I watched a good number of matches on Friday and Saturday and am curious from Week 1 folks - how easy it is to get a G13 accidentally?
My observation is that you should essentially never use the spring near the opponent’s RETRIEVAL ZONE. It seems better to pick up from your retrieval zone and cross the field and use the center or boiler side spring to score gears. Otherwise it seems very easy to back up into an opponent and give them 25 free points. Aside: It would be nice to have two levels to this foul, but I do not foresee FIRST making that change.
My question is: if you are unlucky and get the player station nearest to the opponent RETRIEVAL ZONE, it is really possible to go around the long way and score on the center spring? How hard is it to see your robot and not hit walls/teammates shooting at boiler/etc. while avoiding the opponent RETRIEVAL ZONE?
Any advice on how to avoid G13 penalties for Week 2 teams is appreciated!!!
Thanks!
-matto-
For reference: G13
Don’t mess with a ROBOT in their RETRIEVAL ZONE. A ROBOT with any part inside its opponent’s RETRIEVAL ZONE may not contact an opposing ROBOT, regardless of who initiates the contact.
Violation: TECH FOUL.
TEAMS should take note that they are putting themselves at great risk for FOULS if they choose to enter their opponent’s RETRIEVAL ZONE.
The exact wording of G13 (with emphasis) is as follows:
G13. Don’t mess with a ROBOT in their RETRIEVAL ZONE.** A ROBOT with any part inside its opponent’s RETRIEVAL ZONE **may not contact an opposing ROBOT, regardless of who initiates the contact.
Violation: TECH FOUL
However, the way it was being called repeatedly at NE Granite State was such that any robot TOUCHING an opponent in their RETRIEVAL ZONE was subject to this penalty regardless of whether or not the offending robot was in the RETRIEVAL ZONE itself.FIRST needs to reevaluate this rule and ensure that referees are clear on the ruling.
This is also how it was called at Waterbury. If a robot was touching its Retrieval Zone and touched you, instant foul. It was incredibly easy to get fouls here, and it totally changed how you were able to play offense - and defense.
We also saw multiple instances of this interpretation of the retrieval zone rules being used on the boiler side of the field, despite the rule not penalizing direct contact at all and being entirely different. I saw this too many times for it to have been a coincidence or one time mistake.
I don’t blame the refs - there is so much going on and it is so hard to see everything, and they were all great people doing what they could to explain rules to teams and to act consistently - the game is what’s confusing.
After QF2-1, we talked to the head ref at GSD and he assured us that the rest of the competition would be called per the letter of the rule. We didn’t have any issues with G13’s in QF2-2, but after that I was in the pits working on improving the bot and didn’t see the rest of the matches.
4908 incorrectly had this foul called against them in F2 early in the match after grazing an opponent in their retrieval zone, but 4908 was clearly not in the zone.
For 1 and 3, yes. For 2, no, as the red robot is violating C08:
C08. Don’t expect to gain by doing others harm. Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing 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.
Violation: FOUL. If egregious or repeated, YELLOW CARD.
[blue box]
C08 does not apply for strategies consistent with standard gameplay, e.g. contacting an opponent while in your RETRIEVAL ZONE to retrieve GAME PIECES. C08 requires an intentional act with limited or no opportunity for the TEAM being acted on to avoid the penalty, e.g. placing a GEAR on/in an opponent who’s already controlling a GEAR such that they cannot help but violate G27.
I will have my team double check that with the refs at our next event. There are consistency issues. We were flagged for all three situations yesterday.
While I’m not sure how it should be called, this (2) situation actually occurred in the 4th finals match at the Hatboro-Horsham district event, leading to a tech foul on the robot that was pushed into their zone. After 3974 is pushed into their opponents RETRIEVAL ZONE, the referee calls the tech foul. Shortly thereafter, 2590 contacts 103 while 103 is in the RETRIEVAL ZONE. The referee goes to call another but since 2590 did not enter the zone, the referee waves off the call.
It’s very hard to tell in this situation what was the correct call on 3974. I’m not sure how it should have worked after reading through the rules, but of note is that the foul ended up making the difference in deciding the match.
Link to the webcast recording
If the time-link doesn’t work, the encounter occurs at 8:22:52 in the far right corner of the field.
Good info - but in the case the rules are not clarified before Week 2 starts, would you avoid the spring on the opponent RETRIEVAL ZONE side? Is this really possible for the team whose driver station is over there?
As full disclosure, I am a former member of 4908 and was a FTAA and an assistant to score keeping during playoffs of Granite State. Since I am biased toward 4908 winning, I did not offer my opinion or help in any matches in which they played. In addition, I cannot speak for the head ref but I am offering what my understanding at the scoring table was.
There were two technical fouls called in F2.
The first was against 1058 for possession of two gears. This is one of the hardest rules to call in this years game. Although I understand the argument that this rule was inconsistently applied, the referees did an amazing job. This was certainly the correct call.
The second foul was against 4908 for contacting an opponent inside the frame perimeter while 4908 was not constrained within the legal volume. A piece of 4908’s intake became partially detached which caused this penalty to be called. There is an argument that 4908 should have been disabled, but since it was not intentional and occurred only once, only a tech foul was called.
I am planning on making a full post about all that happened at Granite State so that others can understand what happened. Feel free to PM me with any questions.
I fully respect everything you’ve said and agree as well. I’m not saying that the fouls called against 1058 were unwarranted - they totally were - however I am trying to raise awareness about this rule being called inconsistently NOT due to the fault of anyone behind the scoring table. What I am saying is that I observed what looked like a loading lane foul against 4908 when they were not in the zone, I’m not a ref, I can easily be wrong.
It was a lot of fun playing with you and I think I speak for all of 1058 when I say we were thrilled to have you on our alliance. I was simply quoting an instance where I and other members of my team witnessed what appeared to be an incorrectly called foul against 4908 and it wasn’t the only instance of this mistake. I’m trying to raise awareness to FIRST that this rule should be revisited, and I have nothing against the GSD referee team or anyone else.
FIRST’s official stance encourages referees to make good-faith attempts to explain anything they can remember - it absolutely should not be interpreted as a rule that prevents a referee (or other volunteer) who has information from sharing it. The rule merely says not to make an extra effort to record this information and thus it can’t be promised that said information will be retained. If you happen to remember it anyway, what’s the problem with saying it?
I could provide an argument against your interpretation. Blue robot is in the way and blocking the red loading zone. In an effort to get to their loading zone the red robot pushes the blue robot and the blue robot ends up in the red loading zone contacting a red robot. Should be a technical foul on blue. Red is not trying to draw a foul they are just trying to get to their loading and blue is in the way. Maybe red is employing a strategy to draw fouls or maybe they are trying to get to their loading zone. Intent would be hard to measure and you can’t assume intent.
Now if red where just sitting by their retrival zone the whole match waiting for teams to come by and hit them…then there is evidence of intent and a violation of C08 can then be called.
The bottom line with this game is that if you want do want a foul for being pushed into a retrival zone you need to stay away from it.