The strategy is aimed at pushing them away from where they are scoring. The strategy is not aimed at forcing them to commit a foul, that is a side effect.
But it is, you are stuck looking at one side.
Action causing foul != Strategy to cause foul.
It’s that simple.
A strategy will almost always lead to the actions–but just doing the actions doesn’t necessarily imply that there’s a strategy.
So how many 5 second counts need to pass before it switches from action to strategy. After all, it’s only 3 or 10 points every 5 seconds. Nothing that would determine the outcome of a match.
Perhaps as many 5 second counts that it took for the pushed robots teammate to get back across midfield I guess.
Should the ref be pointing at the freed up robot instead for the count? I suppose that would make some people happy, but all the more confusing for the refs.
Under this interpretation, as long as the offensive robot is trying to score, you can force the robot to get penalties all you want, because “the strategy was to play defense”. This is a really suspect interpretation of the rule and basically makes it impossible to definitively call C8 at any reasonable time.
You have to point at the second bot that crosses because there’s no penalty or count if there is only the one bot. Plus a 10 point tech foul would be awarded if the second bot was outside the frame AND two bots across the cargo line, a 3 point foul if they were lucky enough to still be inside their frame.
The other thing that happens is the penalty is given as soon as a part of the second bot crosses the cargo line, the 5 second count is for the 2nd time the penalty is given, then another 5 second count for the third…
This is the only part I do not agree with in the rules. I believe the penalty should start after the count. Otherwise I wouldn’t change the rules.
It’s the teams responsibility to retract. You can’t call diplomatic immunity or tell defense to be careful if you designed your bot without a means to retract.
It’s the alliances responsibility to make sure only one robot is on the other side of the field. Whether or not a robot is pushed. If two are pushed or trapped then we can talk.
I agree. Neither robot should get a foul. But the way the rules are written, either the offense gets a G9 or the defense gets a C8, and neither of those outcomes makes sense if the defender was just playing defense.
The typical situation this year is that the referee can’t really tell if it’s a strategic attempt to cause a G9 foul. What’s the referee to do? Either the refs agree on house rules to decide how to handle it (choosing to ignore G9, choosing to call C8 without clear strategic intent, etc), or they call one of the two fouls that doesn’t really make sense. The rules don’t leave them a good option.
I think you could argue an interpretation of G18 as it’s currently written that allows for this. (Italicized text is from the accompanying blue box.)
The wording is a little unclear, but my understanding is that because Blue already has a robot on defense, then the Red Cargo Ship Line is treated like a solid wall with respect to a Red robot pinning a Blue robot. If a Red robot trapping a Blue robot using this imaginary wall initiates a pin count, then it seems logical that a Red robot holding a Blue robot beyond this imaginary wall would also initiate a pin count.
Yeah I definitely agree and it puts the referees in a tough spot. Either don’t call c8 and make it so some people will try to abuse it or call c8 and risk being wrong about a yellow card.
I disagree very strongly with this. While I don’t have the data at hand, a very large number of matches were won by less than 10 points.
And anyway, saying a thing matters little does not solve the problem over whether that thing is right.
I can only assume this was sarcastic. Many, many matches are this close this year.
sorry, forgot the /s
If that were the case, teams would stop pushing sooner. There is a gap between the furthest cargo bay and the opponent’s cargo ship line. A defending robot can prevent a team from scoring without forcing them to cross the line, thus any instances of pushing a team across the line can be considered an intentional decision or a serious mistake. I believe that either of those would deserve to be penalized though C8.
I understand that’s an harsh opinion, but if the offensive robot is trying to score in the front or middle cargo bay and they get are pushed all the way across the opponent’s cargo ship line, then the defender is out of line. In that case, the bot has been pushed far further than was necessary, so I would deem the behavior egregious.
The key point of C8 is in the blue box - “C8 requires an intentional act with limited or no opportunity for the TEAM being acted on to avoid the penalty”. As long as there is a reasonable way to avoid the penalty, C8 should not be getting invoked.
In the case of G10 the team being acted on has a simple way to prevent the penalty - be in frame perimeter. I don’t see how C8 can ever be called there unless the pushing robot is also intentionally holding the robot out of perimeter.
In the case of G9 the team being acted on has a simple alliance strategy to avoid the penalty by not having a teammate on the far side of the field when they are near the cargo line. So in general I think calling C8 is wrong there as well unless it is something out of the ordinary.
I also think if a referee calls a conduct foul, they should be required to inform the team of the call and explain why they are making it. C8 specifically states it’s for actions “not in the spirit of FIRST Robotics Competition”. If teams are being called for C8 they shouldn’t be leaving the field unaware of the call.
Team Update 18
Everybody happy now?
I like it when gracious professionalism wins over questionable ethics disguised as strategy.
If they aren’t, who do we report them to for being impossible to please?