No announcement yet.

Driver Controlled Period

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Driver Controlled Period

    Answers to questions about the Driver Controlled Period.

  • #2
    Originally posted by FTC14423
    Subject: Rule <GS1> d) Human Player Introduction of a Scoring Element Into a Depot

    We have what may be a hyper-technical "human player" question based on current "robot in 30 hours" videos we've seen and game intent, but I want to make sure we are clear on the rules before robot design.

    4.4: In (Inside) / Completely In (Completely Inside)–An object that has crossed into the upwards vertical (i.e., at a right angle to the Playing Field/Floor) extension of a defined Area’s boundary is Inside the Area.

    4.6.3 <GS1> (d) )A Human Player cannot break the vertical plane of the Perimeter Wall when there is a Robot or Scoring Element already IN the Depot. (emphasis added)

    Question: When the human player starts placing the stone into the Depot, it is (under 4.4) IN the Depot. Which means that the human player must drop the stone before the hand gets across the perimeter wall. Is this how the rule is intended to be enforced? Does "already in" have a different meaning than "in"? (For example, there's another stone halfway in the depot and halfway on the rest of the playing field, so the robot must either clear it or pick it up and use that).

    The robot in 30 hours videos I've seen show the hand placing the stone nicely (and vertically) in the Depot. This seems to follow the intent of avoiding robot to human contact, while also maximizing the chance that the stone is "in" the Depot as 4.6.3 <GS1> (g) says (our preliminary testing has the stone bouncing out of the Depot quite often when we drop it from the wall) and also not requiring every robot to figure out how to reorient every stone for stacking (though I recognize the competitive advantage in being able to do that reorientation).

    Any clarification on this is appreciated. Thanks!

    Answer: Thank you for the thorough description of a good "hyper-technical" question. A hyper-technical interpretation of rule <GS1> d) could lead to an unintended limitation on Human Player actions.

    A single Scoring Element possessed by the Human Player does not count as a "Scoring Element already in the Depot." The Human Player may "place a Stone nicely in the Depot" as stated in the question, if a Scoring Element or Robot is not In the Depot at the time the Human Player introduces the new Scoring Element Into the Depot.


    • #3
      Originally posted by FTC10138
      Subject: <GS8> Controlling the Opposing Alliance's Foundation and <GS9> Descoring - Robot repositioning the opposing Alliance's Foundation when the Foundation is not protected by rules <GS8> and <GS9>

      We believe (and hope) the intent of the rules would prohibit the following, but the letter of the rules seems to leave a loophole. Q’s are all related.

      <GS2> explicitly prohibits the opposing Alliance from contact or disrupting Stones or Skystones. But no mention of the Foundation is made.
      <GS5> explicitly prohibits robots being IN the opposing Alliance’s Foundation. This leaves contact/movement possible from the side face of the Foundation.
      <GS8> explicitly prohibits the opposing Alliance from CONTROLLING your foundation when it’s IN your Building Site, or during END GAME. Nothing explicit is mentioned of Autonomous or Driver-Controlled period.

      Scenario: During the Driver-Controlled Period, but before End Game, the opposing Alliance Foundation is not in their Building Site and an opposing Alliance robot is not attempting to Score using the Foundation.

      Question 1: Is contact and/or movement against the side of the opposing Alliance's Foundation allowed? This could be intentional or inadvertent.

      Question 2: If #1 is allowed, is there a penalty if Skyscrapers are disrupted (toppled, with Stones/Skystones possibly falling off of the Foundation)?

      Answer 1: Yes, provided that the Robot stays outside the Foundation.

      Answer 2: No.


      • #4
        Originally posted by FTC12524
        Subject: <GS3>c Control/Possession Limits of Stones/Capstones - Opposing Alliance Capstone in the Alliance's Depot

        During our first Scrimage we had this kind of situation. A team form the opposing Alliance lost their Capstone and it accidentally turned out to be in our Depot.

        <GS1> states that A Human Player cannot hand-deliver a Stone or Capstone into the Playing Field when there is a Robot or Scoring Element already In the Depot
        <GS3> states that Controlling or Possessing an opposing Alliance's Capstone is a Major Penalty.

        Question: What should teams do in such a situation?

        Answer: In this scenario, a Robot may Control/Possess the opposing Alliance's Capstone to move it Outside of the Depot. The Control/Possession time should be no longer than necessary to move the Capstone clear of the Depot so that it doesn't Interfere with reasonable access to the Depot.


        • #5
          Originally posted by FTC12524
          Subject: <G18> Pinning, Trapping, or Blocking Robots - Preventing an Opposing Alliance Robot from moving between Zones via their Alliance specific Skybridge

          Rule <GS7> states that

          b) Robots may not move from one Zone to another via the opposing Alliance’s Skybridge section. Each
          occurrence will result in an immediate Major Penalty.

          c) Robots may not prevent an Opposing Alliance Robot from moving between one Zone to another via the
          Neutral Skybridge. This is considered Blocking and will be penalized per <G18>.

          Question: But it states nothing about prevents Opposing Alliance Robot from moving between Zones via their Alliance specific Skybridge.
          Imagine a situation when to Alliance Robots are in a queue to their Depot (which is on front of opposing Allaince Skybridge) for Stones, and waiting for the Stone they may accidentally or intentionally prevent Opposing Allaince Robot from moving to the Building Zone under their specific Skybridge (which may bring the Alliance additional 1 point for Deliviering). Is there any penalty for such a behaviour and Robots should avoid blocking waiting for the Stones in their Depot or is this a legal thing?

          Answer: The action described in the scenario violates rule <G18>.


          • #6
            Originally posted by FTC12524
            Subject: <GS6> Blocking Access to the Depot

            Rule <GS6> states that Robots may not be In or Block access to the opposing Alliance's Depot.

            Question: Does that mean that during Driver-Controlled period after the warning Robots will immediately receive Major Penalty EVERY time they turn out to be In the Opposing Alliance Depot even if there is no Opposing Alliance Robots near the Depot? Does that mean that Robots should collect Stones from the Quarry with real care trying not to cross the Opposing Allaince Depot boundary?

            Answer: The goal of rule <GS6> is to ensure that the owning Alliance is not prevented from accessing/playing their Depot. If at any point, the intrusion Into a Depot by an opposing Alliance Robot causes gameplay changes, the action is not Inadvertent and Inconsequential; appropriate warnings and penalties will be applied to the offending Robot.

            Robots should be careful while near the opposing Alliance's Depot. Stones in Control/Possession of a Robot are considered part of the Robot. Possessed/Controlled Stone intrusion into the Depot should get the same Inadvertent and Inconsequential analysis as the Robot.

            After the first Warning during the Driver-Controlled Period, an incursion into the opposing Alliance's Depot that is not considered by the Referee to be Inadvertent and Inconsequential will receive a Major Penalty plus additional Minor Penalties assessed for every five seconds that the rule violation persists.


            • #7
              Originally posted by FTC15210
              Subject: Game Manual Part 2, Section 4.5.4 End Game - Capping

              We understand that under 4.5.4 completing end game tasks prior to the end game will not score. However, our robot is able to build a tower within the foundation but without placing it on the foundation. (It uses a mechanism that lifts a stone, slides a new one under it on a shelf, then lifts the combined stones - they do not touch the foundation until the tower is complete). Using such a mechanism, it is technically possible for the robot to place a capstone on the first stone, then build a tower within the foundation under that stone, before finally placing the completed tower (including the capstone) as a single unit.

              Question: As the tower would not be placed on the foundation until the end game, would the capstone count towards the score?

              Answer: Yes. Keep in mind that rule <GS3> constraints will come into play if the Stones and/or Capstone Possessed by the Robot are Completely Out of the Foundation.
              Last edited by Air Jordan; 10-31-2019, 09:08 AM. Reason: Text formatting change.


              • #8
                Originally posted by FTC8367
                Subject: <GS6> Blocking Access to the Depot - Disabled Robot

                <GS6> says disabled robots in the opposing alliance's depot earns a yellow card for the possibility of a severe disruption to the ability of the other alliance to play the game. However, <GS6> also says inconsequential violations of the rule will be handled at the referee's discretion, per <G30>.

                Question: If a disabled robot is parked on the line of the opposing alliance's depot so the opposing alliance still has a clear and direct path to their depot, does the disabled robot still get an automatic yellow card?

                Answer: A Disabled Robot In the opposing Alliance's Depot that has an affect on the Driver-Controlled Period gameplay of the opposing Alliance's Robot(s) is not Inconsequential. If the referee believes that the Disabled Robot affects gameplay, the Robot should receive a Major Penalty, a Minor Penalty for each additional 5 seconds, and a Yellow Card.

                A future release of the Game Manual Part 2 will have an update to rule <GS6> to clarify the Penalty points and Yellow Card consequences.


                • #9
                  Originally posted by FTC10650
                  Subject: <GS3> Control Limits on Stones and Capstones - Robot Plowing Stones into their own Alliance's Depot

                  Question: We understand that there have been several prior questions in the forums about controlling stones when trying to access other stones or the foundation. However, we had an edge case occur at our league meet which our team and the referees at the event found wasn't properly covered by any prior questions. During our match in question, several stones which started in the quarry were pushed up against the wall near our depot, but were in such an orientation that we could not intake them. In order to access a stone placed by our human player in the depot, we needed to push through the debris. However, because the debris was up against the wall, the stones were not shoved to the side of the robot, but were pushed along the robot's direction of motion by the robot for a few feet into our own depot.

                  Are the actions described legal? If not, what ruling/part of the game manual were we in violation of?

                  Answer: The Robot's actions in this scenario are likely to be viewed by the referee as Plowing and no Penalty will be assessed.

                  Additional Information: Rule <GS1> prevents the Human Player from hand-delivering a Stone or Capstone if a Scoring Element (i.e., Stone or Capstone) is already In the Depot. A Robot must remove the "debris" Stones from the Depot before the Human Player is allowed to hand-deliver a new Scoring Element Into the Depot. Also, rule <GS1> prevents the Human Player from interacting with a Scoring Element that is already In the Depot.


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by FTC8565
                    Subject: Controlling/Possessing an Alliance Partner's Capstone

                    Is a robot allowed to control their alliance partner's capstone to deliver it to their alliance partner? Our capstone is shaped like a normal brick (following all the team scoring element rules) and we place it in the depot and we would like for our alliance partner to deliver it to us because our robot is designed for stacking.

                    Answer: Yes, provided that the Robot complies with the rule <GS3> constraints on the number of Scoring Elements a Robot may Control or Possess.