[ymtc] c8


Here’s another C8 question.

Blue robot drives, of it’s own accord, into the red half of the field to play defense. Blue has a mechanism outside their FP, cannot retract it, and starts incurring a G10 penalty every 5 seconds. Red notices what is happening, and parks near the midline to prevent the blue robot from crossing back.

At what point does this become a C8? Does it ever?


I think it’s C8 once blue runs into red and then red doesn’t let them by.


It depends a lot on the situation. If red blocks bot side routes, then it gets to be a pretty clear violation, but C8 isn’t the only rule available. If red only blocks the nearest one, then it might be, or it might not be.

Bear in mind: C8 requires that the victim team have little or no chance to avoid the fouls


From the way you described it that would be a violation of C8 but in real life I doubt that would happen. There are often nuances but if it was clear they were just trying to keep them on their side that would 100% be C8.


C8 should only be used when it is obviously malicious in intent, and not part if any other strategy. Such as pushing a disabled robot into the rocket during the last 20 seconds. That could be argued to be C8 as not only is it forcing them into a penalty, but there is no other reason to do it. In fact it is most likely detrimental to you as it bocks your path. Pushing a robot towards your side is a strategy. 4476 used it in Durham to stop climbs. I agree the rule needs to be changed as tipping over a little bit should not decide games, but in the end the defensive strategy is to get you away from scoring, and you cannot score if you are not on your side. We do not want FRC to become a game where certain strategies are punished. That limits the scope of teams and harms smaller teams. What needs to change is the rule on two robots. It needs to be like the hab rule, and only apply if the robot is fully over the opponents hab line.


I don’t think it will be called which sucks for red.

How do you prove that red KNOWS blue is being penalized? They could be blocking just to hinder them in general.

You can’t just say “everybody knows that blue is being penalized for being outside their frame”. I just watched a driver this morning incur 30pts in penalties for playing defense with their arm obviously hanging out.

At champs I would expect more people to have a better grasp of the rules, but obviously not today.


For reference, this is the match that prompted the post: https://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2019mdbet_qf4m1

The question was to determine whether this could ever go badly for red…or does trapping the offending robot essentially guarantee red a free win.


This is actually very similar to the match I was referring to. Blue had several opportunities to return but instead continued to play defense and gave red the free win.

The rules do say a pin count overrides the continued foul count. So if you have them trapped it is not necessarily a free win.


I doubt this will change any minds, but I’m going to throw another monkey wrench into this.
I inspected several teams in week 2 who were not capable of remaining inside their frame perimeter after match startup. In several cases, it was a bit of energy chain or other inconsequential bit which had to be restrained at the start of the match, and in others, it was more deliberate. While I certainly agree that this was a poor decision on their part, I feel that robots pushed across the CARGO SHIP LINE by the opposing alliance should be exempt from G9 and G10 fouls as long as they are not actually doing any “defensive” actions (that is, trying to prevent scoring by the other alliance) and appear to be trying to get back to their own side of the field.


Hmm. This response implies that either C8 or G13 (in that example) is called, but there is never a ‘no call’ scenario when C8 comes into question.


To be clear, we actually only blockaded the defenders (which happened to be their level 3 climb) they were already on the opposite side of the field. We just prevented them from getting back.


I think C8 should be called when an action by a bot that scores points from fouls like it’s an offensive bot, without scoring any game pieces.

Defense shouldn’t score points, it should only prevent points from being scored.


C8 clearly states that it’s a strategy clearly aimed at forcing your opponent to get a foul. If I am trying to push you away from your cargo ship and I push you onto the other side causing you to get a foul that’s not a strategy aimed at forcing your opponent to get a foul. That’s normal defense.


So when you’re pushing the robot against their will into a place they aren’t allowed to go, that’s… not forcing them to foul? I can’t follow your logic here.

You’re aiming to force them into a foul condition - you’re pushing them into that area. If they were going to the foul area on their own you wouldn’t need to push them.


I think theyre trying to say that if the defense theyre playing causes a foul (such as them going into the other side of the field,) then that shouldnt warrant a C8 penalty.


I’ve heard that’s how it’s being called, but that doesn’t make sense. The robot is being forced into a foul, it doesn’t matter if the defender also had another goal. The robot being defended was not attempting to cause the foul, and the only reason they got the foul was because of the actions of the defender. It seems like a big twist of logic to suggest that this is somehow “not forced” by the robot literally forcing it.


Lets say my robot is having issues and we don’t have a defender. I drive to your side of the field then hit the e-stop.

Now your defender cannot push my teammate to the midpoint without FORCING my teammate to foul. C8
Oh, but the defender doesn’t HAVE to push to the midpoint.

How about I park in front of your loading station and hit the e-stop.

You cannot load from that station without hitting me and FORCING me to foul. C8
Oh, but you don’t HAVE to load from that station.


In the past, there was a rule prohibiting “strategic use of the E-stop” which resulted in a red card. It seems to have been removed, which is probably good? I only ever saw it called on referees who disagreed with a team’s decision to stop their own robot because they didn’t think the situation was dire enough.

Obviously in this completely different example you have outlined, where a team clearly intentionally E-Stopped their robot, that would not be C8. Good thing that is not the situation being discussed at all!


Look at the wording of the rule. It states that it must be a strategy aimed at forcing them to commit a foul, not an action that causes them commit a foul.


Is it not a strategic decision which direction they push the other team?