But the robot is not “moving or positioning” the balls at all; the inbounders are putting them there, and the robot is simply blocking them. I can’t find anything in the rules that bans this strategy yet, although I wouldn’t be surprised if there is soon…
It depends on the G28 ruling too, because there is no rule that says you can’t go in to the opposition alley. Unless you are saying the robot is protecting those balls by blocking the other robot, then it is controlling under the rules.
Not exactly, but there IS a rule that says you can’t touch an opposition robot while it is in its own alley. And you can’t fit 1.0 robots into an 0.9 robot wide space.
As for “controlling”, read that part of the rules again.
When did a “robot” become a standard unit of measure? 
[G23]
Robots on the same Alliance may not work together to blockade the Court in an attempt to stop the flow of the Match. This rule has no effect on individual Robot-to-Robot defense.
Violation: Technical-Foul
Emphasis mine, but it stands to reason that holding all/some of the balls in the alley would stop the flow of the match.
Even if you did hold the balls, that could be considered controlling, so lets say that you’re holding only three balls, if they gave you the technical foul mentioned above, those balls will only make up for the penalty (if you got them all in).
tl;dr: Rules are too vague, not worth it.
Man this happens every year and DR. Joe fell into it … You have been gone too long my friend. What I mean is that every year we grossly underestimate how hard it is to score … I mean grossly!!
36 in Auton … not on Einstein. Maybe at IRI, maybe. I don’t doubt all three robots will score in auton on Einstein, but not all three in the high goal. It is too risky for just one lousy extra point. I am not going to risk 5 to get 1.
In any case, scoring is way harder this year than in any other shooting game year and the double balance will be a crucial decider in most matches. I see matches that are 20 - 10 with all the points coming from balance.
In any case, this makes Dr. Joe’s hoarding scenario even more plausible in this game.
I don’t know how I feel about the triple balance. Right now I am leaning towards that act being in the same place as the Lochness Monster: A few will claim they have seen it, but no one will be able to prove it.
I have very similar feelings now. After thinking through it, that sounds a lot like the hanging off of a hanging robot in 2010.
Think for a second three drivers reacting to the bridge going past equilibrium and trying to counter. I mean, we don’t all have Nick Lawrence for drivers!
Wholeheartedly disagree.
Not only do I think you’ll see it (remember, we DID see it in 2010, from 2337 and alliance), but I think it will be a common feature of Regional Champion alliances. 20 pts is just too huge to give up. The 1 extra point in 2010 wasnt worth it, but 20 extra points in 2012 is. You have to make 7 top shelf baskets to make up for it.
I agree that scoring will be more difficult than is being presented here … that being said, I only see that score (20-10) in early seeding matches. Scores will be higher as the regionals go on.
Also, any alliance thats put together specifically to triple balance (and can do it consistantly) will be my odds on favorite to win the regional.
I think a triple balance is doable with 2 heavy robots and 1 light robot. The key is 2 heavy robots that weigh the same, with the lightweight robot being the one that actually does the balancing (automated via accelerometer). All 3 would have to be wide-drive bots though.
Or…some combination of mechs or omni drives or swerve that can climb the bridge “sideways” or pint sized bots? This assumes mechs and omnis can handle the smooth plastic surface of the bridge…
I suspect a lot of people will be surprised when they try their wheels of choice on the plastic surface of the bridge. I know we were and are re-evaluating our wheel choice based on carpet and plastic interaction.
Also regarding triple balancing, one of my students put forward the idea the other day what if you as the middle robot “clamped” onto the bumper zone of a friendly robot to help support it so you could cantilever it off the edge of the ramp. I haven’t looked to see if that is possible as we tabled the idea for later.
It only happened once in an entire season.
It really comes down to how the other robots are built and how skilled the drivers are at reacting the bridge. What makes it worse is that you will never see a triple balance until eliminations as teams will be focusing on the coopertition bridge for seeding points.
I wouldn’t pick robots to join my alliance planning on doing a triple balance unless we had done it in qualification. That is where the another big issue is that the elims are not the time for testing but performing. I wouldn’t glaze over a okay scorer for one that could fit on the bridge only to be bit when we can’t pull it off.
These are my two cents.
While they could do that, when guarding the ball you are actually considered to be controlling it, which violates rule G22.
<G22> “Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling.”
The current theory appears to be that once you move a ball you control it.
Think in these terms: Robot A tries to pick up 3 different balls in the back court, but fails. They are now controlling all 3 balls and may not touch another ball for the rest of the match.
This is obviously fallacious.
The reasonable interpretation: Suppose you reused your kicker. Then if you are holding 3 balls (hoppered) and then try to kick a fourth to the other end, you violate g22. But if you are holding 2 balls and then kick 3 balls one after another, no penalty. You only control the ball at the moment it is in contact with your robot.
I know what you mean, but what I’m trying to convey is if you tried to herd the balls into a corner or if you simply kept all the balls on your side or something like that, it should be a foul/tech.
Currently, I’d say it’s not. Others may disagree. The only opinion that really maters is the judges.
Why? Its a perfectly legal strategy?
i think you mean the referees…
Paul,
3 balancing is worth 20pts*.
My read is that that is about right.
The task is hard but not TOO hard. The points are high but not TOO high.
What is it going to take to get 3 robots on that 88" bridge"
Assume robots fill the given space, with bumpers robots are roughly 44" by 34" give or take.
If enough teams go wide (34" up the bridge), then you have 6" hanging out over each side… …seems doable.
BUT BUT BUT you say, that isn’t how balancing works.
AND AND AND… …of course you are right.
For those who didn’t see or don’t recall with a few notable excepts (cough cough 71, 308 and I think 1 or 2 others) the way to balance on the bridge was to:
- Get on the bridge (with goals in that case but it is the same idea),
- Slowly move up the bridge.
- Once the bridge (there was an automotive gyro in the kit that year some used, others just had drivers with skills) begins to tilt, move back X inches (3 or 6 I can’t recall).
- The bridge continued up, rocked and stopped. Balanced
IMHO this does NOT need to be a coordinated effort. One robot can do the moving, all that is needed is to move the total bridge CG.
Let’s say that we need 18 inches of travel to cover the high end of my memory.
Where do we get 18 inches?
It is hard but not impossible.
If we move the end robots out 9" each that would put them at 15" hanging over the edge. Again, this is hard but hardly impossible. Even if the robots do nothing to make themselves asymmetric so that their weight is exactly at their center, the robot centers are 2" from the edge.
And that give 18" for the balancing robot to move in the middle
So… …this is hard but not impossible.
And unlike the hanging year where it took a ton of coordinated effort to make it safe and practical get these added points, I think this is essentially the same skill that successful teams will need to balance a Box of Rocks** on the Coopertition Bridge so the work is already half done.
For what it is worth.
Joe J.
*maybe more maybe less but let’s assume that FIRST intended to make that 3rd robot worth A LOT so that teams would find it worth trying but not SO MUCH that the game was won automatically with that extra robot. It seems to me that they have done that. I talk with one group of 10+ year veteran and they tell me, it is a ghost, don’t chase it. I talk with another and they tell me FIRST has made a game that is nothing but 3 robot balancing. They can’t both be right.
** If Mike Bastoni didn’t coin this phrase he certainly made it his own. FYI, Bastoni’s back in the FIRST Game! Welcome back Plymouth North! FIRST Team #23. Hall of Famers if there ever were ones…