RedBot1 is a good robot. Going into their first elimination match, BlueBot1 and BlueBot2 both defend RedBot1.
In that first match, RedBot1 is traversing the field. Bluebot1 is defending, and the two collide head-on. The collision is at such a high speed that RedBot1’s front gets thrown up into the air. Both continue to push, such that RedBot1’s bumper and front wheels end up on top of BlueBot1’s bumper perimeter, and cause damage inside the robot. BlueBot2, coming from behind, hits RedBot1 and sandwiches them, pushing them either further into BlueBot 1.
You make the call. What rules are infringed? Does RedBot1 get a technical foul for contact and damage inside an opponents bumper perimeter?
You are going to have to wait & see what your ref says. Generally I think it would be seen as playing the game. If it was an mechanism projecting outside of redbot’s perimeter caused the damage it might be a different call because of G-29.
Last year I saw a robot accidentally drive of the side of their bridge & land on an opposing robot, The opposing robot was called for contacting the other robot while it was contacting its bridge.
I think no foul should be called. We had a nearly identical situation happen with our robot and another robot trying to block us, and no foul was called on either side.
G18-1 would not be applied here. The wording of G18-1 is:
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE .
Emphasis mine. The intention of BlueBot2 was to get RedBot1 off of BlueBot1 in order to free BlueBot1, not to **solely **make RedBot1 be more inside the FP of BlueBot1
If they came from the side to try to spin RedBot1 off BlueBot1, then yes, that’s pretty clear-cut. No G18-1.
But if they came up from behind, then they could easily appear to be trying to get a penalty on RedBot1 for a FP violation, or worse, tip RedBot1. I could see two or three penalties that could be called against BlueBot2 in that situation, depending on exact circumstances (if RedBot1 goes over, for example, the penalty will be different than if RedBot1 is able to get off of BlueBot1). Remember, the referee does not know BlueBot2’s intention except by what BlueBot2 actually does.
If I was to make the call… BlueBot1 and RedBot1 are clear of any fouls. Neither intended to contact inside FP, neither intended to cause damage, it’s an unfortunate accident. BlueBot2, as noted above, could be in danger of picking up a foul or technical depending on exact situation and results.
Tom: What was the head ref’s call, and was any explanation given for why the call was the way it was? This sort of thing can always be useful in terms of YMTCs for us armchair referees.
First my “short” answer: A Technical Foul could be called on either alliance or no foul. This situation is interesting and highly dependent on specifics & judgment of the refs. In other words “I would have to see it”
Now to my earlier remark and the discussion around it.
This is how I interpret this response (let me know if I am mistaken):
G29 Technical foul on RedBot1 will not be assessed because the actions of the Blue Alliance caused this foul
That call is not an option, because it has no basis in the rules. If a G29 has occurred it must be assessed, unless a G18-1 Technical Foul is called against the opposing to cancel the assessment of that G29. Either way one side is getting a Technical Foul, you can’t “forgive” fouls. The only case of no foul is if a G29 has not occurred.
G18-1 was the most glaring omission from the Game Rules at Kickoff IMHO. I believe that helped it become the most misunderstood rule this year. In my experience, a solid majority of FRC participants (even ones who read the rules multiple times and have a good understanding of others) do not understand G18-1. This is most noticeable with >60" Disk blockers and G22 calls. I believe underlying source of the misunderstanding is obsolete rules (G44 from last year is still in the back of mind), rules from other competitions (like FTC), or person wishes about the rules. G18-1 is very different than G44 in 2012
Here is speculation on my part about the reason for this major change from year to year. After Kickoff the GDC realized they needed a G44 like rule in TU 1-11, but they didn’t want a rule exactly like G44 or they just would have used it verbatim except for changing G28 to a list of this year’s rules. Making exceptions to the rule is bad practice (but better than the alternative), and on several occasions teams used strategies just to rack up the G28 fouls (some refs would card them). The GDC chose instead to implicitly allow alliances to cause their opponents fouls in the normal run of play, and explicitly give them a Technical Foul if they use it as a strategy. This puts the emphasis on teams to not put themselves in a situation where they are a high risk for a foul, while discouraging opponents with foul points (not just a possible card) from taking advantage of this situation. This is a new approach, let’s see if they stick with it. Rules like 2012 G44 only go back to 2008, if I remember rule history correctly. Before that you could cause your opponents to get all the penalties you wanted with no consequences (there were not any cards either).
G18-1 is certainly a consideration here, doesn’t necessarily need to be called. That is which is what makes this YMTC so interesting. I was trying to nudge the discussion and get others interpretations, before I added mine. I think Eric broke down the implications of BlueBot2 ‘s actions in regard to G18-1 & G28well, so I will focus on questions around G29:
Is there significant damage on BlueBot1 to be considered “damaging contact”?
If not, no foul. I don’t consider this situation deliberate contact. Keep in mind G29 is an OR condition not an AND condition (“Deliberate or damaging contact”). Some are dismissing the foul because it wasn’t deliberate, but that doesn’t matter if it was damaging.
If there is significant damage (components cut, torn, shattered, etc…) then one side should get a Technical Foul, which side depends on robot actions.
Did RedBot1 immediately try to get off of BlueBot1?
If you find yourself in a precarious position, you should immediately try to remedy the situation. To use another cliché, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If it looks like the damage was caused before BlueBot2 hit them, the Technical Foul is probably on Red. If Blue forced the damage, then probably Technical Foul on Blue. It is hard to be definitive in this hypothetical.
In this case, the consequences of these rules (G29 & G18-1) are most likely unintended. In other cases such as G22 & G30 I suspect they are intentional.
Our driver immediately tried to backup - flipping with our elevator system would be a bad thing. Unfortunately, backing up wasn’t really an option when we got packed from behind.
It was good hard defense all the way around, and I don’t fault any of the teams involved.
Unfortunately, we were called for a penalty for contacting and causing damage (beat up some of their guarding) inside their robot perimeter with our wheels. When we asked the head ref well after the match, he was extremely gracious and talked to us (not the student) and explained that was his interpretation of the rule. Keep in mind our bumpers are 2 inches off the ground, as is our chassis. It was a tremendous hit that lifted our entire front nearly a foot off the ground.
This was more a query to confirm that we had the correct interpretation; that no penalty should have been assessed. We put in a request for clarification on the rule to Q&A but they declined based on it’s hypothetical-ness. It’s the first technical we’ve drawn in all our time in FIRST, and it was fairly disconcerting feeling like we’d done something wrong.
.