[YMTC]: What determines a robot's intentions?

In autonomous, Redabot bumps into another robot on its way to the scale. It ends up with its bumpers inside its alliance’s Null Territory, but facing the wrong way. It launches a Power Cube away from the scale, ejecting it from the field. (Luckily, nobody gets hurt.)

Is this a violation of G09 (Launching POWER CUBES is okay, but keep it short) or G21 (Keep POWER CUBES in bounds)?

The rules talk about a robot’s “intentions” or what it is “attempting” to do, which is an interesting concept when talking about an autonomously-controlled robot. The robot was clearly programmed to intentionally launch the Power Cube at that time, though it likely isn’t exactly what its programmer was hoping for it to do.

If it happens just once, can’t imagine calling a foul for that.

If it happens consistently, however, then that’s when the calls might start flying. Or at least the request and CSA tail to reevaluate the code.

G09 for sure, just like gears last year.

Hrmm. I guess it could be invoked, because if you are facing out of the field, you aren’t “attempting to place a cube on the scale plate”, but that just seems harsh. Guess it’d be something Ill have to study up on before comp season.

I would say that if a robot got hit in the act of launching, regardless of match timing, that would hopefully be taken into account by the referees.

I would also say that that would be a good question to ask Q&A, with respect to how strictly G09 (and, for that matter, G16) will be enforced in auto mode.

I would also say it would be nice if the GDC would actually answer these types of questions, instead of punting them to “We cannot comment absolutely on hypothetical scenarios. The ultimate decision would be determined by the REFEREES at your event, with the final call made by the Head REFEREE.”

I agree, the HR has the final say. But how are they being trained to make the calls? This insight would prove very valuable and help teams make responsible design and strategy choices.

I am aware that there may be a few edge cases in which teams may try to game the referee trainings, but to me transparency would be better than an answer of “I dunno why don’t you try it and see what happens.”

In this situation, the drive team still has the e-stop button but they chose to not use it.

  1. Disabled via S01 (subject to head ref - who is probably the person being launched at…)
  2. G09a Tech Foul (there is no intent stipulated in the wording)

Considering the likely spot of the disabling, this would be particularly detrimental to the alliance.

It is dangerous to predict what the bumble bee is going to do in these kinds of grey situations. But going on past years games with similar rules. (Also dangerous.) A robot ejecting a cube while attempting an autonomous routine is likely to be a warning the first couple of times. Shooting cube to the back of the stands probably less so.The best place to ask this question is at the events driver’s meeting.

Last year, there was a rule against launching fuel out of the field, but there were no penalties if it happened during auto. Because of this, I would think that there would be no penalties for just one cube. That said, milk crates are larger and heavier than whiffle balls, so I also think there could be a penalty. If it happens just outside of the NULL TERRITORY, it’s probably not a G09 violation as it was intended to be launched inside the NULL TERRITORY. If it just falls over the GUARDRAIL, it’s probably not a G21. However, if the cube is launched a considerable distance from the NULL TERRITORY, and/or flies over the GUARDRAIL, there’s a good chance it will be a G09/G21 violation.

Not quite.

Steamwork’s G22 (in wording very similar to Power Up’s G21) explicitly mentioned “intentionally ejecting GAME PIECES from the FIELD”.

Last year, it was left to the head referee judgement if a poorly aimed autonomous shooting was actually intentional. It rarely (ever?) was deemed to be so.

I suspect GDC will again allow the HR to make the proper judgement… with the caveat that someone getting hit by a crate is much more dangerous than field personnel being pelted by errant whiffle balls.

Conservative design practice dictates that you should count on your robot being disabled, if it launches a 3.5# game piece that hits the Head Referee in the head!

Teams should also consider that the head ref shirts are yellow, though not as bright as the power cube sleeves. If using vision tracing for cubes they may want to make sure head-ref-yellow isn’t registered by any vision software.

Deja vu: in 2005, the vision target was green. As a field resetter on Curie that year, I stupidly let the green collar of my team shirt show above the collar of the volunteer shirt that I was wearing over it. A robot locked in on me and I was nearly capped with a Tetra, before another volunteer pulled me out of the way.

I would say that in this situation though Redabot hit another robot and it changed their orientation to something not of their own intent. Since they did not intend for their robot to be facing away from the scale when their cube was launched their shouldn’t be a foul called.

At least the Head Referee can duck/block. Worse might be that it hits the Scorekeeper’s computer!