Go to Post oooh tight leather bumpers...sexy! - Nuttyman54 [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > Moderated Discussion
CD-Events   CD-Media   CD-Spy   FRC-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-21-2004, 08:44 PM
Aidan F. Browne's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Aidan F. Browne Aidan F. Browne is offline
Engineer
AKA: The Aidan-bot
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 220
Aidan F. Browne has a reputation beyond reputeAidan F. Browne has a reputation beyond reputeAidan F. Browne has a reputation beyond reputeAidan F. Browne has a reputation beyond reputeAidan F. Browne has a reputation beyond reputeAidan F. Browne has a reputation beyond reputeAidan F. Browne has a reputation beyond reputeAidan F. Browne has a reputation beyond reputeAidan F. Browne has a reputation beyond reputeAidan F. Browne has a reputation beyond reputeAidan F. Browne has a reputation beyond repute
Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

Ok...take two...

One of the hottest issues coming out of Atlanta was the question "What is legitimate intense play, and where is the line that gets us to Battlebots?" Many thought the game was fine as is, others were upset.

All of the play-by-play and Monday-morning reffing has already taken place in other threads... now its time to put some creative energy forth and maybe solve the dilemma for once and for all... or maybe it is not solvable... lets find out.

This moderated thread is a place for folks to put forth the exact proposed wording of a rule that would have addressed overly aggressive play in FIRST Frenzy: Raising the Bar... lets call it <G101>.

Usual brainstorming rules apply -- moderators will not allow any thread discussing another's post, or not proposing exact text that could have appeared in the 2005 manual. If you think of more than one way to solve the problem, post multiple times.

This thread will be closed at 10pm on April 28th. After that, let the discussions begin!

(The thread will also be submitted to the 2005 Game Committee for their informational use. In no way is their any implication that these suggestions will even be appropriate to the 2005 game or used by the 2005 Game Committee. In no way am I implying an association with the 2005 Game Committee)

Last edited by Aidan F. Browne : 04-21-2004 at 11:19 PM.
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-21-2004, 08:47 PM
MikeDubreuil's Avatar
MikeDubreuil MikeDubreuil is offline
Carpe diem
FRC #0125 (Nu-Trons)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 967
MikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to MikeDubreuil
Re: Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

<G101a> Standard Rules
1. No flipping
2. No entanglement
3. No damaging another robot.

<G101b> Card System
1. Yellow a warning that the red card could come out. Play is getting a little aggressive and the referee is concerned a violation of the rules may occur.
2. Red an accidental violation of the rules occurred. The violator will be disabled for 10 seconds.
3. Black a robot has intentionally violated the rules. The violator will be disabled for the remainder of the match.

The idea behind the card system is to promote competitive play and good sportsmanship. Defensive play is only minorly penalized if an accidental violation occurs or majorly if the violation is intentional. This creates a healthy environment for offensive play to flourish, while keeping defense a viable option. Many would argue offense should be promoted more than defense as it is more exciting and challenging.

It is very difficult to determine the intentions of a driver. One person has noted the parallels to the justice system and how difficult it is to get a premeditated murder conviction. I believe in FIRST we should allow for a manslaughter type conviction; a robot committed a violation of the rule but did so accidentally. Restitution for the affected team comes in the form of a minimal period of time when the violator is disabled. This gives enough time for a robot to recover or at least is a form of rough justice by the referees.

My system allows for the proper action be taken by the referees if violations become intentional. It also offers some restitution for those who have been the victims of accidental violations of the rules.


Credits: Nelson Green for the card system, myself for the period of disablement idea.
__________________
"FIRST is like bling bling for the brain." - Woodie Flowers

Last edited by MikeDubreuil : 04-22-2004 at 11:16 AM. Reason: wording
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-21-2004, 09:11 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Registered User
AKA: Rob
FRC #0131 (CHAOS)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 304
Rob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Rob
Re: Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

ok here goes...I am borrowing alot from the other threads because I like alot of the ideas.

Rule <101>...

If a team entangles another team or damages another team in any way, even if it is unintentional, that team will recieve a green "warning" card.

That team will be immediately re-inspected by a designated inspector with extensive knowlege of the rules, parts, and dynamics of the game. The team must comply to the changes asked for by this re-inspector before they may continue in the copetition.

If a team entangles another team or damages in another team in any way, even if it is unintentional, for a secon time, they will recieve a yellow warning card and visit with the re-inspector again before they can compete further.

If a team has a third offense, even if it is unintentional, they will recieve another yellow card and must visit with the re-inspector before they can continue.

If a team has a blatant violation that is deemed particularly offensive by the refs, they will recieve a yellow card if they have no warnings yet, or recieve a red card if they have recieved a previous warning (green or yellow cards). The team must visit the re-inspector immediately.

If at any time a team has 2 yellow cards or 1 red card, they may not participate in any elimination matches. If they recieve these cards with qualifying matches left to play, they may participate in thos matches provided they have passed their re-inspection. If a team recieves these cards in the elimination rounds, they may not play in any more elimination rounds, and their partners must field an empty spot in any matches where the offending machine should be present.

The last part is added so that teams do not get screwed by having a partner not allowed to play in the qualifying rounds, but so that a team will be screwed if their partner violates the rules in elimination matches.

The multiple warnings should work, because even if the entanglement/damage was unintentional, the offending team should adjust their playing style to avoid entanglement or damage.

The only things that I am not too sure on with this system are what to do when teams accidentaly damage a machine that is built in a way that is too fragile to handle the normal rigors of the game. Maybe someone else can help me out and elaborate on this.

Thanks for taking the time to read my raMBLINGS

rOB

Last edited by Aidan F. Browne : 04-21-2004 at 11:21 PM. Reason: Correcting numbering
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-21-2004, 09:52 PM
ngreen's Avatar
ngreen ngreen is offline
Robohyo
AKA: nelson green; robohyo
None #1108 (Panther Robotics)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Atlanta via Paola, KS
Posts: 791
ngreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant future
Send a message via MSN to ngreen
Re: Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

<G35> If a team exercises the the use of overly aggressive play as defined in <G32>, the ref, at his or her discretion, may present the offending team with a yellow card. It the offending team continues or the ref determine the action requires a disqualification the ref may then present a red card. A red card will disqualify the offending robot for the match. A yellow card issued in one match will carry over to that team's next match. A team receiving two yellow cards in two consective match will result in a red card and the disqualification for that match. Any team receiving two red cards during the tournament will be disqualified from completing in the tournament.

Here is my official view for a rule using the card system. I tried to work out the ruling to the best of my ability. If you see a word that may be easily manipulated or phrasing that is confusing please let me know and I will look over it some more. I left a couple phrases off that I used in my first version of the rule to save as much space as possible. If you look at the moderated G34 G35 thread you can see my original phrasing. Give me any thoughts how to make it better. Remember this is only about how to better implement rule G32. If you have issues with the wording of G32 take that up somewhere else.

[Edit Thanks dave. I took it as this. I'm am merely offering my suggestions additions to the rules for any off-season competition based off the 2004 FIRST game. Any consideration for future game is not an issue but these are meant for the 2004 game only and consideration for 2005 game if the game has a similiar interaction level. That's all.[edit]
__________________
Nelson Green (Panther Robotics 1108)
Chemical Engineering 2007, K-State
Grad School: Georgia Tech (for PhD)

2007 GKC KCP&BE Award
2006 Wisc Chairman's Award & Website
2005 Purdue Chairman's Award & Galileo Finalist
2004 LSR Chairman's Award & Xerox Creativity
2003 LSR Champ,Quality & Team Spirit + Nat All-Star

Last edited by ngreen : 04-21-2004 at 10:19 PM.
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-21-2004, 10:11 PM
dlavery's Avatar
dlavery dlavery is offline
Curmudgeon
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3,168
dlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

Whoa there, Slim! Let's be VERY CAREFUL about any explicit or implicit promises made as this thread is started.

If everyone wants to discuss how an "Aggressive Play Rule" might have been worded for the 2004 game, that is fine. It is worth a constructive discussion to identify ways in which the game (and rules) could have been improved even more. Introspection is almost always good, and can lead to worthwhile lessons.

HOWEVER, everyone needs to be very clear on the following:
- there is absolutely NO guarantee that any of this material will be incorporated into the 2005 game, or appear anywhere in the 2005 manual
- there is absolutely NO guarantee that any of this material will even be relevant for the 2005 game
- there is absolutely NO guarantee that any of this material will be reviewed or considered by the 2005 Game Design Committee. Aiden does not speak for the GDC, and can not make any commitments for them.

I don't mean to be harsh about this, but I don't want anyone to have any unrealistic expectations about the directions of this thread. Having this type of discussion in the context of trying to learn from the 2004 game is great. But it is very premature to imply that it will feed forward into the 2005 game.

-dave
__________________
"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' - and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' - well do you, punk?"
- Stuart Vasepuru, 2006 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest



My OTHER CAR is still on Mars!!!
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-22-2004, 06:34 AM
Joel Glidden's Avatar
Joel Glidden Joel Glidden is offline
My heart pumps diesel.
FRC #4293 (Komodo)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 207
Joel Glidden is a glorious beacon of lightJoel Glidden is a glorious beacon of lightJoel Glidden is a glorious beacon of lightJoel Glidden is a glorious beacon of lightJoel Glidden is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

<G101> See rules G27, G30, and G32.
__________________
-Joel
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-22-2004, 12:37 PM
Unsung FIRST Hero
Andy Grady Andy Grady is offline
I'm done being quiet!
FRC #0131
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1995
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 993
Andy Grady has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Grady has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Grady has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Grady has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Grady has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Grady has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Grady has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Grady has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Grady has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Grady has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Grady has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andy Grady
Re: [moderated] Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

I know some of you will be saying...ok, that doesn't help at all but...

<G101> Any strategy that is viewed by the referees as malicious or intended to destroy, tip, or disable another robot will be subject to disablement or disqualification. Any mechanism on a robot that has been viewed as causing destruction in a regular basis may be asked to be removed or altered to fit the referee's liking.

Basically...its kinda the same rule as what we currently are looking at in FIRST. I dont think FIRST is becomming Battlebots, and I dont think we need to go overboard to make this a "passive" game. Defense is fun, it adds variation in strategy, and it helps teams who may have robots that can drive, but not do much else, evening up the field a little bit. If you take away defense, the offensive powerhouses of FIRST will start to run away with trophies year after year.

Andy Grady
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-22-2004, 04:28 PM
MrToast's Avatar
MrToast MrToast is offline
I named Greg Needel's cat!
AKA: Dave DeLong
no team (Rhode Warriors)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: RI, now UT
Posts: 326
MrToast has much to be proud ofMrToast has much to be proud ofMrToast has much to be proud ofMrToast has much to be proud ofMrToast has much to be proud ofMrToast has much to be proud ofMrToast has much to be proud ofMrToast has much to be proud of
Send a message via AIM to MrToast
Re: [moderated] Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

(I'm borrowing from others, of course)
<G101>
If a robot is rendered inoperable by another robot, whether intentionally or not, the referee shall display a red card to the offending team. That robot is then disabled for 15 seconds. Inoperablility of a robot is defined as anything that prevents the robot from continuing to compete for the remainder of the match.

If any component of a robot is rendered inoperable by another robot, whether intentionally or not, the referee shall display a yellow card to the offending team. That robot is then disabled for 10 seconds. Inoperability of a component is defined as anything that prevents the use (functionality) of any rigid (non-pliable) component for the remainder of the match.

If a robot displays behavior that the observing referee deems as overly "agressive", then the referee shall display a black card to the offending team. That robot is then disabled for 5 seconds.

If a team receives three black cards, then that robot is disabled for the remainder of the match.
If a team receives two yellow cards, then that robot is disabled for the remainder of the match.
If a team receives two red cards, then that robot is disabled for the remainder of the match.
If a team receives any combination of red, yellow, and/or black cards, then that robot is disabled for the remainder of the match.

After the match, any team that received a yellow and/or red card must be reinspected by a knowledgeable inspector. The team must comply with all appropriate requests from the inspector, or that team will be forbidden from further participation in the elimination rounds.

If a robot must be reinspected 3 or more times, then that robot is forbidden from further participation in the elimination rounds.

In the event that a robot is forbidden from further participation in the elimination rounds, the remaining teams of the alliance may pick a new third partner. However, the new partner may only play up to (but no more than) 3 matches.

OK, the comments:
The card system seems to be a pretty popular idea, so let's run with it. A serious offense results in a serious disablement period, or 1/8 of the match. A medium offense results in a medium disablement period, or 1/12 of the match. A minor offense results in a minor disablement period, or 1/24 of the match.

Robots that show an "aptitude" for trouble need to be reinspected. That makes sense.

I think it also makes sense for a shafted alliance to pick a new partner, but limitations must be placed on the new partner, since they would be entering the elimination rounds half way through.

OK, thanks for reading!

MrToast

[EDIT]4-23-04: Fixed a spelling mistake, clarified new partner choosing, and defined inoperability [/EDIT]
__________________
(#121, 2004) Archimedes semi-finalists with 237 and 386! I had an awesome time guys, and thanks for the hat!
(#121, 2004) BC5 semi-finalists with 190 and 1027! Awesome time! We went further than I thought we could! Thanks for all your help w/ our transmission!
(#121, 2005) Galileo quarter-finalists with 47 and 203! Thanks for all your support through the stress!
------------------------------
If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape.
If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40
------------------------------
"It'll all work out in the end, and if it doesn't, it's not the end." - Jeff Bullock

Last edited by MrToast : 04-23-2004 at 07:02 AM.
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-23-2004, 12:03 PM
Andrew Andrew is offline
Registered User
#0356
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 393
Andrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to all
Re: [moderated] Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

G101 Overly Aggressive Play Overly aggressive play is defined as ungracious and unfair play designed to damage or disable an opponent's robot outside the scope of the rules.

1. Deliberate Tipping
2. Excessive Pinning (see pinning)
3. Grabbing and Holding (see entanglement)
4. Deliberate Entanglement (see entanglement)
5. Late Hits

G101a Deliberate Tipping
Deliberate tipping occurs when a robot extends a surface below an "upright" robot and raises that surface until the second robot assumes a "non-upright" position. "Upright" is defined as the condition in which the primary drive mechanism is in contact with the playing field surface such that controlled robot mobility is enabled. "Non-upright" is the negation of "Upright."

A 50 point penalty will be assessed against the tipping robot for each occurrence.

G101b Late Hits
A late hit occurs when a robot makes contact with another robot which has been immobilized or disabled. Examples of immobilization include being caught on the playing field border, being pinned by another robot, having a drive system or software malfunction which prevents mobility, being disabled by the referees for another offence.

The first late hit in a match will be penalized by a 20 point penalty. The second late hit will result in disabling of the offending robot.

G101c Last Resort due to Excessive Damage
A team which feels that it has been damaged due to overly aggressive play in a match may issue a written complaint immediately after the match. [Note: a specific form and very specific guidelines for complaints would be established.] The complaintant robot will be inspected for damage immediately. The team against whom the complaint is registered will be interviewed to determine their intent. The head referee in consultation with the other field referees will make a judgement to uphold or deny the complaint.

The team which registers the complaint will have a pink dot attached to its on field badges (regardless of the determination of the complaint).

If the complaint is upheld, the offending team will have a penalty dot attached to its on field badges. The first offense will have a yellow dot, the second offense a red dot, and the final offense a black dot. A "black-dotted" team will not be allowed to compete further in the competition.

Analysis
Most of the problems with "overly aggressive play" are cumulative and perceptional. If a team feels that they have been "wronged," they need a formal mechanism to resolve this. If a team is serious enough about a complaint to write it down, then some form of resolution needs to be undertaken. In some cases, they just need their complaint to be heard. In others, a real correction to the offending team needs to be applied. It is worth the stoppage in play to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of all parties, rather than to continue to have bad feelings build up.

The pink dot is designed to keep teams from "excessively complaining." If you have five pink dots on your badges, you are not going to be taken seriously.

The yellow, red, black dots follow the "carding" system already proposed. Mechanistically, it provides a visual badge to the world that this team has had complaints against it upheld. The referees, alliance partners, and opponents will know what they're dealing with before they get into the match.

The reason for a written complaint system is that FIRST is not going to want to disqualify someone from competing in a tournament that they paid for without consistent written documentation. Since the referrees are generally volunteers and generally drawn from teams, a legal argument could be made by a disqualified team that "team bias" had been involved in defrauding a team of its entry fees and tarnishing its reputation. By providing consistent written documentation, if a team is going to be disqualified and thrown out of the tournament, the legal action that that team might undertake would be curtailed.
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-26-2004, 01:32 AM
AmyPrib's Avatar
AmyPrib AmyPrib is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 688
AmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

G<aggressive play>

Overly Aggressive Play is loosely defined as actions beyond strong defensive pushing and blocking interaction. Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping, or entanglement of robots are not allowed. Accidental tipping is allowed at the discretion of the head referees.
Head referees (with help of other refs judgement) have the right to issue yellow warning cards to any team deemed to have crossed the boundaries of aggressive play at any point in a match. These cards will be carried and tracked throughout the entire competition, including all qualification and elimination/final rounds. A team may receive a maximum of 3 yellow cards. Any warning beyond the 3rd will be a Red/DQ card for each additional occurrence of overly aggressive play.
Teams are encouraged to build their robots robust, using common sense meaning of the word and taking into account game objectives and possible strategies.


I borrowed the yellow card idea because I think it's a great suggestion. It gives a tangible and visible warning to the teams who border on overly aggressive play. It also allows the referees some room to warn without having to immediately make the huge decision of DQing a team for questionable actions.

I feel the yellow cards should be carried throughout the entire event because if you only apply it to 2 or 3 consecutive matches, it gives more opportunities to take advantage of aggressive play. Since we didn't see many calls or blatant aggressive situations this season, I don't see any problem in having the warnings apply to an entire event - it shouldn't become a huge issue. I think it would be sufficient to give a set limitation of warnings. Plus it would be easier to track - 3 yellow is all you get.

I also included parts of the existing rule because I think it's worded well and makes the point of disallowing intentional "battlebot" behavior. And although I think it's unnecessary, I included a statement about "robustness", but it should be simply common sense.
Although "intention" will always be a tough judgement, this would give teams the notice that other people are seeing driving habits on the verge of unacceptable. If they want to discuss it with the ref, that's fine, but at least they weren't DQ'd on the spot, which is worse than a warning. I feel the warning is enough without any "enalty shutdown periods".

Strong defense should be expected to be part of the game and there are plenty of ways to play it without becoming overly aggressive.
__________________

Co-Chair Boilermaker Regional Planning Committee 2004-2011
2008 St. Louis Regional Finalists and Engineering Inspiration Award
2007 St. Louis Regional Champions - Thanks 1444 & 829! / St. Louis and Boilermaker Quality Award
2006 Boilermaker Chairman's Award
Referee - IRI - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
2005 Midwest Regional - Semifinalist, Engineering Inspiration Award, and Safety Award / Boilermaker Regional - Judges Award
2004 Midwest Regional Champions - Thanks 269 and 930! / IRI Runner-Up - Thanks to 234 and 447!!!
2004 Championship: Archimedes Finalist - Thanks 716 and 1272!
"We are going to be praised and criticized more than we deserve. We are not to be affected by either." ~ co-worker
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-26-2004, 12:12 PM
Woodie Flowers Award
Ken Patton Ken Patton is offline
purple
FRC #0051 (Wings of Fire)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 341
Ken Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [moderated] Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

G101: Robots are expected to interact on the field. Vigorous and forceful interaction in the play of the game is allowed and expected. Robots should be built to survive these interactions. However, in the interest of gracious professionalism, the following standards will apply:

G101a. Intentional tipping or features which are used to tip other robots are not allowed.
G101b. Unneccessary ramming of other robots is not allowed. Ramming is defined as getting a running start over a distance of more than 24 inches followed by colliding with another robot. Ramming is unneccessary when the robot being rammed is not in the act of scoring or de-scoring. Ramming is unneccessary when the robot being rammed is traversing the field, even if it is on its way to a scoring zone.

Teams should exercise caution when deciding to apply kinetic energy to other robots who are not in the act of scoring.
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-26-2004, 07:29 PM
Steve W's Avatar
Steve W Steve W is offline
Grow Up? Why?
FRC #0610
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Toronto,Ontario Canada
Posts: 2,519
Steve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [moderated] Brainstorm: Aggressive play rule

G101 - Aggressive play will be defined as play, in the referees mind, that is meant to cause damage to another teams robot. This does not mean that a team who damages another robot did so intentionally. Any team who attempts to damage another teams robot will immediately be shut down and that team will recieve a DQ for that match. If this occurs during the elimination round the alliance will be DQ'd and will not be allowed to continue in the elimination rounds.
__________________
We do not stop playing because we grow old;
we grow old because we stop playing.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[moderated] Brainstorm: Entanglement rule Aidan F. Browne Moderated Discussion 8 04-26-2004 07:18 PM
Was play this year too aggresive? JVN General Forum 29 04-22-2004 12:31 PM
Do all three team have to play in finals??? Scott358 Rules/Strategy 8 03-16-2003 10:00 AM
Petition to allow us to play music. (not my idea) archiver 2000 6 06-23-2002 09:15 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 AM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi