Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Game Play - All Match Periods - Answers

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by FTC5501
    Subject: Glyph is too large to fit entirely between two Cryptobox Rails.

    Question:
    How will it be handled if a glyph is trying to be placed by a robot but it does not fit completely into the cryptobox? If the glyph is too large to fit then it could create stacking issues.

    Answer: There is no Scoring requirement for a Glyph to be placed Completely inside a Cryptobox. The definition of Glyph Scoring in the Game Manual Part 2 states that a Glyph is considered Scored when any part of the Glyph is between two Cryptobox Rails. Stacking Scored Glyphs that may or may not be Completely in a Cryptobox is part of the game challenge. The scenario described in the question does not qualify for a Match replay.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by FTC12611
      Subject: Moving Glyphs with the intent of Blocking access to the Relic Recovery Zone

      Question:
      Does it break any rules that a robot pushes glyphs to the opposing alliance side while collecting glyphs with its intake, this results in a blocking the path for the opposing alliance robot holding a Relic to the recovery zone?

      Answer: Use of Game Elements in a manner to make scoring activities for the opposing Alliance more difficult should be viewed by referees as egregious behavior. Rule <G27> should be applied, using the "use of game or field elements to amplify the difficulty of scoring activities" example of egregious behavior.

      <G27> Egregious Behaviour - Egregious Robot or Team member behavior at the Playing Field, as determined by the referees, will result in a Major Penalty and issuance of a Yellow Card and/or Red Card. Subsequent violations will result in Team Disqualification from the tournament. Egregious behavior includes, but is not limited to, repeated and/or flagrant violation of game rules, unsafe behavior or actions, use of game or field elements to amplify the difficulty of scoring activities, and uncivil behavior towards Drivers, Coaches, competition personnel, or event attendees..

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by FTC12611
        Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Glyphs and <G27> use of Game Elements to amplify the difficulty of Scoring activities

        Question: Many robots with an active intake design pick up the glyphs by pushing aggressively in the glyph pit, the consequences of this, most of them are not intentional, is that the glyph pit is shifted to the opposing alliance side, resulting in blocking access to a Cryptobox, Relic, and/or Relic recovery zone. We would like the GDC to clarify if this is legal. Imagine if this is legal, teams with active intake mechanisms can freely push the glyphs towards the Relic access paths while picking up the glyphs, this could make the Relic impossible to be recovered.

        Answer: Referees will balance leniency for inadvertent movement of Glyphs with penalizing predictable Glyph movement caused by a Robot's Glyph intake mechanism or driving strategy.

        Leniency with respect to the Glyph Possession/Control rule <GS3> is appropriate, up until the point that the Robot is starting to create access challenges for the opposing Alliance. The issue here is not the Possession/Control limit, but the impeding of the opposing Alliance.

        Robots that consistently move the Glyph Pit in a direction towards a protected Area (i.e. Relic Recovery Zone wall, Cryptobox, etc.) due to either erratic driving or inefficient pickup mechanisms should expect to receive penalties for <GS3> violations and a verbal warning with respect to <G27> and egregious behavior.

        In this type of scenario, Referees should use an escalation path that includes:
        • initial warnings about <GS3>
        • penalizing based on <GS3>
        • warning about <G27>
        • and finally applying <G27> consequences.
        Robots that have a tendency to move the Glyph pile while collecting Glyphs may need either a better mechanism for collecting Glyphs or the Drive Team needs to make use of a less impactful driving strategy. Ultimately, Drive Teams have a responsibility to operate their Robots within the large suite of rules.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by FTC13317
          Subject: Non-Glyph Scoring Element Inside a Cryptobox

          Question:
          Per rule GS9, a Non-Glyph Scoring Element (Jewel, Relic, etc.) placed into an Opossing Alliance's Cryptobox will result in a Major penalty. This rule does not state anything about a team placing a Non-Glyph Scoring Element into their own Cryptobox (i.e., a Blue robot placing a Non-Glyph Scoring Element into a Blue Crytobox, purposefully or accidentally).

          Will a penalty then be incurred for placing ANY Non-Glyph Scoring Element into your own alliance's Crytobox? (Whether it be done purposefully or accidentally).

          Answer: No

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by FTC11203
            Subject: <G24> Disabled Robot Eligibility - Disabled Robot Blocking an opposing Alliance Cryptobox

            Question: A red alliance robot has a mechanical/electrical failure during the driver-controlled period of the match that caused the robot to block access to one of the blue alliance cryptoboxes for the remainder of the match. Does the red alliance robot receive a penalty for blocking access to the blue alliance cryptobox?

            Answer: The answer that you seek is found in the Game Manual Part 2, rule <G24>. A Disabled Robot (whether referee induced or due to a failure) does not earn Penalties after becoming Disabled. The red Alliance Robot in the scenario does not receive any Penalties while it is Disabled.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by FTC13670
              Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Glyphs - Plowing versus directing multiple Glyphs

              Question:
              Rule <GS3> states that "Plowing through any quantity of Glyphs is allowed but herding or directing multiple Glyphs to gain a strategic advantage (i.e., Scoring, accessibility, defense) is not allowed." Would you please specify the distinction between "plowing" and "directing multiple glyphs"? When one robot plows into the pile of glyphs, it is certainly directing multiple glyphs it immediately and consequentially contacts. Could you please describe a scenario where a robot plows through more than two glyphs without directing them? Thank you.

              Answer: The answer that you seek is found in the definition of Control/Controlling the Game Manual Part 2, Section 1.4. Plowing is Inadvertent contact with Game Elements while they are in the path of a Robot moving about the Playing Field. In this case, the Drive Team's goal is not to Intentionally move Glyphs to a specific location. Herding or directing is pushing or impelling Game Elements to a desired location or direction that gains the Alliance a strategic advantage beyond moving the Robot around the Playing Field.

              The requested example of plowing: Three or more Glyphs are between a Robot and a Balancing Stone. During the End Game, the Robot drives directly towards its Alliances's Balancing Stone with the Intent of accomplishing the Balancing Stone achievement. The Robot legally plows through multiple Glyphs while on its way to accessing the Balancing Stone.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by FTC12831
                Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Glyphs - Inconsequential movement of Glyphs Inside the Glyph Pit

                Question 1: I
                f a robot, in an attempt to grab and control one to two glyphs from the glyph pit, moves other glyphs, but no glyphs are moved outside of the glyph pit, is this considered inconsequential contact, as there is no strategic advantage gained, or is this considered from <GS3> "herding or directing multiple Glyphs"?

                Question 2: If a robot, in an attempt to grab and control one to two glyphs from the glyph pit, inadvertently knocks a glyph or two off of the glyph pile and the glyph tumbles out of the glyph pit, is this inconsequential movement?

                Answer 1: The action described is Inconsequential and it does not violate rule <GS3>.

                Answer 2: The action described is Inconsequential and it does not violate rule <GS3>.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by FTC12831
                  Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Glyphs - When is a warning issued for violating rule <GS3>?

                  Post #18 states:
                  In this type of scenario, Referees should use an escalation path that includes:
                  • initial warnings about <GS3>
                  • penalizing based on <GS3>
                  • warning about <G27>
                  • and finally applying <G27> consequences.

                  But <GS3> states:
                  “The Penalty for Controlling or Possessing more than two (2) Glyphs is an immediate Minor Penalty for each Glyph above the limit plus an additional Minor Penalty per Glyph for each 5-second interval that this situation continues.”

                  Question: So is a warning issued before a penalty? i.e. does Post #18 take precedence over <GS3>? And if a warning is issued first, what is the time delay between a warning and a penalty.

                  Answer: Post #18 in the "Game Play - All Match Periods - Answers" applies when a Referee believes that the repeated Inconsequential movement of Glyphs over time, amplifies the difficulty of a Scoring activity for the opposing Alliance. In this scenario, a waring is issued prior to assessing a Penalty for violating rule <GS3>.

                  There is no requirement for Referees to issue a rule <GS3> warning when a Robot Possesses or Controls more than two Glyphs. See section 1.4 of the Game Manual Part 2 to gain an understanding of the terms Possess and Control.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by FTC5064
                    Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Glyphs - Stacked Glyphs in the Glyph Pit

                    Question: Do the following two scenarios concerning Glyphs in the Glyph Pit violate <GS3>?
                    Scenario 1: The glyphs are stacked three high, a robot grabs the bottom two and makes the one on top fall off.
                    Scenario 2: The glyphs are stacked two or three high and the robot pulls out the bottom one from underneath while it already has a glyph loaded.

                    We would assume that this is similar to pushing glyphs to the left and right of a targeted glyph which is not a rule violation as stated earlier.

                    Answer: The Inconsequential movement of the Glyph(s) in the two scenarios do not violate rule <GS3>. However, Referees may consider the action to be a Glyph Control violation if the Robot is making the Glyph(s) fall in a predictable/favorable direction.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by FTC6977
                      Subject: <G15> Robots Grasping Game Elements - Balancing Stone

                      Question:
                      Our team is designing a mechanism that will assist the positioning of our robot on the balancing stone. The mechanism would temporarily hook or press against one edge of the balancing stone. Would this violate rule <G15> or game-specific rule(s) listed in Section 1.6.3?

                      Answer: The action described in the question is allowed, provided that the Robot's mechanism does not grasp the Balancing Stone. For example, if the Robot were to be manually lifted from the Balancing Stone and the Balancing Stone remains in place (i.e., it does not follow the movement of the Robot), rule <G15> is not violated. Rule <G15> is violated if the Balancing Stone follows the motion of the Robot as the Robot is manually removed from the Balancing Stone.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by FTC5501
                        Subject: <G9> Stopping Game Play Late - Robot Mechanism Motion after the Drive Team presses the Driver Station stop button.

                        Question:
                        At the end of the match, some of our mechanisms may "Relax" or move since the signal has been cut to the robot by pressing stop on the drivers station. If the movement isn't giving an advantage by scoring a game element then is this a penalty?

                        Answer: The Robot's motion described in the question should not be Penalized. Mechanisms that move due to gravity after power is turned off to the Robot's motors and servos does not violate rule <G9> if the Drive Team presses the Driver Station stop button within one second following the conclusion of the end of match sound (i.e. buzzer). Per rule <G9>, actions of the Robot that occur after the end of a Match period do not count towards their Alliance's Score.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by FTC4042
                          Subject: <G15> Robots Grasping Game Elements - Robot alignment tool for the Cryptobox

                          Question: Since our robot was constantly getting misaligned with the cryptobox at the last competition, we were wondering if this would violate rule <G15> for grabbing game elements: We want to add arms on each side of the robot which will push up against the cryptobox and help align the robot but will in no way grasp or grip the cryptobox, as the robot can still be easily pushed away from the box without doing any damage to game elements.

                          Answer: An alignment aid is allowed if it does not grasp or damage the Cryptobox.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by FTC12670
                            Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Glyphs and <G27> Egregious Behavior - Use of Game Elements to amplify the difficulty of Scoring activities

                            Question 1:
                            In <post #18>, you explain that pushing glyphs from the glyph pit should not be used to gain a strategic advantage by impeding on an opposing alliance's ability to score. In the post it says "protected Area (i.e. Relic Recovery Zone wall, Cryptobox, etc.)," can you clarify what the boundaries are for a protected area?

                            Question 2: In some cases where a robot is using an active intake design to collect glyphs, they push multiple glyphs while they attempt to do so. In these cases this is not to gain a strategic advantage but is the result of pushing the Glyphs. If these glyphs are directed towards an area of the field that is not a "protected area", and where the Glyphs do not grant strategic advantage, is that interaction with Glyphs similarly subject to penalties under Rule <GS3>?

                            Question 3: If the answer to the prior question is yes, how far can a team unintentionally push Glyphs before they are subject to penalties under Rule <GS3>?

                            Answer 1: Specifying a reasonable size boundary for a "protected Area" would allow Drive Teams to create barriers just Outside the protected Area that would still amplify Scoring difficulty. Referees have the discretion to determine when Scoring Elements are being used to amplify the opposing Alliance's ability to Score and they will issue a warning when they see Robots that are at risk of violating this rule.

                            Answer 2: In general, reasonable Glyph movement caused by the Robot actions described in the question do not violate rule <GS3>. Referees observing the Robot's actions over time have the best point of view to make the <GS3> determination.

                            Answer 3: See Answer #2.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by FTC13259
                              Subject: <GS13> Preventing Relic Scoring and <G27> Egregious Behavior - Using Scoring Elements to amply the difficulty of Scoring tasks for the opposing Alliance

                              Scenario: A red robot is waiting for the endgame to score the relic- and is one tile from the relic recovery zone.

                              Question 1: A blue robot on the opposite team is trying to collect glyphs and bangs the glyphs into the red robot during the end game. This seems like a penalty. Is it?

                              Question 2: May robots push glyphs towards the relic recovery zone wall to prevent robots from having easy access to the perimeter wall? During teliop? during end game? This is not an inadvertent movement of glyphs but a defensive strategy.

                              Answer 1: Referees watching the action will make the determination. Rule <GS13> states that Incidental contact that is Inadvertent and Inconsequential will not be Penalized.

                              Answer 2: This question was previously addressed in the "Game Play - All Match Periods - Answers" tread, post #12. Use of game elements in a manner to make scoring activities for the opposing alliance more difficult should be viewed by referees as egregious behavior. Rule <G27> should be applied to this scenario.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by FTC13259
                                Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Glyphs - Penalty point application clarification.

                                Scenario: A robot attempts to load glyphs with a "intake system" and in the process, some glyphs are pushed towards the relic recovery zone and away from the intake system. This is early in the match and strategically it works against us if the glyphs are pushed farther away from our area.

                                Question: Is there a per glyph penalty for moving glyphs while attempting to load them with an intake system? According to post #5 knocking/pushing glyphs that don't enter the intake are "inadvertent" glyphs.
                                .
                                If a robot is attempting to grab/intake glyphs and 5 glyphs are moved out of the glyph pit- is this a 3 glyph controlling penalty (we end up holding 2 glyphs)- hence the 3 glyph penalty?

                                Answer: Referees watching game play will decide if the movement of Glyphs violates rule <GS3> or the amplification of the difficulty of Scoring activities portion of rule <G27>. Referees will make the call using these two rules combined with the definition of Control and Possession in the Game Manual Part 2, plus the guidance provided in posts 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 28 in the "Game Play - All Match Periods - Answers" thread. These posts address the scenario described in this post.

                                Robots that violate rule <GS3> for exceeding the Control/Possession limit of Glyphs will be assessed an immediate Minor Penalty for each Glyph above the 2 Glyph limit plus an additional Minor Penalty per Glyph for each additional 5-second interval that the Robot is Controlling or Possessing more than 2 Glyphs. In the specified example in the posted question, the Robot is controlling or possessing 5 Glyphs. Two of the Glyphs are allowed and the remaining 3 Glyphs will be Penalized as described in rule <GS3>.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X