Rosie stuffs Thrust

Rosie stuffed Thrust into the goal at the CT Regional during semi final match 3 (which tied at 6-6).

A triangular robot into a triangular goal…let’s see if it fits! Easily the most talked about play during the elims.

1 Like

Interesting, was the red alliance robot disabled by mechanical issues or by default for unsafe play?

if it was legal, why were they going to red card you?

I really don’t know how to feel about that statement…

im not sure how i would feel about it either

Up until CT this weekend, I’d never seen Rosie play defense…and I’d hardly ever seen a team play such aggressive defense…

I’m not calling anyone on Rosie out, and getting into the game is always a good thing, but remember GP, and always treat other robots as you’d like yours to be treated.

Add me to the club. Isn’t there rules to allow tipped robots to get up? I feel this is very similar to that.

I will add that if my team did something similar, I certainly would not start a thread about it. I don’t want to draw attentions to actions that cause red cards.

well, especially since it was so blatent, i would say that it should have been called excessive pinning. either way, not in favor of the move. its one thing if it happens on accident (which i have seen a good bit) but its another for it to be that blatent.

I really questioned the legality of this move, and was a bit angered to see it. It would be one thing if Thrust has driven themselves in the goal and you had just sat your robot behind them to hold them there, or even if you had just further nudged them in, but consciously pushing them in and knowing that they could not drive out of the goal is an entirely different matter.

Also, I’m not entirely sure that the move in itself was legal:

<G36> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: YELLOW CARD

I would consider that strategy aimed at entangling the robot in the goal so that it cannot get out.

No ref saw the penalty @ :33 in the video so they couldn’t count it.

Reading this I was reminded of 494 in 2004. Their defense was legal (except when they hit 1501 when they were trying to self right) but a little more aggressive than most.

I agree it wasn’t the NICEST move but it was effective and didn’t damage the robot in any way correct?

I agree with thefro, that was obviously intentional entanglement.
Earlier in the video, I also saw them trying to tip 1501 over, which would also be a violation of this rule. If the refs didn’t call it, then you guys (1501) should have talked to them after the match.

Rosie played excellent defense at WPI and CT. 2791’s robot received several tears in bumper fabric as well as a completely destroyed pneumatic solenoid with their high acceleration drivetrain (6 motor?). But there were instances in that video of red card worthy action.

When they tipped 1501, then 1501 activated their righter, Rosie pushed against them so they’d stay tipped. Watch the video 2 or 3 times, they CLEARLY saw it start to right and hit it again.

<G32> ROBOT Protection while Righting – Before the FINALE, ROBOTS attempting to right themselves or their ALLIANCE partners have one 10-second grace period per fallen ROBOT in which they may not be contacted by an opposing ROBOT. This protection continues for either 10 seconds or when the protected ROBOTS have completed the righting operation, whichever time comes first. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

In addition, the goal thing could be considered a violation of intentional entanglement, as that is exactly what it was.

I hope the GDC adds a rule prohibiting such a move explicitly. That you can take a robot and goal simeltaneously out of commission like that is insane. If that’s 100% legal, I guess I’ll tell my drivers to shove robots into goals in the offseason.

we are questioning whether the robot was actually ok… we are questioning the legality of the move and why they were so proud as to put a video up of it.

After watching the video again, I believe you are absolutely correct.

Aside from the intentional tipping attempts, 1501 should’ve been given 10 seconds to attempt to self-right before anyone could’ve touched them again.

I did like how 1501 played dead once they realized that even their attempt to self-right would be defended.

I was there, and i saw it as a clean hit and move and a good strategy and i dont know why they would get red carded for it. They were not pushing thrust into an illegal position:
<G22> ROBOT Range - ROBOTS must remain within the FIELD perimeter and asymmetric funnels
of the GOALS during a MATCH

If I have read that correctly, the funnels before the ball counter are considered in bounds, so I believe rosie’s hit was legal and they shouldn’t be penalized for it, if the robot fits inside the goal, its a risk they have to take whilst scoring that they might get stuffed

That part of the hit was legal, but that rule is meant to apply to offensive robots shoving balls into the goal. The parts that aren’t legal are that the hits were made with the intention of entangling and tipping over the robot, and for not allowing a 10 second grace period for the tipped over robot. Those parts are illegal, and should have resulted in a yellow card or a red card.

Now I could be wrong, but I do not think there was intent to entangle the robot nor tip it by stuffing it in the goal. I do agree that they may have violated the grace period after Thrust righted itself over by the bump, but I stand by my belief that everything involving the goal was a legal and strategic move

There’s intent to tip it when you rush to keep it on its side as it falls back down.

There was a robot that wasn’t attempting to self right at WPI that was “tipping back” that 2791 got in the way of (sorry about that :() and we got a penalty and yellow card.

Did the refs call it? Then it was legal. Was it a NICE move? Probably not. But they did not intentionally destroy 1501’s robot. I have heard their defense in other matches was less nice but regarding the issue at hand I feel that since the refs did not call any penalty they felt it was within the spirit of the rules.

EDIT: I do agree that they should have been called for tipping