Game Play - All Match Periods

[Billie Jean]

Answers to questions about Game Play - All Match Periods

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Stones/Capstones - Two Scenarios

Rule GS3 says in part: "a Robot may Control or Possess a maximum of one (1) Stone and/or one (1) Capstone. a) Plowing through any quantity of Stones or Capstones is allowed but herding or directing multiple Stones or Capstones to gain a strategic advantage (i.e., Scoring, accessibility, defense) is not allowed."

Question 1: During the Driver Controlled Period, a robot with a stone in its possession drives towards its foundation. In front of the foundation on the playing field is another stone making accessing a desirable part of the foundation difficult. May the robot push the stone on the playing field away, or is this a violation of GS3 (possessing a stone while directing another stone away to improve accessibility)?

Question 2: A robot with a "U" shaped drivetrain base drives to pick up a skystone in the quarry. In doing so, it pushes the two stones on either side of the skystone away from the skystone. Is this legal "plowing" or is this directing multiple stones to gain an accessibility advantage and thus prohibited by GS3?

Answer 1: Yes, a Robot may push Scoring Elements away from a position blocking access to the Alliance's Foundation. This action is considered to be removing a disadvantage caused by a Scoring Element.

Answer 2: The action described in the scenario is legal plowing and it does not violate rule <GS3>.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Stones/Capstones - Moving several Stones in the Quarry

A previously answered question was:

A robot with a "U" shaped drivetrain base drives to pick up a skystone in the quarry. In doing so, it pushes the two stones on either side of the skystone away from the skystone. Is this legal "plowing" or is this directing multiple stones to gain an accessibility advantage and thus prohibited by GS3?

The answer was that the action described in the scenario is legal plowing and does not violate rule <GS3>. To further clarify this question, if a robot with a "U" shaped drivetrain base drives to pick up a skystone in the quarry and in doing so it pushes two stones only on one side of the skystone away from the skystone, is this legal "plowing"?

Thanks!

Answer: The action described is legal Plowing and it does not violate rule <GS3>.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS10> Foundation Movement and <GS8> Controlling the Opposing Alliance's Foundation

According to GS10, "Foundations must remain Completely In the Building Zone. A Minor Penalty will be assessed for every 5 seconds that the Foundation is not Completely In the Building Zone." It doesn't specify who receives this penalty.

Question 1: Does the alliance who moved it receive this penalty or the alliance whose foundation it is?

Question 2: According to GS8, "Robots may not Control the opposing Alliance's Foundation when the Foundation is In the opposing Alliance's Building Site or at any time during End Game." So, If we were to put our foundation on top of the other alliance's foundation and move it into our building site, would they be able to remove it?

Answer 1: The Alliance that moves the Foundation out of the Building Zone violates the rule and is penalized.

Answer 2: This gameplay strategy is not not allowed. The action described violates rules <G17> for entanglement of Game Elements, <G29> for amplifying the difficulty of a Scoring or game activity, and <G28> for Egregious Behavior. Rule <GS5> may come into play depending on how the Robot interacts with the Foundations.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Stones/Capstones - Robot Possess one Stone outside the Foundation plus one or more Stones that are In the Foundation

<GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Stones/Capstones is very clear that robots may control only one stone at a time, while (b) specifies that stones in the foundation are exempt from this rule.

Question: Just to be clear, aside from meaning that robots may control > 1 stone that is in the foundation, is it also allowable for that a robot may control stones in the foundation while also simultaneously controlling a single stone that is outside of the foundation? Imagine, for instance, a robot must move or shuffle stones in the foundation prior to, or simultaneous with, placing the stone it had moved over to it - are we to assume this is allowable?

Answer: Yes, this is a correct interpretation of rule <GS3>. A Robot may Possess one Stone that is Outside the Alliance's Foundation plus one or more Stones that are all In the Alliance's Foundation.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: Using LEDs to indicate information during a Match

Question: Are we allowed to use LEDs on the robot to indicate current conditions on the robot? For instance, turning LEDs green to indicate that the robot is lined up to stack a stone on a skyscraper.

Answer: Yes, provided that the LEDs are powered and controlled using an allowed method specified in the Game Manual Part 1.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: Launching Game Elements

From the manual: Launching; Propelling Game Elements with enough force such that they can move independent of contact with the Robot or Human Player.

Question 1: If a STONE is released and falls [primarily vertically] from a mechanism, then the STONE is moving independent of contact with the Robot or Human Player. Is dropping a STONE considered LAUNCHING?

Question 2: Imagine an escalator in which the STONE arrives at the top only to fall off the edge with "minimal" horizontal velocity, is this LAUNCHING?

Please advise. Thanks!

Answer 1: No

Answer 2: No

[Pierluigi Collina]

A Note from the GDC about <G28> and Consequences for Intentional Rule Violations

As the season is getting under way, we wanted to remind teams that intentionally violating rules can have significant consequences for the team and potentially the outcome of a match.

We are hearing of teams doing the calculus to determine if intentionally violating rules and accepting the penalties for those rules is a good trade-off ...

Teams should be aware that in addition to the penalties associated with the violated rules, <G28> Egregious Behavior would also apply to instances of flagrant and/or intentional rule violations.

<G28> would add an additional Major Penalty and a Yellow Card. Particularly flagrant violations can result in a direct Red Card in place of the Yellow Card.

As an example, if during the driver controlled period (and before End Game), a Red Alliance Robot drives up to the the Blue Alliance Foundation and pushes it out of the Blue Alliance Building Site and once clear of the Building Site, then uses an arm to knock down the Blue Alliance Skyscrapers that had been constructed.

The Red Alliance Robot is guilty of violating <GS8> and <GS5>. Additionally, the Red Robot is guilty of a <G28> violation for the intentional rule violations. In total, the Red Robot will receive a minimum of 3 Major Penalties (one each for <GS8>, <GS5> and <G28>) and a Yellow Card. This type of violation occurring during elimination match play would result in a Red Card in place of the Yellow Card and a loss of the match for the Red Alliance.

In general, teams should focus on playing the game, not playing the rules.

Good luck and play smart!

- The FIRST Tech Challenge Game Design Committee

[Air Jordan]

Subject: Capstone gameplay strategies.

Question 1: If a Capstone is pre-loaded on a robot, can the robot leave it on the field floor before the end game, and then finally place it on a skyscraper during the end game?

Question 2: In the same vein, can the robot leave it on the foundation before the end game, and then finally place it on a skyscraper during the end game?

Answer 1: Yes, keep in mind rule <G29> for Illegal Usage of Game Elements when selecting a location to place the Capstone.

Answer 2: The action described in the question is Capping; a Scoring activity that is only allowed during the End Game. Zero Capping points are earned in this scenario. The Game Manual Part 2, Section 4.5.4 states that except for Parking, End Game tasks completed prior to the start of the End Game will earn zero points.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Stones/Capstones - Once a Match begins; a Robot may Control or Possess a maximum of one (1) Stone and/or one (1) Capstone.

Question: GS3 says you can control one stone and/or one Capstone. So, can you control one stone OR one capstone, or are you able to control one stone AND one capstone? Based on the other rule clarifications, it sounds like you can control both a Stone and Capstone at one time, but there is no direct clarification.

Thank you!

Answer: Rule <GS3> allows a Robot to Control/Possess a maximum of one Capstone and one Stone in any combination. For example, the following Control/Possession combinations are allowed:

a) One Stone
b) One Capstone
c) One Capstone and one Stone

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS4> Launching Game Elements - Stone

<GS4> Launching of Game Elements - Game Elements may not be Launched by a Robot or Human Player. A Minor Penalty will be assessed for every Launched Game Element.

Our team has designed an intake system that collects and distributes skystones using a two wheeled intake

Question 1: The first three examples in this video show a Stone supported by the floor while it is ejected from the Robot. Is this illegal launching of a game element?

Question 2: Examples four through six show a Stone elevated off if the ground while it is ejected from the Robot. Is this illegal launching of a game element?

Answer 1: Section 4.4 of the Game Manual Part 2 defines "Launching" as "propelling Game Elements with enough force such that they can move independent of contact with the Robot or Human Player." Applying this definition to the first three examples in the video, the Robot's actions are Launching and subject to rule <GS4> penalties.

Answer 2: The Stone in examples four, five, and six appears to contact the ground and stop forward motion at nearly the same time as the Stone releases from the Robot. In these examples, a referee is likely to rule that the Stone is not Launched and rule <GS4> penalties will not be applied. However, for the Robot in the video, a Stone ejected from a higher elevation than demonstrated in the video may have forward motion after it is ejected from the Robot; making the Robot's actions subject to rule <GS4> penalties.

Additional Guidance from the Game Design Committee: It is the Team's responsibility to design and operate their Robot so that it is obvious that Stones are not Launched. Motion of a Stone outside of the Robot that is caused by anything other than direct contact with the Robot (i.e., pushing/pulling) or gravity (i.e., it falls) is likely to be considered Launching by the referee crew.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Stones/Capstones - Clarification questions

I am trying to understand the implications of GS3 and when GS3(a) comes into play, especially with an eye to unsophisticated bots with hard-to-use intake/grabber mechanisms.

Represent a field configuration by X=stone and Y=skystone.

Question 1: Given the initial setup XYX, is it allowable for a grabber to push both X's out of the way at the same time, then grab the Y in the middle? This seems like a violation of GS3 - controlling 2 stones and gaining an advantage from doing so.

Question 2: Given a field setup XXYXXY and a plain old pushbot, is it permissible to plough through the line moving a bunch of stones (say XYXX), leaving "X____Y" and then push the remaining single Y to the other side?

Question 3: A team has trouble controlling a stone and ends up pushing a bunch to try to get it. Is there any direction they can push these stones that would make it permissible under GS3(a)? Does it even matter which way they push?

Question 4: If a robot is controlling a stone, then is ploughing through a stack of stones on the way to deliver ok?

Rereading the "Control/Controlling" definition in section 4.4 of the Game Manual Part 2 is helpful for interpreting rule <GS3>.

Answer 1: The action described is Plowing and does not violate rule <GS3> as previously stated in the "Game Play - All Match Periods" answer thread posts #2 and #3.

Answer 2: A Referee will probably view the Robot's actions as Herding, a violation of rule <GS3>.

Answer 3: A Referee is likely to view the Robot's actions as legal Plowing if the result does not cause two or more Stones to be Delivered during the act.

Answer 4: A Referee is likely to view the Robot's actions as legal Plowing if the result does not cause two or more Stones to be Delivered during the act.

[Air Jordan]

Subject:<GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Stones/Capstones - Opposing Alliance Capstone

Question: At the beginning of the driver-controlled period, a blue robot places its capstone between the two foundations. From that point on, if a red robot touches the blue capstone, will red receive penalty? What if it's a minor bump and the capstone didn't move much?
Thank you.

Answer: If the Red Alliance Robot's contact with the Blue Alliance Capstone occurs while the Robot is simply playing the game, it is likely that the Referee will apply rule <G19> and no Penalty will be assessed against the Red Alliance Robot.

Rule <G29> for Illegal Usage of Game Elements may come into play for the Blue Alliance at the discretion of the Referee.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Stones/Capstones

A previously answered question was:





At the [redacted] Qualifier, we had a long discussion over the interpretation of this ruling with the Head Referee for our division, [redacted]. He believed that this ruling carried an implicit requirement that a Robot's actions must carry a visual intent of targeting the SkyStone when pushing other stones out of the way in order for the action to be considered "legal plowing". To clarify "visual intent": he believed that if the action of pushing the stones appeared to be a distinct, separate action from the action to grab the SkyStone, then it would illegal, but if the pushing of the stones did not appear to be a separate and distinct action from collecting the Skystone, then it would be legal. To clarify "distinct action": he believed that pushing the stones, then aligning to the SkyStone would be a distinct action, but if the pushing occurred during the alignment to the SkyStone it would not be a distinct action.

Upon demonstrating to him by hand how the Robot would interact with the Quarry, his conclusion was that he could not provide a definite ruling until seeing it in real time during gameplay, and that if during gameplay he viewed it to not be legal plowing, a minor penalty (which would not escalate to a yellow card over time) may be applied. After seeing it during gameplay, his ruling was that our Robot's actions were legal plowing because the pushing of the stones appeared to happen as the robot was aligning to the SkyStone.

He further requested that we post a video of the Robot action in question to the Game Q&A Forum to get an official answer for future events.

Question: Therefore, we arrive at the point of this post: do the Robot's actions while collecting the SkyStone in the video below constitute legal plowing?

Answer: The Robot's actions in the video are legal Plowing.