[YMTC] Red robot on blue bridge

Competition Rules/Strategy
1

This situation actually happened at the Queen City Regional last week, and I think there’s an interesting discussion to be had about it. If I make a mistake in describing it, please correct me.

The blue alliance is attempting to triple balance. They have two robots on the bridge and the third one is making their way towards it. A red robot is defending the third robot from getting onto the bridge, and in the process, they are pushed onto the bridge through the actions of the third blue robot attemping to get on.

What penalties should the defending red robot receive? Are they interfering with the act of balancing? Are they being forced to interfere and therefore not penalized? If they aren’t, at which point would they be? You make the call.

EDIT: Never posted in this subforum before; didn’t know it automatically titled it. If a mod could correct my title, that would be much appreciated.

2

Video is here. That was SF 2-3 at Queen City.

Further discussion was here, starting with post #71.

Basically, it comes down to an interpretation problem: does [G44] negate everything except [G28], or does the rather absolute phrasing of [G25] also constitute an exception to [G44]?

I’d say only the [G28] exception conclusively exists. The language of [G44] ("[g]enerally", “an exception”) leaves the possibility open that other rules could be interpreted as exceptions, but those would be for the referee or the GDC to identify. We clearly can’t accept the situation where every absolutely-phrased game rule is an exception, to the point where the generality of [G44] is in question.

So, in other words, the lack of [G25] effects was correct, because all contact with the opponents’ bridge was caused by an opponent’s own actions.

However, it appears that there are possible instances of [G28], at match time 51 and (possibly repeatedly) around match time 23. In between 0 and 3 instances, 1038 may have touched an opposing robot in contact with the opponents’ bridge.1 Those were unlikely to have been “purposeful, consequential contact”, and as such, only a foul is merited each time. Apparently, however, that’s not what the one foul called was for.

Also, I don’t know if the referees were instructed to remain in a fixed position, but it looks like the nearest referee is not in a good spot to observe the action. It therefore doesn’t entirely surprise me that there was no foul called.

And finally, if zero, one or two fouls were missed, the outcome of the match wouldn’t change. If three fouls were missed, red would have won due to the tiebreaker.

1 It’s hard to say from the video which ones are actual contact, and which ones merely come close. It’s also an open question whether multiple penalties are to be assessed when a robot briefly breaks, then immediately re-establishes contact with an opponent touching the bridge. (I’d say the rules support a new penalty every time, as painful as that sounds.)

3

I saw one [G28] foul at 20 seconds remaining (there may have been more, the view was a bit blocked), but nothing else. There is nothing in the rulebook to indicate that there is any exception to [G44] as it relates to [G25] or any other game rule other than [G28].

4

Doesnt really matter but You switched up the red and blue alliances.

[G28]
Robots may not touch an opponent Robot in contact with its Key, Alley, or Bridge.
Violation: Foul; Technical-Foul for purposeful, consequential contact.

1038 contacts 3301 (0:22) while on/in contact with the bridge. FOUL. Wasn’t called. (could have been Technical Foul But wasn’t really 1038’s fault)

[G25]
Robots may not contact or otherwise interfere with the opposing Alliance Bridge.
Violation: Technical-Foul. If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced with the maximum number of Robots possible for that Match.

1038 contacts Bridge (0:20). Also the act of balancing was interfered with, because they were on the bridge, not allowing it to balance, AND not letting the other robot onto the bridge. Which means the Blue alliance should have had a RED Card (causing them to be DQ’d from Match) and the bridge should have been counted as a Triple Robot Balance.

THUS: A (G28) FOUL should have been called
A (G25) TECHNICAL FOUL, RED CARD, and Max Number of Bridge points added to score.

Official Score:
Total Red: 68
Basket pts: 45
Bridge pts : 20
Foul pts :3

Total Blue: 77
Basket pts: 54
Bridge pts: 20
Foul pts: 3

“SHOULD BE” Score:
Total Red: 90
Basket pts: 45
Bridge pts : 40
Foul pts :15

Total Blue: 77 (PLUS DQ)
Basket pts: 54
Bridge pts: 20
Foul pts: 3

5

Nope. See [G44]…

[G44]

Generally, a rule violation by an Alliance that was directly caused by actions of the opposing Alliance will not be penalized. Rule [G28] is an exception to this rule.

1038 was forced to touch the Bridge, so no penalty for that.

6

NOPE! G44 has the exception of G28. Also, the blue robot was not trying to get out of the way, and not trying to prevent the penalty. They directly caused it themselves. NOT the red alliance. There was not one time that 1038 tried to get away from the bridge, thus making the G44 become a FOUL and/or Tech Foul and/or RED Card.

7

What Would Bill Miller Do?

8

Except for one “minor” thing.

We aren’t talking about a [G28] violation. Should one have been called? Probably. But it is entirely independent of the rule in most question, which is [G25]. [G25] is covered by [G44]. As such, if the referee’s judgement is that the robot in question is getting a penalty because of their opponent’s actions, then [G44] is invoked, no penalty, no foul.

Long post short: [G28], one call. [G25], no call. [G44], exception invoked under [G28]. [G45] potential call, but can’t show strategy so no call.

3 foul points to red alliance. Blue alliance still wins. That’s the only call I can justify without getting harshly reminded by this forum of [G44]'s existence and exception.

9

I’m wondering what the criteria for “showing strategy” is?

I would argue, if a robot parks itself a foot away from the bridge, but isn’t worried about getting called on a [G25] because they’ll be protected by [G44], this would be exploiting [G44] and thus a violation of [G45].

That’s my argument, but I’m more curious as to what criteria must be met to qualify as a “strategy to exploit [G44]”.

It came up at CVR in Semi 2-2. I was able to have an awesome conversation about it after the event with the CVR Head Ref Bryan, who I’ve had the pleasure of working on the Davis planning committee with the past few years. He heard me out and was going to check with Aiden Brown for some clarification. Haven’t heard back yet but I’m hopeful!

-Mike

10

This illustrates a good point about [G45]: what does it even mean? I don’t think I can even articulate a hypothetical test that reliably distinguishes a [G44]-exploiting strategy from a legitimate one, based upon the evidence that referees can be expected to possess. Certainly FIRST has articulated no such thing either.

I don’t think it’s fair to call [G45] on a team that could have acted differently, but didn’t, and therefore allowed a [G44]-excused violation to occur. That’s like thoughtcrime.

For example, to use Michael’s example above, how do we know that the intended result (of the “strategy”) wasn’t to influence some other aspect of gameplay? (The obvious one might be that they intended to block an opponent, rather than get pushed into the bridge.)

Instead, I think referees have to be very judicious in applying [G45], because it’s as if they’re making a very strong assertion about the motivation of a team’s actions in the heat of competition. Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. Until we make the drivers wear FMRI helmets,1 I don’t think this is something that can be called in cases where the on-field actions appear borderline.

1 Clinically speaking, that wouldn’t even be enough.

11

A similar situation occurred at GTR West in Elims, 1241 was blocking the opposing alliance from ascending their bridge, and got repeatedly rammed, ending with them touching the bridge. No [G25] or [G28] call.

12

At the end of the match team 1241 correct was being pushed “near” the bridge, with our 6- 6" Pneumatic tires, team 2056 had trouble pushing us. We were pushed near the bridge but no part of our bumpers or robot was touching if you were to have looked at the robot at the end of the match. That is how the referees’ made that correct ruling.

13

A similar situation happened today at MAR Championships. Correct me if I describe it incorrectly.

Every match, 341’s alliance (red) attempts to triple balance. They were successful in most every match. 1218’s alliance was unable of the feat, but when they were up against triple capable alliances, 1218 would park in front of the bridge (much like the robot at Queen City), and force the red alliance to push them onto the bridge if they wanted to balance.

However, this match had a wrench thrown into it: In the process, one robot managed to get through and was touching the bridge between 1218 and 341. 341 began to ram 1218, which was touching a robot that was touching the bridge (this was the best I could see based on the webcast; again, if I’m wrong please correct me). For each ram, 1218 was given a 3 point penalty, for a total of 24 points.

So the question is:

  • Was this the correct call?
  • Does [G25] apply?
  • Does [G44]/[G28] apply?
  • Does [G45] apply?
  • If [G45] does not apply, why not?
  • If this call is correct, does this now invalidate this form of bridge defense?
14

If anyone wasn’t at the drivers meeting on Thursday Champs, they made the official ruling on this or any triple balance defense question. Essentially, the robot blocking the bridge is disrupting the intention of the game, and is liable for any penalties they incur. G45 does not apply.

15

Where did they get that from? It certainly wasn’t the rulebook.

Even [G23], the rule about blockading, only applies when multiple robots from the same alliance are doing it. (It says “This rule has no effect on individual Robot-to-Robot defense.”)

Or were they treating blocking the bridge as a [G25] issue? (A very big stretch.)

16

I think the intention was to make it clear that [G45] wouldn’t be invoked as long as you were clearly trying to get robots onto the bridge.

17

It’s not like FIRST hasn’t made ridiculous rule stretches before. I’m disappointed, though… honestly, FIRST needs to accept that sometimes teams will come up with strategies it didn’t intend, and allow that to happen. Some bridge defense within the actual rules could have made the last few matches very interesting.

18

This was discussed at the Archimedes driver’s meeting. Blocking the bridge is an acceptable strategy. Touching the bridge will trying to block is you own fault & a <G25> regardless of the reason.

If you are driven into a the bridge from across the field could be a [G44] Up the referee determination.