No announcement yet.

Game Rules and Game Play - Answer Thread

This is a sticky topic.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rolling Goal Off Ground in Parking Zone ... Which Scores?

    Originally posted by FTC8155
    We, team 8155, have developed a mechanism that we use to let us grab and hold a rolling goal by the base and lift it off the ground while our robot is still on the ground. During one of our matches, we didn't have enough time in end game to get back on our ramp, so we lifted the goal and drove into the parking zone of our alliance. We were able to have our rolling goal off the ground and in the parking zone at the same time, although we were only credited for having it as off the ground. Our questions is, does the parking zone count vertically as well, allowing a rolling goal to be simultaneously off the ground and in the parking zone, allowing for more points? We ask this due to the fact that it might come up in a later game that could be a tie breaker, and we want to clarify it before hand.

    A: Objects only score in a single area. If a Rolling Goal is potentially eligible for more than 1 scored placement at the end of the match, it will be given the higher valued one. In this situation, the Rolling Goal would be scored as "Off the Playing Field Surface".


    • Initialization during Teleop

      Originally posted by FTC3493
      At the beginning of many autonomous programs, there is the initialization function, which runs a few lines of code, usually setting servo values or sensor readings. We have previously seen that other teams have this code in their tele-op program as well, so that when autonomous ended, a set of servos would open up to prepare for tele-op. Our question is, does FIRST restrict or monitor what we put in this function? If we are allowed to put in a few servo initializations, why not put a few lines of code to set up the DC motors, and while I'm at it, might as well move over to the rolling goal . . . This would mean that after autonomous period ended, while the referees were waiting for the field to come to rest, a robot could execute maneuvers indefinitely. I can imagine a robot that, after autonomous ends, spends 10-15 minutes and lots of sensors picking up balls and filing all the ball tubes with all the time in the world, finishing its "tele-op" before tele-op even began. This doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the challenge, is there some rule against this?

      A: This would be a violation of rule <RS08> (Game Manual-Part I) and may lead to disqualification.
      Last edited by Big Red Machine; 03-09-2015, 06:32 PM.


      • Safety Glasses

        Originally posted by FTC8526
        Are shooting glasses (worn for shooting sports) considered safety glasses for the competition, or do they have to be something specific? The ones we have are wrap-around style~~


        If they comply with the ANSI Z87.1 certification and provide adequate protection of the eye (and area around the eye), they are acceptable. Read section 4.5 in Part I of the Game Manual for details.
        Last edited by Big Red Machine; 03-09-2015, 06:34 PM.


        • Can fuse be replaced between autonomous and teleop

          Originally posted by FTC9010
          If unintended contact between robots during the autonomous period caused the 20A battery fuse to blow, could it be replaced prior to teleop?

          Could it be replaced by the Referee or Field Technical Advisor as discussed in <G15> as long as it does not cause extraordinary delay?

          A: No it cannot. There isn't enough time to replace the fuse and the rules currently do not allow it. Only resetting the power of the robot is allowed in between the Autonomous and TeleOp periods.


          • Contact with Center Goal Structure

            Originally posted by FTC4029
            Is it permissible to deliberately contact the center goal structure (not the tube) such as with a touch sensor or stabilizing arm?

            A: Yes, as long as no other rules are violated.


            • Center Goal Strategies

              Originally posted by FTC8391
              Would the following strategies be legal? If not, what penalties would be incurred?

              Strategy 1: During endgame, a blue alliance robot pushes a red alliance robot trying to score in the center goal. The blue robot’s pushing physically moves the red robot so that it doesn’t have access to the position in which it needs to be in order to score.

              Strategy 2: A red alliance robot has a design with which the balls take a second to fall out of the robot’s tray after the robot’s flap is (visibly) lowered. The blue alliance recognizes this; every time the red robot lowers its flap to score in the center goal during endgame, the blue robot simply pushes the red robot (physically moving the red robot) so that the red robot cannot score.

              A: Both strategies are legal as long as no other rules are violated in the process. Pay attention to the Pinning and Blocking Access rules.


              • Requesting Power Cycle Between Autonomous and Driver Controlled Periods

                Originally posted by FTC0359
                Background: Last tournament 359 had problems with I2C communications between the NXT and the motor and servo controllers. During the autonomous period our robot did not move, we knew something was up and requested a power cycle (reset) so that we would be able to participate in the tele-operated period, but our request was denied and we were told that nothing in the rules stated that we could request a power cycle.

                As per G15:

                This may be due to different interpretations of the rule. Nothing within this rule explicitly states that a team can request their power to be reset, it simply says that power 'may' be reset.
                Q: If a team requests that their robot's power be reset, is the Field Technical Advisor (henceforth referred to as 'FTA') required to perform the reset as long as it will not extraordinarily delay the match and as long as no other rules are violated or can the FTA deny their request if he/she deems it unnecessary?

                A: Teams are welcome to request a power cycle, but FTA's are not required to honor the request. If the FTA's determine that a cycling of power is needed (based on their assessment of robot status), they will toggle power as they determine is appropriate. Toggling of power without a need based on robot state will likely NOT be performed.


                • Goal Tipped Due to Interaction Between Robots

                  Originally posted by FTC7655
                  According to rule <GS5>, when a robot "de-scores" an opposing alliances rolling goal, the affected alliance receives points equal to the max score for that tube, and (if the tube was tipped over) a Major Penalty would be assesed on the offending alliance.

                  So if a robot is pulling a tube with them, and the opposing alliance pushes them in such a way that they are caused to tip over the tube they are pulling and scoring in, will the affected alliance receive the full tube height's points, or will no penalties be assessed?

                  The affected alliance would be protected from the major penalty by <G11>, but the rules are not clear whether or not the offending alliance would be assessed any penalties.


                  A: The referee crew on the field will make a judgement call based on what they observe. If they determine that one robot is responsible for the rolling goal tipping, they will penalize appropriately. It is possible that the determination is that both robots were equally responsible and assess no penalties.


                  • Warping Opposing Alliance Robot

                    Originally posted by FTC6369

                    We have observed video of a robot that uses a large, flexible sheet of cardboard to guide balls toward its ball placing device. We would like to know if it would be legal to use one of the features of our robot to press against mechanism to render it inaccurate? A few details:
                    - The disruption would not damage or entangle the opposing robot. It would not destroy the robot or damage any field elements.
                    - We would use an appendage on our robot that is designed for another purpose, but could be pressed into service for this strategy.
                    - The proposed strategy would not in any way block the rolling goals of our opposing alliance.

                    Providing we have accurately described the situation, does this proposed strategy violate S9 or any other rule?

                    Many thanks for your answer.

                    A: Intentional deformation of an opposing alliance robot would be considered a violation of <G9> as it is an intentional damage to the structure of the robot. Damage does not need to be lasting/permanent to be a violation of <G9>.


                    • Repeated Pinning

                      Originally posted by FTC4546
                      If a powerful robot repeatedly pushes an opposing robot from the side, and in so doing ensnares, or entangles the opposing robot is there a time limit before G9 penalties are imposed?

                      In section 1.3 of Game Manual the definition of Pin /Pinning is "Preventing the movement in all directions of an opposing robot while in contact with...or another Robot." So if a robot push into an opposing robot overpowering it, when does the five second count for a pin (or trap) of a Robot (per G10) starts and ends?

                      If a robot pins another robot for four second, can it then back away a couple of inches and start another four second pin, then repeats over, and over?
                      Would the last be considered entanglement since the strategy could be considered to capture, or prevent escape of the opposing robot?

                      A: Once a pinning count has begun, the count will not end until the robot has moved away to a distance of 3 feet. Robots that start moving away before the 5 second count has been completed and reach a minimum separation of at least 3 feet should not be penalized.

                      The strategy described above (repeated 4 second pins with only minor backups between) would be considered as a single pinning activity. And would result in one or more pinning penalties depending on the overall duration.


                      • Moving Opposing Alliance Rolling Goal out from Under Own Center Goal

                        Originally posted by FTC6299
                        Can you clarify the reasoning between Q&A # 102 & #111 A1)? Is it the intent to allow access (via the use of GS13's " inadvertent an inconsequential" clause) to the Ramp, but not the Center Goal at End Game?

                        Ramp blocking

                        Quote Originally Posted by FTC6191 View Post
                        If the rolling goals of the other team ends up in front of our ramp, whether it was intentional or not, and endgame starts, does this count as forcing a penalty as our team would have to get a 50 point penalty for moving the other team's rolling goal out of the way to access the ramp?

                        A: The intent of the GDC is to allow access to the ramp. Slight movement of the opponent’s rolling goal is deemed to be inconsequential and inadvertent. If a team intentionally blocks the ramp or descores balls, the appropriate penalty will apply.

                        Opposing rolling goal-Center target-defense

                        Quote Originally Posted by FTC3785 View Post
                        If a team encounters the opposing rolling goal underneath the high center target-"the 30 cm tube on center structure (near station 1)"- Can the opposing team move the opposing rolling goal out of the way without a penalty? 2. Can one park a robot directly underneath/in front of the same high tube (near station 1)-Which has the net effect of reducing access to this goal?

                        A1: Yes, you may push it out of the way <GS10> up to, but not including the End Game <GS13>. You may not grab or grasp it in order to move it <GS9>. When pushing it out of the way, pay attention to Rule <GS12>
                        A2: No, per Rule <GS18>

                        A: Teams that move an opposing alliance rolling goal out from under their center goal will not be in violation of <GS13> as long as, in the referee's opnion, the contact is no more than is needed to clear the center goal and does not violation any other rules (grasping, etc.)
                        Last edited by Pierluigi Collina; 03-09-2015, 10:29 PM.


                        • Rolling Goal Tipped During Autonomous

                          Originally posted by FTC0365
                          I have 3 questions about a particular scenario that recently occurred.

                          Scenario was that Blue team scored ball in Blue tube during autonomous and then tipped over blue tall tube and ball rolled out of the tube.
                          The call on the field was 50 point penalty <GS14>. Tthere was no de-scoring penalty <GS5>. I think that this was call since ball is not scored until end of autonomous.
                          The tube was reset between autonomous and Teleop. That is consistent with the way referee said it would be handled in driver meeting, but I can not find any rule in the manual that documents resetting field elements. In a previous tournament, our team had knocked off the center goal in autonomous and center doals was not reset.
                          I can not find any mention of these scenarios in the game manual or forums about resetting field elements. The closest I find is
                          <G15> I am posting this note to document and ensure it is consistent in future tournaments. I tend to think that referee got the calls correct in the scenario above, but in the end, it is not my call

                          The 3 questions are:
                          1. Should Blue Alliance be assessed a de-scoring penalty <GS5> once Blue goal is tipped over in autonomous in addition to the assess <GS14>?
                          2. Should blue rolling goal be reset after tipping over in autonomous?
                          3. If answer to prior question is yes, Is the reset rule, over the same for center goal that are dislodged as rolling goals that are tipped over? In other words, should center goal be reset if knocked off field center?

                          Many thanks

                          A1: <GS5> only applies to de-scoring from the opposing alliance rolling goal. The penalty for tipping your own rolling goal (and descoring balls) would be a single major penalty (<GS14>)

                          A2: Yes, all goals are "righted" at the end of the autonomous period.

                          A3: Yes, the center goal should be re-hung if it is knocked off during the autonomous period.


                          • Blocking Access to Balls

                            Originally posted by FTC4290
                            Even if our robot is not controlling more than 5 balls (no penalty via GS1), would a penalty be assessed for blocking access to more than 5, e.g., by blocking access to a corner of the field which is full of balls? Thank you.

                            A: There is not a penalty for blocking access to balls.
                            Last edited by Big Red Machine; 03-16-2015, 06:52 PM.


                            • Kickstand grasp/grapple

                              Originally posted by FTC5110
                              As per <G8> it's clear we may not grasp or grapple the Kickstand. On 09-17-2014 you state "Kickstands can be pushed but per Rule <G8> they may not be grasped or grabbed." indicating pushing is fine.

                              Our intake roller can influence the position of the Kickstand, effectively pushing or pulling it around through intermittent contact with rotating paddles. The Kickstand stays on the foam tiles at all times.

                              Q: Does this pushing and pulling via intermittent contact constitute grasping or grappling?

                              A: This type of manipulation of the Kickstand does not appear to be grasping or grappling.


                              • Ramming rolling goals in the autonomous period

                                Originally posted by FTC3631
                                In our latest competition, we encountered a new autonomous strategy. Teams in their autonomous program from the floor position would drive directly to the left into the opposing alliance's rolling goals before the robot on the ramp could drive down to them. For the sake of clarity, if the team on the floor was red, they would ram the blue teams' rolling goals into the wall and out of position. This made it so the blue team had no chance to use their rolling goals in their autonomous. But, the red robot could easily ram the rolling goals, then back away and go score in the center goal or knock the kickstand with plenty of time. Also, we saw this strategy push the rolling goal bases on top of each other, which messed up the entire match for the blue team. If this strategy is allowable, it will mean from what we have witnessed that the robot on the ramp will never reach its rolling goals in time to score balls in them or pull the rolling goals back to the parking zone, making these autonomous options unusable.

                                Our questions are:
                                1) Could this strategy potentially hurt the rolling goals?
                                2) Is this considered blocking (rule <GS17>) since in autonomous it is very hard or impossible for teams to recalculate their program to find the repositioned tubes?
                                3) Is this strategy in line with gracious professionalism, which FTC diligently fosters

                                Thank you,
                                Team 3631

                                A: All the answers are up to the referees to decide on whether a penalty occurs or not.