Trench run capability

G10 states intersecting. If Blue is fully in the Red Trench zone Blue is not intersecting the line.

1 Like

Since when does “intersecting the zone” mean “intersecting the tape”? You need to take a second look at the rules on this one.

5 Likes

Oh yeah, right. 2018 was a thing. I’ve all but purged that game from my memory.

Yeah, nah, you’ve got that one totally and utterly wrong.

If you absolutely must, ask in the Q&A, but that interpretation is just wishful thinking.

2 Likes

verb

gerund or present participle: intersecting

  1. divide (something) by passing or lying across it.

G10. Right of Way. A ROBOT whose BUMPERS are intersecting the opponent’s TARGET ZONE, TRENCH RUN, or LOADING ZONE may not contact opponent ROBOTS, regardless of who initiates contact. Violation

Lying within it is not intersecting it.

There is a difference in G10 and G11. G11 excludes the Trench. Blue can be in Reds trench and contact Red.

G11. Give Opponents some space. An opponent ROBOT may not contact a ROBOT whose BUMPERS are intersecting its TARGET ZONE or LOADING ZONE, regardless of who initiates contact. ROBOTS in violation of G10 are exempt from this rule.

There is a difference. Just need to find the true intent of the GDC.

Oh my gosh, this is absolutely the most incorrect lawyery interpretation of the rules I have seen in a while. FRC verbiage has been consistent for many years, and lying entirely within a zone is inherently seen as intersecting the zone. I’d like to refer you to my “history of fans” lesson to see the post I’m about to create here detailing how this rule verbiage has been consistent for close to 15 years.

6 Likes

The ZONEs are volumes, not lines.
Webster includes “Overlap” as a definition of “intersecting”.

2 Likes

I know I know. But there is something between G10 and G11 that makes a difference.

The Blue box picture they show for G11 does not apply to the Trench.

Yes, that would be because the TRENCH RUN isnt part of G11. It doesn’t change how intersection works though.

4 Likes

2020 rules:

2019 rules didn’t use any form of intersection, they were based on a robot being entirely contained within the zone, so they aren’t relevant.

2018 rules:

2017 rules:

2016 rules:

That is as far as I feel like going back this time.

So, I stand corrected. This verbiage first (and prior to this season, only) appeared in the 2018 manual.

However, at least since 2016, HQ has been refining the verbiage for what it means to be “in” a zone. In 2016 it was based on carpet contact, which was obviously changed because it is extremely difficult to actually assess carpet contact. The 2017 rule was based on any part of the robot being in the zone, and I assume that was changed to avoid robots being in zones due to absurd extensions beyond the frame perimeter (like extending a piston only so that they would technically be “in” the zone).

Even though this isn’t a long-standing verbiage, the usage and interpretation in 2018 is enough to show how it will be used and interpreted this year. Refer to the robot in the 2018 picture that is fully contained within the zone, and qualifies as “intersecting”. The rule in 2018 was interpreted in such a way that lying fully within a zone is a form of intersection with the zone. The rule will be interpreted the same way this year.

1 Like

The difference between G10 and G11 is whose bumpers being in the zone draws the foul on contact.

I can’t stop you from applying a clearly incorrect interpretation of the rules to your strategy and build if you’re determined to do so, but I assure you that your season will go better if you don’t.

6 Likes

The manual defines the Trench Run as:

TRENCH RUN a 4 ft. 7 ½ in. (~141 cm) wide, 18 ft. (~549 cm) deep, infinitely tall. volume that is bounded by the guardrail, the edge of the TRENCH vertical support closest to the center of the FIELD, and ALLIANCE colored tape.

So the trench run is the entire volume defined above. So an opponents robot whose bumpers intersect any part of this volume are in violation.

Another way to look at this is if you got a splinter that was completely in your finger with no part of it sticking out of your skin: is the splinter not intersecting your finger?

8 Likes

Possibly, in watching the Northern Lights Finals which they lost both F1 and F2, seems to be a good lesson. By choosing not to go low the tall bot had a potential lower scoring ceiling and put more pressure on alliance partners to make up for that. The other alliance breeched every time and won. They did win the Iowa and another event. Tall can work, depends on who you are facing in Stronghold. They had a great 2016 and what they did mostly worked really well.

Fast forward…In Infinite Recharge there are no points for being low each match just a few extra areas under the control panel available. So unlike Stronghold low has no automatic point values and likely no increased scoring ceilings. It will be interesting to see ultimately which height wins. Could be a tie.

I think you mean lower scoring floor? I think tall (or tall-shooting robots such as 1690/67/16) robots had a higher ceiling than low-only bots, however if I’m interpreting what you’re trying to say correctly, then like you’re saying, tall bots had a lower scoring floor due to inability to get under the low bar.

no i think he means ceiling, because the scoring floor is essentially the same for everyone, zero points. you can’t score less than zero (unless penalties subtract from your score). low bots had points available to them that tall bots didn’t, hence tall bots scoring ceiling being lower.

Basically my thought was - you couldn’t really defend defense crossing in 2016 so with all other things being neutral, if you are guaranteed to get all the defenses in a match a tall bot will score a minimum of 40 and a low bot will score a minimum of 50. However, tall bots also had a somewhat better angle for shooting into the high goal, so they could line up quicker and easier, which should give them a theoretically slightly higher ceiling. But that was my overall thought process.

Good example Detroit Einstein 2019…won by 2 points. The difference one less null panel at start allowing for an additional 2 points. That was a deliberate strategic calculation that worked.

Same for low bot in 2016… more points available every game, significant chunk of a RP and also extra points for breach in eliminations.

These games are designed to end in close scores. So having extra scoring opportunities is ideal. The main teams that won were both low and high designs so they did not neglect low scoring.

Since people in this thread seem to be confused about when G10 / G11 apply, I made the following tables to show the foul scenarios:

Long story short, G10 means that you cannot hit anyone, and G11 means that nobody can hit you. The TRENCH RUN is only protected by G10, whereas, the LOADING ZONE and the TARGET ZONE are protected by both G10 and G11 (which there is no cool-down period between per QA-141, so it is very likely penalties could stack up here)

Therefore, a potential valid TRENCH RUN defensive strategy is to sit in front of the entrance facing Red’s LOADING ZONE (outside of the lines), effectively blocking the TRENCH unless Red has some impressive holonomic driving abilities. This strategy is legal because you are fully outside of the TRENCH and thus not subject to G10.

9 Likes

That seems risky if the opponent has more pushing power than you (and can push you into the trench run). Easy G10 points for them, right?

4 Likes

if said extension existed it is breaking the vertical plane of the trench run and a clever driver could turn that into penalty points so I wouldn’t give advice to teams building defense bots to build that.