"Accidentally" knocking off an opponent's silver mineral

[Mentor 777]

The answered questions seem clear about a robot knocking off an opposing alliance's silver mineral. A major penalty is to be imposed.

However, it appears to be up to the judge's discretion of whether a ball moved by the opposing alliance and knocking off the silver mineral is intentional or not. If intentional, then a penalty. If unintentional, no penalty.

Either way, the team that worked hard to develop a consistent sampling routine is penalized. The 25 points that they worked so hard for are taken away because of an action of their opponent. Shouldn't there always be a penalty involved if an action of your robot causes a loss of score of your opponent, regardless of intention?

[FTC6041]

Agree with OP, scoring shouldn't be that subjective, should be more black and white. If they knock off an opposing mineral, it should be an automatic penalty. We haven't noticed it as an issue, but could see how it might affect some others with questionable ref calls. Autonomous points can easily win rounds combined with end game lifts.

[FTC6041]

Interference with opposing Alliance Scoring or Sample Field during Autonomous is a Major Penalty, and you should have been awarded 40 points. Rule <GS2>

Just saw this, wanted to post the reference.


(We have a couple different people posting through our team account, just fyi).

[RatLabGuy]

Here is the rub, though.
While I believe everyone agrees with your sentiment that a team should be penalized for disrupting another team's chances to make a point, in this particular game setup, it is very possible to move the silver element and it have NO effect on the opposing team.
Why? Because in most cases, teams do their sampling immediately after dropping from the lander, then they move on to drop their marker etc. Most of the time when an opposing team moves their element - presumably by accident - it is on their way across the field to park at the end, and it is after the sampling has already occurred. So in other words, Team A does their sampling, perhaps correctly, then Team B accidentally moves the element later.
So what? Team A did their job already, Team B's actions had no consequence or bearing on it. They didn't prevent Team A from sampling.

The rule and judgement of course stands as written... just pointing out why the spirit of the idea may not be cut and dry.

[Cheer4FTC]

So in other words, Team A does their sampling, perhaps correctly, then Team B accidentally moves the element later.
So what? Team A did their job already, Team B's actions had no consequence or bearing on it. They didn't prevent Team A from sampling.

Sampling is scored at the end of autonomous. In the scenario you describe, Team A will not get sampling points. Team B did, in fact, prevent Team A from sampling and thus cost Team A 25 points.
See this official ruling.

[NEOFTC]

I was not happy with this ruling when I originally read it. It is not fair. I think the GDC did not expect the scoring referee to be able to remember the entire scenario. However, referees usually conference at the end of the match with regards to penalties. I think at that point they can fairly decide if the penalty to the other alliance is more appropriate than giving the successful sample to the first alliance.

[Cheer4FTC]

To me, this ruling in post #21 is even more surprising: you can go to the opposing side crater, knock minerals out of that crater that then immediately interfere with the opponent's sampling field, and there's no penalty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0KLZJ2f6sc&t=1h38m40s

[RatLabGuy]

Sampling is scored at the end of autonomous. In the scenario you describe, Team A will not get sampling points. Team B did, in fact, prevent Team A from sampling and thus cost Team A 25 points.
See this official ruling.

IMO it isn't so cut and dry. Clearly, points are not awarded solely on a "snapshot" of the state of things at the end of autonomous; indeed, they must also include a survey of what happened in the meantime. Otherwise things like the answers 3 and 4 of your linked ruling would not happen, nor would their be any of this discussion of "intent".

Imagine also the related scenario, which happened to us:
Red Alliance team drops their marker in the depot, and like many other teams, they head over to park in the far corer of the Blue-side crater. It's a tight fit between the wall and the silver mineral. Due to slight variance in the field and imperfect coding, the robot glances the side of the field on the pathway, bounces off, and parks slightly farther away from the wall attempting to score parking point... in the process, glancing the silver mineral.
Was that an "intentional" movement of the silver mineral? The Red team would certainly say no, it was just an accident, occurring only b/c of error. But a conservative judge might still blame them for taking the more risky tactic of trying to park over there.

[Mentor 777]

Was that an "intentional" movement of the silver mineral? The Red team would certainly say no, it was just an accident, occurring only b/c of error. But a conservative judge might still blame them for taking the more risky tactic of trying to park over there.

I believe you hit the nail on the head with your last statement. It is indeed the more risky tactic. While it certainly would not be "intentional" on the part of the Red Alliance in this situation, it also was not intentional on the part of the blue alliance, whose sample field was disturbed. I've now seen this handled 3 ways in competitions.

The first time, we sampled and the opponent knocked off our silver mineral. We were awarded neither the 25 points for sampling nor was our alliance given a penalty. So, we were penalized 25 points for an action of our opponent. An appeal was unsuccessful.

At the next tournament, we were more prepared. We had the answered questions in hand. On our first round, the same thing occurred. We sampled successfully and our opponent knocked off our silver mineral. We had papers in hand ready to go to the question box. However, we were awarded the 25 points for sampling, even though our opponent had removed the white ball. During this competition, that happened several times. Since we were receiving the points for what we performed, we did not appeal. While we would have had a net of 15 additional points, I believe this way is a fair interpretation of the rules.

At our latest competition, this situation was handled as I interpret the rules. Again, we had this happen. We have been very careful with our programming. We did not attempt place the marker or park in the crater until we had systems in place to ensure that we did not hit a mineral on the way in the narrow path. As we incorporated more controls and felt comfortable with the accuracy, we then took that extra risk to go through that spot. So, yes, it is a calculated risk. Imposing the net 15 points to your opponent for taking this risk and failing is a fair way to do it.

The one down side to this interpretation is the negative effect on tie breaker points. Suppose a team on the losing alliance performs a full autonomous. For this purpose, let's assume that this is all that happens in the round. Both robots shut off afterward (connection issue, unplugged wire, etc.) The losing alliance achieves 80 points. The winning team achieves 96 or higher and wins.

While the winning alliance was attempting to park in the crater, they knocked off the silver mineral of the successful sampling on the losing alliance side. Under the interpretation of giving the points, all 4 teams would receive 80 tie breaker points. Under the interpretation that the sampling is not scored, but a penalty is imposed, all 4 teams would receive 55 tie breaker points (tie breaker points use pre-penalty totals of the losing alliance). So, the erroneous knocking off of the silver mineral cost everyone involved 25 tie breaker points. That is an additional risk that I had not considered until typing this out.

[Cheer4FTC]

Imagine also the related scenario, which happened to us:
Red Alliance team drops their marker in the depot, and like many other teams, they head over to park in the far corer of the Blue-side crater. It's a tight fit between the wall and the silver mineral. Due to slight variance in the field and imperfect coding, the robot glances the side of the field on the pathway, bounces off, and parks slightly farther away from the wall attempting to score parking point... in the process, glancing the silver mineral.
Was that an "intentional" movement of the silver mineral? The Red team would certainly say no, it was just an accident, occurring only b/c of error. But a conservative judge might still blame them for taking the more risky tactic of trying to park over there.

This scenario is directly addressed in this ruling, which seems to make it clear that it should definitely be a penalty. Note that the ruling says a penalty should be applied regardless of intent, and regardless of whether or not the gold mineral had been removed.

Also, BTW, Judges judge awards and Refs ref on-field scoring and penalties.