I keep seeing tech fouls called in auto, sometimes multiple times per match. I believe it is for G403.
It seems that if a team misses a shot in the speaker, the game piece is likely to end up sitting against the subwoofer. Many auto paths use the subwoofer as a fixed location for shooting.
This is causing the robots to “Control” the game piece by squeezing it against the subwoofer.
I don’t believe this was the intention of this rule.
FIRST FRC Q&A System Maybe this q and a would help? We were worried about how something like this would get called
Yes I saw that as well and assume it is for G403. Also saw it called in telop when a team was shooting a note and touching another note at the same time. It will be hard to avoid the missed notes and still be able to shoot without getting a penalty if that is how they call it. saw it both for a shot into speaker as well as into amp. like if someone misses an amp note and it is in the front you cannot even put a note in amp until that note is cleared out the the way. pushing it up against the wall or sitting on top of it would be controlling two notes. that is worrisome.
G403 applies in auto. You can only control one note at a time, no matter what.
G409 applies in teleop. You CAN control more than one note at a time, as long as it’s not longer than 3 seconds or repeadly.
Your teleop call might be as they were trying to shoot, they pinned it under them for 3 seconds. There was a different match I saw, a team shot, it fell on a second robot who immediately shot, and also got a penalty (for I assume G409). They definitely were within the 3 second window.
I just went and re-watched a bunch of autos from this event. It seems like it was called very frequently.
Generally if any robot touched two game pieces at once it was an immediate tech foul.
Hopefully they fix this for tomorrow.
where did you re watch the matches? blue alliance is showing that the matches are happening right now but the actual twitch channel is not live, is there a different stream somewhere?
What rule applies to the “or repeatedly”?
I think the blue box on G409 calls it “frequent” instead of repeated for some reason. But the definition seems to be the same.
I understand that as what constitutes the excessive yellow card. Based on how the rule is written (specifically the ‘plus’ in “Violation: FOUL per additional NOTE, plus YELLOW CARD if excessive”), I don’t think you can get the excessive yellow card without first committing G409.
I think you are right, but just to be a pain I’ll pose this scenario:
A robot has momentary control of 2 notes outside their source in teleop in a match. - This does not constitute a G409 penalty
Later that match, that same robot uses the same technique. - Again, no G409 penalty
Once more, that same team uses the same technique. - Now we have not committed a standard G409 penalty, but we have reached an “excessive violation”. Does that mean there should be a yellow card and a foul?
If you have not committed a penalty, it’s REALLY hard to get an excessive penalty…
Here’s an example of a penalty that was called that shouldn’t have been
The blue alliance’s actions during auto clearly fall under bulldozing.
bulldozing” (inadvertent contact with a NOTE while in the path of the ROBOT
moving about the FIELD)
In fact, it’s hard to imagine how a robot could be correctly called for herding multiple notes during auto.
It seems the refs have doubled down on tech fouls today. Just watched Match10 of Elims. 3 tech fouls where called on blue, costing them the win.
Edit: - What @Dave1998 said below
Any touching of two game pieces at once seems to be an immediate tech foul.
I hope we don’t see this continue into the rest of the season.
Seems like only 2 were called, so it didn’t decide that match.
If, during auto and while controlling a gamepiece, you strategically move another gamepiece, it’s a tech foul. And by moving any note from the 5 in the middle to any place, i.e. touch them, you move them from their original place, thereby disrupting the opposing alliance, so it’s considered a strategic one. Thus earning a tech foul.
But… that only applies for the cases of the middle 5 notes. There were cases of refs calling a tech foul on robots moving a note from their close 3 notes while controlling a note. But in most, if not all of these cases, they weren’t added to the final score.
I’m calling a very stretched interpretation of the rules here, think someone needs to just read the rule and its box more closely.
G403 defines Control. There is a note in the Blue Box that says moving a Note off of its Staged position “may” be called herding (i.e., Control), but moving a note that’s already off is more likely bulldozing (NOT control).
Touching isn’t moving. Moving is moving. Ergo, just touching/brushing past a staged Note without moving it isn’t Control, but if it moves out of staged position then the call has some basis.
If the Notes are just getting knocked around by a passing robot, that usually wouldn’t be counted… but seems to be this year. If this call isn’t intentionally set up this way then I would expect the next Update to address it.
See above rule and blue box. Something is inconsistent here.
I meant moving a note from it’s staged location. So moving a note slightly, like what happened a lot in this event, is a tech foul. Obviously brushing past a note is not moving it thus not a tech foul. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
I don’t really understand what you mean. What is inconsistent?
The word “may” could be interpreted different ways, and could lead to inconsistencies in enforcement that I believe are more avoidable in Auto than Teleop. Because the notes in question are in a known position, the rules can more specifically address a given situation. If you brush past a note staged in your wing AND cause it to move from it’s starting location, it could be argued that the note was moved in a preferred direction of “not in the way”, and that it was done intentionally because the location was known.
In this case, we need to know what the word “may” means here, to determine how strictly this should be enforced. The additional details in G403 that are not in G409 (Teleop control) help to give more guidance and imply a more strict judgement, but there’s still some room for clarification that would address some of the calls made at this event.