply for strategies consistent with standard gameplay, for
example a red ALLIANCE ROBOT in their HANGAR ZONE in the final 30 seconds
of the MATCH contacts a blue ALLIANCE ROBOT.
What rule says a robot should not be NEAR the opposing hanger? Is defense, shooting, driving, picking up balls, etc. not a valid strategy in the last 30 seconds? What rule says a robot GOING to hang has the right of way? If the opposing robot has crossed the hanger line on its own, then I fully agree - no G201. But outside? I’m not seeing an exemption. For me, it goes back to the word CLEARLY which is essentially judging intent, which is nigh impossible on an FRC field.
I completely agree, but given the difficultly in determining intent, I’d always error on the side of giving teams the benefit of the doubt, less fouls, and more protection to the offensive (ie: climbing) robot.
Nope. I’m specifically calling out that a robot is PINNED in their opponents’ Hangar, and then contacted by another robot.
THAT is an example of “an intentional act with limited or no opportunity for the team being acted on to avoid the penalty,”, same blue box.
Let’s see. There’s no rule against it–BUT, if they are touched, in any way shape or form, regardless of who initiates, by an opponent who is in their Hangar, the opponent gets a free Traverse Rung Hang, good for 15 points (or 7 cycles of Cargo if you think about it that way), possibly an RP if any of the other opponents also hang, possibly a win.
Do you really think it’s a good idea to be anywhere within about a robot’s length of the opposing hangar in the last 30 seconds of the match? Particularly if your partner(s) are on another side of said Hangar? (The reason for that last is a different rule entirely.)
Now: It seems that you may have been talking about outside the Hangar. G208 doesn’t apply outside the Hangar. Full stop, end discussion. NO conflict G208 to G201. As soon as someone gets pushed in enough for whoever’s Hangar it is to get a bumper in, G208, and because the pushing robot is just trying to hang, no G201.
For reference, the text of the rule (sans penalty, which is a Foul):
Strategies clearly aimed at forcing the opponent ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FIRST Robotics Competition and not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in an assignment of a penalty to the targeted ALLIANCE.
G201 does not apply for strategies consistent with standard gameplay, for example a red ALLIANCE ROBOT in their HANGAR ZONE in the final 30 seconds of the MATCH contacts a blue ALLIANCE ROBOT.
G201 requires an intentional act with limited or no opportunity for the team being acted on to avoid the penalty, such as: [examples omitted]
The way I read this is simple: If you aren’t clearly going out of your way to cause the opponent to get a penalty, G201 is unlikely to be called. If you intentionally force them into a penalty, and there’s no reason for you to put them there, then G201 could be called.
And this is the way I see it as well. I’ve seen two cases where teams could have or did get a G201 (equivalent, this was some time back)–in both cases, it was pretty obvious what they were trying to do.
