Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014

[Steven Donow]

http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/Updates/0#term 177

Section 3.2.6: ROBOT-ROBOT Interaction
The rule change to G27 attempts to discourage ROBOT to ROBOT damage, while still allowing defensive play. On the FIELD, we want to encourage FRC Teams to work with their ALLIANCE partners to demonstrate their technical prowess and game play skills. While pushing and bumping are reasonable game play efforts, anything that resembles intentionally damaging behavior is not. Additionally, the change to G27 enables Referees to issue penalties for causing opponent ROBOT damage, even if not strategic or intentional.

The blue box in G28 is being modified to reflect the fact that it is possible for contact between two extended elements to result in a penalty, if the conditions of G27 are otherwise met.

G27

Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage, destruction or inhibition of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment,damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed.

Violation: FOUL. If strategic, TECHNICAL FOUL. and Potential YELLOW CARD

For example, use of a wedge-like MECHANISM to flip ROBOTS would be considered a violation of G27.

MECHANISMS outside the FRAME PERIMETER are particularly susceptible to causing such damage and drawing this penalty and/or penalties associated with violations of G28. Teams are encouraged to be cautious in their use of such appendages when engaging in ROBOT to ROBOT MATCH play.

G28 (Blue Box only)

High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. Generally, ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.


Not sure how I feel about this yet...seems like too much room for judgement calls...

[Joseph Smith]

Room for judgement calls is exactly what this game needs. The refs are much better suited watching robot-robot interaction and determining if a robot is ramming with intent to damage than watching lines on the carpet and invisible planes. This rule change will probably add a bit of protection to scoring robots, which should make the game more fun to watch.

[Anthony Galea]

So, does this rule out ramming completely, or just ramming to cause damage? Because wouldn't ramming be considered normal defense?

[Jared Russell]

In principle, I like that they are trying to remove the BattleBots element of this game.

In practice, they just added a bunch more things that the already-overworked referees need to be watching for.

[JohnFogarty]

Just when I thought there might be less fouls, this happens.

[IbleedPink233]

Looks like the strategy of ramming a Ball out of your opponent is out.

[M. Lillis]

What problem does this solve? Defense is the nature of Aerial Assist. Now we have to be cautious about crossing the field at high speed to play defense on a team (setting a pick, persay).

[Andrew Schreiber]

Guess this is the latest episode of Twitch plays GDC.

[Swan217]

Room for judgement calls is exactly what this game needs. The refs are much better suited watching robot-robot interaction and determining if a robot is ramming with intent to damage than watching lines on the carpet and invisible planes. This rule change will probably add a bit of protection to scoring robots, which should make the game more fun to watch.

100% agree. The predecessing versions of G27 have been watered down too much in the last few years, so it's nice to see some strengthening of the rule prohibiting Non-Gracious Professional strategies.

Additionally I've heard that officials may be focusing more on robot actions than human violations, but that could just be wishful interpretation...

[Thad House]

Wow I wonder what caused this to come not on a Tuesday? Something must have happened. I'm not really sure what I think about this.

[Abhishek R]

Just when I thought there might be less fouls, this happens.

Yeah, I see this causing a bit more harm than good. I can see fouls being called for light defensive play now.

Also, isn't one of the primary ways to defend shots (and distinguish between the best scorers and the good scorers) to ram them right before they take the shot?

The post does say bumping is reasonable, but there's some gray area between that and when it becomes "aggressive ramming."

[Jay O'Donnell]

I agree with the fact that teams with appendages should be wary of fouls for this, but aggressive ramming? Seriously? If your team can't handle tough defense, you didn't design correctly for this years game.

[OZ_341]

Sounds like you better stay away from robots that have dangling parts.
If your robot is robust and collides with a struggling robot, something will fall off. You could easily get called for damage regardless of intent.

Not sure I like this.

[Woolly]

I don't know that I'm a fan of this update.
If you hit a robot that's predisposed to fall apart at the slightest contact, and you break any part of said robot, it's a penalty. There's been several times where we've hit a robot at low speed and the radio has gone flying out of the other robot.

Does this mean the ref has to make a judgement call about whether the opposing robot wasn't built to handle the game play of Aerial Assist, or is it a situation where the penalty is automatic, and if a robot consistently leaves parts on the field they get a technical?

[Chris is me]

Just what this game needed: another subjective, hard to enforce rule worth so many points in penalties it will decide regionals.

Does anyone have any idea what aggressive ramming is or when it becomes aggressive vs normal? Anyone?

If this were "ramming appendages outside the Bumper Zone" I'd bite and say okay, not perfect but fair. Bumper to bumper contact counting as ramming is just unnecessary.

[magnets]

"Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage, destruction or inhibition of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment, damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed."

Is defense legal? Any effective defense inhibits a robot. Most defenders use "strategies" or "game play" that result in "inhibition of opponent ROBOTS" by "ramming". All defense is "repeated"; very rarely does a defending team only "ram" another robot only once. "Aggressive" is a subjective term, but I'd argue that all defense is aggressive. "Ramming" as opposed to pushing is also very subjective, especially if you collide with another team that's moving quickly. If this type of foul is called often, then I anticipate many upset teams and inconsistent refereeing.

EDIT: I feel this is quite a bit unfair to teams who, unlike the GDC, realized that in a full open field with no protected areas ramming and high speed collisions would happen a lot, and decided to build incredibly strong and robust robots with the ability to ram teams if they need to. I know there are teams who wouldn't have built their robot if the rule was like this.

[johnr]

Could someone explain what -"damage"- used the second time in the first sentence means? The one that comes after the word "attachment".

[Andrew Schreiber]

Could someone explain what -"damage"- used the second time in the first sentence means? The one that comes after the word "attachment".

Anything the already overburdened refs manage to have time to watch between their other million things to do. Sorry guys, hope you all brought your second and third pairs of eyes.

[magnets]

Could someone explain what -"damage"- used the second time in the first sentence means? The one that comes after the word "attachment".
If you remove the other ways to get the penalty, you end up with an incredibly redundant sentence.

Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as damage are not allowed.

[RufflesRidge]

If you remove the other ways to get the penalty, you end up with an incredibly redundant sentence.

Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as damage are not allowed.

That could be because the formatting of the actual update is not properly copied here.

[Michael Hill]

Playing defense on a poorly assembled robot = automatic Technical Foul...lovely. Just what this game needed ::rolls eyes::

[magnets]

That could be because the formatting of the actual update is not properly copied here.

Thanks. I missed that.

[Chris is me]

According to the letter of this update, I could surround my robot in acrylic panels and draw technicals when people break them. As long as the acrylic doesn't exist solely to draw fouls (i.e. has sponsor stickers on it, "protects robot internals from damage") it's not illegal, just a bad design.

[Woolly]

According to the letter of this update, I could surround my robot in acrylic panels and draw technicals when people break them. As long as the acrylic doesn't exist solely to draw fouls (i.e. has sponsor stickers on it, "protects robot internals from damage") it's not illegal, just a bad design.

3-D print all the things!

[Abhishek R]

Playing defense on a poorly assembled robot = automatic Technical Foul...lovely. Just what this game needed ::rolls eyes::

Vice versa, does this mean a poorly assembled robot playing defense on a more powerful or fast machine that in an attempt to break out of a defensive hold is now causing the offensive bot to draw a foul or tech foul?

[Brandon Zalinsky]

In principle, I like that they are trying to remove the BattleBots element of this game.

In practice, they just added a bunch more things that the already-overworked referees need to be watching for.

"In practice" (http://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c)

Please wait to declare how something plays out "in practice" until there are more than 0 qualification matches played with the current rules.

[magnets]

According to the letter of this update, I could surround my robot in acrylic panels and draw technicals when people break them. As long as the acrylic doesn't exist solely to draw fouls (i.e. has sponsor stickers on it, "protects robot internals from damage") it's not illegal, just a bad design.

Only if it was caused by "high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming"

[MooreteP]

If you want an effective defense, build a goalie bot, or modify your Robot to be one.
Worth more than all the rammings and deflections combined.
Blocking a 10 point shot with its attendant time penalty is a game changer.

[EricDrost]

"In practice" (http://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c)

Please wait to declare how something plays out "in practice" until there are more than 0 qualification matches played with the current rules.

Based on my experiences as a referee this year, Jared is making a pretty safe assumption.

[magnets]

"In practice" (http://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c)

Please wait to declare how something plays out "in practice" until there are more than 0 qualification matches played with the current rules.

Here's what I imagine could happen to the poor referees. A team is about to score and win, but a defense bot knocks the ball out of the robot by colliding with it, which "inhibits" them from scoring. After the match, the team will come up to the question box, say that we were "inhibited" because a robot came into contact with us more than one time (satisfying the repeated or high-speed part), and that it should be considered ramming if it was violent enough to knock the ball loose. The ref has to make the call if the robot was being "rammed" or not to decide the technical foul, which isn't an easy decision, especially if it's the final on Einstein...

[Michael Hill]

If you want an effective defense, build a goalie bot, or modify your Robot to be one.
Worth more than all the rammings and deflections combined.
Blocking a 10 point shot with its attendant time penalty is a game changer.

But build your blocker really weak-like and when an offensive robot tries to push you out of the way, let it break! Draw a foul just like in basketball!

[Andrew Schreiber]

If you want an effective defense, build a goalie bot, or modify your Robot to be one.
Worth more than all the rammings and deflections combined.
Blocking a 10 point shot with its attendant time penalty is a game changer.

Yeah, except that the ramming seems to be pretty effective when most teams can barely play the game due to having two "defenders"* on them.



*Defenders in this case can read as "People beating them mercilessly"

[BBray_T1296]

Only if it was caused by "high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming"

If somebody comes flying down the field and hits my (theoretically [but legal!]) entirely Styrofoam robot, it is their fault when my poor design decisions causes my robot to disintegrate?

How about last year, when running cycles we hit a robot playing defense on us, and knocked all 4 of their bumpers off (breaking off the bumper mounts, what little they were). That is my fault also?

[JohnFogarty]

Yeah, except that the ramming seems to be pretty effective when most teams can barely play the game due to having two "defenders"* on them.



*Defenders in this case can read as "People beating them mercilessly"

The GDC developed a game with a slightly similar flow to soccer, hockey, and basketball. Defense is extremely important in all of these sports.

However, one on one robot ramming is something that a team should be prepared for in a game like this, and if the team didn't build a robust enough robot for it. They did a "bad" job.

If you really wanted to give scoring teams a break then I would propose the fouling of double teaming - or double ramming. Not fouling all ramming completely. I'm glad I don't have to have my team play again till champs. By then this whole thing better be sorted.

[bduddy]

Yeah, except that the ramming seems to be pretty effective when most teams can barely play the game due to having two "defenders"* on them.



*Defenders in this case can read as "People beating them mercilessly"There are two more robots on your alliance, too. What are they doing?

[Jay O'Donnell]

There are two more robots on your alliance, too. What are they doing?

They should be playing defense. If you have your two alliance partners come down to set picks for you on both defenders, it's just going to be a massive cluster of robots that's impossible to move in.

[Danny Diaz]

Reminds me of Rack 'n Roll. Semifinal matches, Lone Star Regional. Immediately out of autonomous, the robot driver commands the robot to traverse the length of the field faster than the opposing alliance can grab their sticks, and smashes into an opposing robot so hard 418's battery comes flying out of it, and the opposing robot just dies on the field right there. We drew a yellow card that match, but no other penalty.

And Aim High, Finals 1-2 at Lone Star Regional. 118 in autonomous moves to a repeated spot on the field, a spot that 418 was specifically aimed for. As soon as 118 is in position and begins calibrating its shooter, 418 traverses the field (still in auto) and hits 118 so hard that 118 spins almost 118 degrees on the field and the entire auditorium screams, "OUCH!". No penalty, no card.

Today we'd probably lose those matches due to penalties. :)

-Danny

[Andrew Schreiber]

John, we did build for robot on robot ramming. Or multiple robot on us ramming. The frame can take it no problem. It just makes for a really boring game due to the lack of other activities for teams to do if they aren't the most capable bot on the alliance. Ramming defense is easy whereas running an effective pick is dang near impossible. Coupled with the fact that very few teams during quals are willing to be relegated to that as they all want to show their stuff for picking but it's not practical to let a team that is 0 for 8 from the floor try to shoot. But then you have to deal with them telling you that you're "Not GP"

Scuse me, I'll go off and be a grumpy old man in the corner.


There are two more robots on your alliance, too. What are they doing?

Off hand, the same thing to my opponent because if I have to deal with it so do they. Course, this makes for a boring game from an audience perspective. But that's not important... Oh wait, culture change is the entire point of FIRST. (In before I'm told to see the bigger picture)

[Oblarg]

What does this even mean?

Is there a defensive strategy for dealing with scoring robots that doesn't involve "repeated, aggressive ramming" with the intent to "inhibit" the other robot? What does "aggressive" mean in this context? Re: "high-speed," does this mean if we geared our robot to move quickly we have to be extra-careful about playing defense? What would constitute a legal defensive strategy, and what would be illegal?

If this rule makes bumper-to-bumper contact under normal conditions illegal if one robot happens to break, then it is a stupid rule. There are already rules against intentional tipping, grappling, and damage outside of the bumper zone; these account for ~90% of the damage I saw at the NC regional. If a team's robot can't withstand a hard hit on their bumpers, then they did not design their robot properly.

[wireties]

The big problem I see is the definition of "high speed", "repetitive" and "aggressive" in real-time. I would hate to be a referee. Or a victim.

[mwtidd]

I'm interested in seeing how refs call this one. Sorry week 4 teams, you're my guinea pigs.

[JVN]

There are two questions to ask:
1. What is the GDC's intent?
2. Did they succeed at accomplishing that intent?

I'm surprised how many people in this thread seem to have drastically different assumptions about #1 than me. Maybe I'm misreading the GDC.

[Swan217]

If a team's robot can't withstand a hard hit on their bumpers, then they did not design their robot properly.

This is not Battlebots - I shouldn't have to design a robot for 6G of impact. Try playing defense that doesn't rely on bodychecking your opponents.

[cadandcookies]

I'll chime in after I've actually seen a weekend of matches played under these rules. I'm hoping for the best.

[Andy A.]

I wonder what the definition of 'High Speed' is, in this context.

I would encourage the GDC to establish an actual speed limit. Make it a inspection item or just honor system. As is I have no idea how a team of refs is going to fairly enforce the 'high speed ramming' aspect of this, never mind the rest of the update.

[Tristan Lall]

Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage, destruction or inhibition of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment, damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed.

Violation: FOUL. If strategic, TECHNICAL FOUL. and Potential YELLOW CARD
I'm fine with this change, provided that the "via actions such as" clause applies to everything (which I think it does).

The enforcement logic goes something like this:
There's a judgment call to be made: did one of those actions take place? (And while there is ambiguity, the rule clearly grants sufficient latitude to make nearly any judgment difficult to contest.) Then there's a fairly straightforward visual determination: did damage/destruction/inhibition occur as a result? Then another judgment call: was it strategic?
A team with a purposely-frangible robot has control over item 2, but item 1 is substantially harder to manipulate (without building a terrible robot). So I'm not especially concerned about teams gaming the rule.

Item 3 is purely an assessment of intent, which is difficult in questionable cases. But the option to just call a foul is the easy way out: if the referee is unsure, the offence can still be penalized without having to make an unfounded assumption about motive. (And I think that was the point.)

[magnets]

This is not Battlebots - I shouldn't have to design a robot for 6G of impact. Try playing defense that doesn't rely on bodychecking your opponents.

Regardless of what you think the ideal amount of bodychecking is, the fact is that the rules presented to all teams at the beginning of the season permits this. Many teams have realized that a defensive high speed ramming robot is a great idea.

Some teams have realized that an effective offensive robot must withstand this, and have built robots that withstand this defense. I realize that this may be an exaggeration, but a student with me said that it's like if they would have removed full court shooting from last year. It would be removing a perfectly legal strategy from the game and would also negatively affect the robots with full court blockers.

As to JVN's comment of GDC's intention, their stated intention is to reduce violence and defense, in order to, IMO, make the game less like 2003.

Have they succeeded? Probably not.

[Jay O'Donnell]

There are two questions to ask:
1. What is the GDC's intent?
2. Did they succeed at accomplishing that intent?

I'm surprised how many people in this thread seem to have drastically different assumptions about #1 than me. Maybe I'm misreading the GDC.

Well, how are you reading it? How are you interpreting each change? I'm curious.

[AustinSchuh]

You guys all seem to be missing the point.

This update doesn't say "don't hit people". It doesn't say "don't push people". It says, don't leave your intake down and play D with it. Intakes can stick out 20". The outer 4-6" of my robot is built like a tank, because incidental contact is what happens. The inside of my shooter, which is almost centered in my robot, is still solid, but can't take repeated hard hits. The rules didn't say that it had to be designed to take a hard direct impact, and now it is quite clear that that is the case.

If you think this isn't currently a problem, then you haven't watched the quarterfinal matches at the Sacramento regional. Count the number of defensive hits inside the frame perimeter, and then check the score. No penalties were called until a robot was flipped.

You don't need to wind up full court and hit someone to play D. Some of the most effective D keeps a robot turned so they can't aim, or boxed out so they can't get somewhere. The rules in prior years used to say "no high speed ramming", and people used to play D then too.

I'm happy to see this change. I think it was overdue, and will force Referees to call the rule how it was intended to be called, rather than ignore it.

[Jared Russell]

"In practice" (http://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c)

Please wait to declare how something plays out "in practice" until there are more than 0 qualification matches played with the current rules.

How can you possibly dispute that there are now more things to watch for?

[JohnFogarty]

It says, don't leave your intake down and play D with it.

If this is all that this rule said. Then no one would be complaining.

[Mastonevich]

Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage, destruction or inhibition of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment,damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed.

Inhibition is such a broad term:

All references from dictionary.com

inhibition
1. the act of inhibiting.

inhibiting
1. to restrain, hinder, arrest, or check (an action, impulse, etc.).

hinder
1. to cause delay, interruption, or difficulty in; hamper; impede: The storm hindered our progress.
2. to prevent from doing, acting, or happening; stop: to hinder a man from committing a crime.

I think the important part comes in the terms:
high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming

You can play defense, just no use of high speed, or repeated aggressive ramming the way I read it.

Godspeed to the referees!

[kenavt]

There are two questions to ask:
1. What is the GDC's intent?
2. Did they succeed at accomplishing that intent?

I'm surprised how many people in this thread seem to have drastically different assumptions about #1 than me. Maybe I'm misreading the GDC.

Quoting what appears to be the GDC's literal intent, for reference:

The rule change to G27 attempts to discourage ROBOT to ROBOT damage, while still allowing defensive play. On the FIELD, we want to encourage FRC Teams to work with their ALLIANCE partners to demonstrate their technical prowess and game play skills. While pushing and bumping are reasonable game play efforts, anything that resembles intentionally damaging behavior is not. Additionally, the change to G27 enables Referees to issue penalties for causing opponent ROBOT damage, even if not strategic or intentional.

Will they succeed? I think not.

The first large issue has been raised again and again - the amount of things referees have to pay attention to. There are three big items now that I think will cause debate this weekend. The first have been: human player zone violations alongside under G40, and scoring matches: assists, trusses, and goals (alongside the lag issues inherent in the FMS). I fear that the requirement of referees to catalogue and track every robot-to-robot interaction to see if 1) there is damage, destruction, or inhibition, 2)Is it accidental or strategic, is simply just piling something else upon the referees' plate that will not receive the attention it deserves (not to the referees' fault).

The second large issue is the possibility of attempting to draw fouls under this rule, despite the existence of G14 (which I have seen very, very rarely enforced). For instance, I can see the possibility that low-traction drivetrains that can be pushed readily by skid-steer drivetrains with lots of traction (e.g. mecanums, omnis versus tread wheels) could easily stage penalties to show "high-speed or aggressive" ramming, by not fighting pushing from the aforementioned skid-steer robots.

I am confused as to how the GDC expects the example actions in G27, "high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming", to satisfy their intent to discourage damage while encouraging robots to perform to their best. What is to stop robots with "technical prowess and gameplay skills" from running down the field with a ball playing offense, accidentally hitting a poorly designed robot, breaking something, and incurring a foul? Similarily, their additional intent "Additionally, the change to G27 enables Referees to issue penalties for causing opponent ROBOT damage, even if not strategic or intentional," is intended to raise the level of competition, encourage stronger design skills, or be fair (when it comes to discrepancies between robots' build quality), or do anything but encourage penalties like in the situation with the offensive robot mentioned above.

I hope that referees take these rules as invitations to make sensible, subjective, reasonable judgements that fall in line with the GDC's intent (WITHOUT the GDC stating so - that also seems like a major omission).

[Max Boord]

Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage, destruction or inhibition of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment, damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed.
Violation: FOUL. If strategic, TECHNICAL FOUL. and Potential YELLOW CARD

Ok so lets dive into what this really means:

Strategies/ game play resulting in damage, destruction or inhibition: if you physically stop your opponents from doing what they would like.
High-speed or repeated aggressive ramming: hitting them when they are not moving
Tipping: what happens when 2 150lb objects collide.

If it is an accident: 20pt foul.
If you meant it: 50pt foul.

I this as a game changer. If refs are strict on it then we could see a complete ban on defense. If refs are lenient on it then I think we will see every single match score be challenged.

[jman4747]

You guys all seem to be missing the point.

This update doesn't say "don't hit people". It doesn't say "don't push people". It says, don't leave your intake down and play D with it. Intakes can stick out 20".

This is absolutely correct and is fine however there is still no mention of the foul being based on who initiated contact. A defender can still run into me while I'm sitting still and cause me to lose 50p. Most intakes are not ramming devises. They are designed to pick up balls to play a normal offensive scoring game.

GDC further penalizing offensive teams for having intakes that are rigid.

[Chris is me]

You guys all seem to be missing the point.

This update doesn't say "don't hit people". It doesn't say "don't push people". It says, don't leave your intake down and play D with it. Intakes can stick out 20". The outer 4-6" of my robot is built like a tank, because incidental contact is what happens. The inside of my shooter, which is almost centered in my robot, is still solid, but can't take repeated hard hits. The rules didn't say that it had to be designed to take a hard direct impact, and now it is quite clear that that is the case.

If you think this isn't currently a problem, then you haven't watched the quarterfinal matches at the Sacramento regional. Count the number of defensive hits inside the frame perimeter, and then check the score. No penalties were called until a robot was flipped.

You don't need to wind up full court and hit someone to play D. Some of the most effective D keeps a robot turned so they can't aim, or boxed out so they can't get somewhere. The rules in prior years used to say "no high speed ramming", and people used to play D then too.

I'm happy to see this change. I think it was overdue, and will force Referees to call the rule how it was intended to be called, rather than ignore it.

The rule seems to prohibit any kind of "aggressive ramming", regardless if an appendage is used or not. The fact that Sacramento refs were not calling blatant infractions of existing rules does not mean this is a necessary change. What is "aggressive"?

[George Nishimura]

Preface: My team haven't competed yet and I have never been a referee.

I think this rule update makes sense.

The update, from my perspective, says this:

High speed collisions, if accidental and damaging/inhibitive, foul.
Repeated, aggressive ramming, or purposeful high speed collisions, technical foul.

I fail to see how this 'kills defense'. Every sport, from hockey to football, draws the line somewhere for how much 'roughness' is allowed. The intent (to address JVN's point) is to reduce the amount of damage on robots. I think we can all get behind that intent.

High speed collisions and repeated, aggressive ramming are not the cornerstones of good defence. Pushing, blocking and pinning are all still legal under this update. Every sport relies on the subjectivity of the referees to decide what constitutes dangerous play or unnecessary roughness and precedents will eventually be set.

I actually think this ruling empowers referees, more than burdens them. As far as I'm aware they already watch out for dangerous robot-robot interactions. This gives them the chance to penalize clumsy/overzealous yet good-intending teams without the huge 50pt swing.

[jtechau]

Having been in Sacramento, I understand Austin's perspective. That was an unnecessarily aggressive Regional.

I’m glad to see this rule update. FRC is about building strategic robots, not battle bots. Of course the robots need to be able to take some abuse. But being able to dole out abuse shouldn’t be a team’s strategic advantage.

Defense is of course allowed. Push all you want. Ramming is a judgment call, though. Certainly some amount of ramming is unavoidable - even desirable - and must be allowed. But if any referee thinks you’re doing it with the intent of damaging a robot, or even carelessness to the extent that could result in damage, expect to draw a penalty.

Also, a bit of advice, paraphrased from the Game Manual:

When reading these rules, please use common sense rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording.

[mrnoble]

Preface: My team haven't competed yet and I have never been a referee.

I think this rule update makes sense.

The update, from my perspective, says this:

High speed collisions, if accidental and damaging/inhibitive, foul.
Repeated, aggressive ramming, or purposeful high speed collisions, technical foul.

I fail to see how this 'kills defense'. Every sport, from hockey to football, draws the line somewhere for how much 'roughness' is allowed. The intent (to address JVN's point) is to reduce the amount of damage on robots. I think we can all get behind that intent.

High speed collisions and repeated, aggressive ramming are not the cornerstones of good defence. Pushing, blocking and pinning are all still legal under this update. Every sport relies on the subjectivity of the referees to decide what constitutes dangerous play or unnecessary roughness and precedents will eventually be set.

I actually think this ruling empowers referees, more than burdens them. As far as I'm aware they already watch out for dangerous robot-robot interactions. This gives them the chance to penalize clumsy/overzealous yet good-intending teams without the huge 50pt swing.

+1.

Hockey is probably the sport with the most in common with this year's game in a number of areas. Professional hockey continues to adjust the types of legal interactions between players; what was acceptable 30 years ago (the Goon) is now frowned upon in most places and at most times, because it was overall bad for the game. GDC is attempting to adjust based on what they saw last week. While for most of CD FRC is highly competitive, GDC doesn't just consider the competitive team's needs and wants. There are far more teams who will field a box on wheels with a weak frame and appendages made from stuff that is easily damaged. Can FRC really tell them that they just should've prepared better when the bot is completely destroyed? Discouraged noncompetitive teams will end FRC within a couple of years. And can you, who build competitive bots and field teams that make it into elims regularly, not figure out a way to play against those teams that doesn't require ramming? I bet you can. ;)

[raptaconehs]

This update is a true game changer. It limits the amount of super physical defense that can be played. The biggest issue with this rule change is that refs will not be able to be consistent. The refs have plenty to do already and it doesn't appear that the GDC is making things easier. This is going to change a lot of the strategy that goes into the game. I am interested to see how FIRST teams will react to this update tomorrow during qualifiers.

[Drivencrazy]

Could this unscheduled rule update come as a result of a Head Referee conference call? I don't know when those take place but something must have triggered the late release of this update.

Unless they just couldn't decide what to do by Tuesday...

Good luck to all the guinea pigs competing this weekend. I hope that the update positively impacts the game and doesn't cause more harm than good.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Preface: My team haven't competed yet and I have never been a referee.

I think this rule update makes sense.

The update, from my perspective, says this:

High speed collisions, if accidental and damaging/inhibitive, foul.
Repeated, aggressive ramming, or purposeful high speed collisions, technical foul.

I fail to see how this 'kills defense'. Every sport, from hockey to football, draws the line somewhere for how much 'roughness' is allowed. The intent (to address JVN's point) is to reduce the amount of damage on robots. I think we can all get behind that intent.

High speed collisions and repeated, aggressive ramming are not the cornerstones of good defence. Pushing, blocking and pinning are all still legal under this update. Every sport relies on the subjectivity of the referees to decide what constitutes dangerous play or unnecessary roughness and precedents will eventually be set.

I actually think this ruling empowers referees, more than burdens them. As far as I'm aware they already watch out for dangerous robot-robot interactions. This gives them the chance to penalize clumsy/overzealous yet good-intending teams without the huge 50pt swing.

I agree on most of your points except the ramming. Ramming your opponent as they are about to shoot is already proven in previous weeks to be very effective at stopping shots. It will be significantly less effective if you can't ram your opponent as hard anymore.

[raptaconehs]

I agree on most of your points except the ramming. Ramming your opponent as they are about to shoot is already proven in previous weeks to be very effective at stopping shots. It will be significantly less effective if you can't ram your opponent as hard anymore.

I understand that this years game is much more physical than in years past, but why are they going to penalize ramming now. Ramming has been a way to create some effective defense in every scoring game. If they were very concerned about shooting bots getting rammed, I don't understand why they just didn't create a safety zone.

[bduddy]

My biggest concern with this new rule (it was an issue with the old rule too, really) is that "inhibition" needs to be much better defined. It's almost meaningless right now - almost anything could be considered "inhibition" by some, while others may have a much narrower definition.

[George Nishimura]

I agree on most of your points except the ramming. Ramming your opponent as they are about to shoot is already proven in previous weeks to be very effective at stopping shots. It will be significantly less effective if you can't ram your opponent as hard anymore.

While ramming is not directly outlawed (it has to be both aggressive and repeated), I'll concede that it will probably be penalized inconsistently, and it might be worth not risking the penalty at all and avoid ramming (although you can still ram them once, right when they are about to shoot).

Defensive strategies may have to evolve. I'm sure the GDC don't enjoy adding more penalties/fouls to the game, but if teams are going to employ strategies that risk the integrity of another team's robot, it's their duty to protect against it.

Ultimately, losing the ability to ram (which again, strictly speaking is not what has happened) is a small price to pay. I'd rather watch and play a game where every robot leaves the field in one piece.

[Robotmmm]

A GDC update that quickly garners 64 comments, all debating what the update means, does nothing but muddy the already virtually black waters. This game needs simple, clear, uncomplicated, unambiguous rules in order to save it. Alas, I believe we are too far gone for rescue.

Overtaxed refs are now further burdened. The gray area of rule interpretation has now vastly expanded. We will continue with yet another week of competition scored by different rules.

It is time to officially declare this game worse than Lunacy.

My hope is for lessons learned........

[FrankJ]

I suggest your drivers & drive coach go to the drivers meeting. Pay attention. Ask questions. The people that are going to be refereeing your game are to be there. They will tell you how they are going to call your game.

I expect heavy bumping pushing that serves a purpose will be allowed. Full speed hits are going to be frowned upon.

[PayneTrain]

Just posting in this thread now to remind Friday/Saturday me that Thursday me is already preparing for my inevitable meltdown over this rule change being applied in the Virginia Regional.

[Bob Steele]

My opinion is that this is simply an attempt to move this game away from being Battle bots Plain and simple.

Because the game is a single ball game, 2 robots are not doing anything and they are beating the living daylights out of the other teams offensive robots.

At one time I coached high school lacrosse. At the high school level, in many places you have a large percentage of less experienced players that simply cannot throw and catch the ball effectively. The game, when played on a higher level, has little contact because good players get rid of the ball quickly enough and make quick passes so that physical play does not net you an advantage. In a lower level game, because the players do not have these skills, physical play nets results and the game becomes quite physical and violent at times.

This game is not unlike this situation... teams have a tough time holding on to the ball or acquiring it... this makes close defense a real option.
The way you beat a double team on your robot is to pass to another player that is not being defended... unfortunately, this is VERY difficult in this game... most robots have a very difficult time passing to each other effectively and the ball gets "kissed" to the other robot... this leads to lots of contact.

As game play gets better, defense will be harder to play... with better robots that have strategies that include moving the ball towards the goal by passing rather than driving with the ball, defense will have to change.

Right now its really easy to defend.

What is happening is that this kind of defense is leading to robot failures from the contact. Too many robots are being damaged. Some permanently.
Robustness is difficult to design .. acquiring the ball, carrying it and launching it are very difficult tasks for many teams....

I think the GDC is simply telling us that they want us to not cause damage. To back off a little and let robots do what they were designed to do a little bit.

It has gotten too rough... we should not be damaging each other.

Now, referees are tasked with doing this by calling fouls. Like any sport, we will have to see what they are going to allow. This happens even in well established sports and in individual contests from weekend to weekend.

The GDC is just saying stop the violence and the damage. In operation of your robot, think about what you are doing... the protection of bumpers is not sufficient this year. Think before you play defense by brute force. Use position and scouting to do it.

We will see what this means but if we all just take a step back and try and play defense with finesse rather than brute crushing power I think we will be fine.

I really don't think the referees are looking to call penalties... they are simply trying to make the game safe for the robots.

[efoote868]

I'd like to praise the GDC for listening to feedback on CD and elsewhere, and for demonstrating continuous improvement by modifying the game rules to discourage brutal game-play.

While some might get tripped up in the language, I think the intent of the update is loud and clear: the FRC is not and has never meant to be battle bots. Driving recklessly and with disregard to other robots isn't within the spirit of the FRC, and should be penalized.

I think we'll see in referee interpretations and future refinements to this rule that defense still is a viable (and encouraged) strategy, while recklessly smashing into opponents is not (and there is a huge difference).

[pfreivald]

I'm cool with these changes, for reasons expressed by others who've come out in favor of them.

FRC robots need to be robust, but the battle of attrition I've been watching isn't what I generally sign up for.

[sprocketman92]

I would think that any bumper to bumper contact is legal. I mean if bumpers are built correctly that is 4 POOL NOODLES colliding......

With that being said clearly something had to be done and maybe this is the change we needed!

[atucker4072]

My opinion is that this is simply an attempt to move this game away from being Battle bots Plain and simple.

Because the game is a single ball game, 2 robots are not doing anything and they are beating the living daylights out of the other teams offensive robots.

At one time I coached high school lacrosse. At the high school level, in many places you have a large percentage of less experienced players that simply cannot throw and catch the ball effectively. The game, when played on a higher level, has little contact because good players get rid of the ball quickly enough and make quick passes so that physical play does not net you an advantage. In a lower level game, because the players do not have these skills, physical play nets results and the game becomes quite physical and violent at times.

This game is not unlike this situation... teams have a tough time holding on to the ball or acquiring it... this makes close defense a real option.
The way you beat a double team on your robot is to pass to another player that is not being defended... unfortunately, this is VERY difficult in this game... most robots have a very difficult time passing to each other effectively and the ball gets "kissed" to the other robot... this leads to lots of contact.

As game play gets better, defense will be harder to play... with better robots that have strategies that include moving the ball towards the goal by passing rather than driving with the ball, defense will have to change.

Right now its really easy to defend.

What is happening is that this kind of defense is leading to robot failures from the contact. Too many robots are being damaged. Some permanently.
Robustness is difficult to design .. acquiring the ball, carrying it and launching it are very difficult tasks for many teams....

I think the GDC is simply telling us that they want us to not cause damage. To back off a little and let robots do what they were designed to do a little bit.

It has gotten too rough... we should not be damaging each other.

Now, referees are tasked with doing this by calling fouls. Like any sport, we will have to see what they are going to allow. This happens even in well established sports and in individual contests from weekend to weekend.

The GDC is just saying stop the violence and the damage. In operation of your robot, think about what you are doing... the protection of bumpers is not sufficient this year. Think before you play defense by brute force. Use position and scouting to do it.

We will see what this means but if we all just take a step back and try and play defense with finesse rather than brute crushing power I think we will be fine.

I really don't think the referees are looking to call penalties... they are simply trying to make the game safe for the robots.

Best post in the thread so far. Teams should be focusing on playing the game, and I'm not saying that defense is not a legitimate strategy. Yes defense is an important part of the game; however it should not besuch as large that it is costing teams that have built solid and robust robust to eventually break because of ridiculous means of defense. Seriously would you really want any other robot come flying full tilt across the field just to hit you? That really does have potential to damage any robot.

The rule isn't limiting defense as much as you would think. It is more so aimed at preventing damage through high speed contact. You can still play good defense by ramming, just not as intense and as often. If you think about it when do you really need to repeatedly ram into someone? You can still push and what not as well as ram into a robot while it is taking a shot.

Then again what do I know, no one has seen a match with the update to the rules.

[DampRobot]

I know that no one team causes any updates, but feel like we might have had a role in bringing this update into existence.

At SAC this year, a variety of electronics and mechanical issues prevented us from getting our shooter working until late on Friday, by which time we had discovered we could play really good D. We had a fast, powerful WCD, and a strong frame and bumpers. Our driver had never really practiced D, but could be coached pretty easily, and ended up being able to shut quite a few teams down. Teams at the competition and alums watching videos noticed that we were playing really hard defense, and even the announcer was commenting on it. We always play to win, and those matches where we were playing defense were no exception.

When we play D, we don't play with the intention of ramming other teams into oblivion. Not only is that a really mean way to play the game, but it's the wrong way strategically too. Playing positional defense (being between them and the ball, between them and their shooting spot, them and the 1 pt goal, them and the teams they're receiving from, them and the human player, etc) is a far better way to prevent teams from scoring then by trying to ram them into the stone age. But defense is a contact strategy, and when there is contact, there's usually some rapid changes of speed and direction. Sometimes you have to hit the corner of an opposing robot to turn them, and sometimes you have to get your robot between the opposing bot and where they want to go. Ramming isn't the goal, but when you play defense, high speed collisions are going to happen some of the time.

This team update essentially makes any team that is able to execute a defensive strategy the target of massive penalties. If you are playing defense effectively, you're going to have some high speed collisions. And I highly suspect that this is only going to be called against teams playing effective defense, whether or not there are other teams hitting harder.

We're revamping our robot for SVR, and plan to put up points in teleop instead of being stuck preventing other people from getting them. Perhaps my opinion will change then. But I feel like this update too broadly penalizes teams for playing defense.

[brandon.cottrell]

Oh man, and right before Waterloo too!

[jtechau]

This team update essentially makes any team that is able to execute a defensive strategy the target of massive penalties. If you are playing defense effectively, you're going to have some high speed collisions. And I highly suspect that this is only going to be called against teams playing effective defense, whether or not there are other teams hitting harder.


You were at SAC; you witnessed a number of matches where robots played a defensive strategy of aggressively, repeatedly ramming their opponents. As you suggest, that's not a good strategy, nor is it very nice - especially when it reaches the point of tipping or disabling opponents.

I see a big difference between an effective defensive strategy and aggressive, repeated ramming. I don't expect the occasional high speed collision to be called. On the other hand, a strategy of consistently and aggressively ramming your opponent isn't within the spirit of the game, nor of FRC.

[OZ_341]

The issue is not the intent of the rules change. I am all for controlling robot damage and opening up some room for scoring. My big worry is that this new ruling is so open-ended that just about anything could be called.

I am just visualizing some critical moment in the eliminations when a robot loses a roller and the opposing alliance gets a tech foul for what amounts to an incidental collision and a loose part. If the new rules are taken to the letter, then this scenario is entirely possible.

I just hope that the Refs have concrete instructions from FIRST and that they communicate some very specific instructions to the drive teams prior to the start of qualifications at each event.

[Nathan Rossi]

It's interesting that they released this update at this time. I imagine most teams won't be looking for updates mid-regional, I hope they inform everyone about this change at the opening ceremonies (tomorrow), otherwise, there are going to be a lot of fouls in week 4.

I like the idea of this rule, it puts less focus on defense and hopefully will decrease the number of "robot battle scars." However, I'm afraid how referees are going to interpret "actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming." It's a bit too subjective.

[MattRain]

Im waiting for alot more fouls now....

[MooreteP]

The issue is not the intent of the rules change. I am all for controlling robot damage and opening up some room for scoring. My big worry is that this new ruling is so open-ended that just about anything could be called.

I am just visualizing some critical moment in the eliminations when a robot loses a roller and the opposing alliance gets a tech foul for what amounts to an incidental collision and a loose part. If the new rules are taken to the letter, then this scenario is entirely possible.

This^

[Sunshine]

Let's all all take a deep breath and relax a bit. FIRST has never been about being battle bots. There are other competitions that allow very agessive behavior. They see that some teams have given up on showing offensive play and technical abilities. They are just reacting to how we have collectively changed how they wanted the game to be played. Adapt and react in a positive manner. No says you can't play defense. There are many ways to play defense without causing damage, tipping, or high speed impacts. We'll all be fine.

[who716]

I don't like this one at all

[Matt_Boehm_329]

Good! No penalty for contact between two appendages was a silly silly rule because I could easily see teams taking advantage of that loophole with the amount of rule lawyering that goes on.

Edit: To compare it to a sport, I assume it would be called like checking in hockey. Charging is called but regular checks not. In hockey its 3+ strides going into a check, here it may be crossing more than two zones or something. It also rules out a team building a "ball intake device" in name only and using it to damage other teams' ball intakes. The explicit allowance for penalty free impacts in g28 I felt was too confusing when preceded by g27

[45Auto]

Worst update ever to the worst game in my nine years of being a FIRST mentor and drive coach.

I've already gone through one regional full of subjective calls. Lots of video out there of violations by one alliance not being called while identical play by the other alliance results in penalties. Not the ref's fault, they're human, no two people will see or interpret subjective events the same way.

Not like we have enough judgement call gray areas already that the refs have to make instant decisions on (did the kid's pinky really cross the invisible line? Is that enough that we call it or not? Is a robot "close enough" that we think it should be a 50 point or 20 point foul?), now the ref's have to decide if a robot is "high speed", "aggressive", "repeated ramming" or even playing "strategically".

On top of that, I'm now responsible for damage to the opponents robot from a legal hit?

Is high speed 6 FPS? 8 FPS? 10 FPS? Who knows?

What is "aggressive ramming"? Can anyone describe "non-aggressive" ramming for me so I at least have some idea of how to try to play this despicable game?

How do you do ANYTHING that is not "strategic" for an automatic tech foul and yellow card?

Our general plan (strategy) in our first regional was to play defense when not inbounding, then scoring the over-the-truss shot from our alliance partner. Now if we play any kind of defense we have to be low speed, non-aggressive, no repeated (more than once is repeated) ramming, AND it cannot be "strategic" without getting a penalty. How the heck do you play without following a general plan to achieve your goal???

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategic

stra·te·gic
adjective \strə-ˈtē-jik\

: of or relating to a general plan that is created to achieve a goal in war, politics, etc., usually over a long period of time

We built our robot to be strong and fast so we could play defense when we don't have the ball. Reinforced tank-drive kit-bot chassis with 6 cim, 2 speed transmissions.

Based on the way calls were going, our first 25 seconds of play in the 2nd final at Arkansas would have resulted in 3 or 4 tech fouls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA5JtkWG6QA&feature=youtu.be

Our robot (2992) is the tall blue one at the top of the screen on the blue side of the field.

After autonomous, we reverse downfield to play defense. The red robot coming downfield rams us on our side of the field (0:20) (or did we ram it? Who knows? Aggressive High-Speed Ramming penalty for us because they die?), but gets shoved backwards into the wall and dies. Oops, penalty on us for damaging their robot. Maybe we should have run away? Someone should have told me.

Immediately after that collision, we cross the field and ram another red robot (0:22) that is playing defense on our inbounder/truss teammate. Was it a high-speed ram? Again, who knows? Do the refs like us or not? We shove it across the field sideways to free our teammate. Uh-oh, looks like "strategic" play to me.

About all I can think of now is to just accept our penalties with gracious professionalism, tell the seniors that we hope they had a good time, and hope it gets better next year for the underclassmen.

[Joe Ross]

It's interesting that they released this update at this time. I imagine most teams won't be looking for updates mid-regional, I hope they inform everyone about this change at the opening ceremonies (tomorrow), otherwise, there are going to be a lot of fouls in week 4.

At the LA regional, they held a special drivers meeting after practice matches to announce this.

[FrankJ]

It's interesting that they released this update at this time. I imagine most teams won't be looking for updates mid-regional, I hope they inform everyone about this change at the opening ceremonies (tomorrow), otherwise, there are going to be a lot of fouls in week 4.

I like the idea of this rule, it puts less focus on defense and hopefully will decrease the number of "robot battle scars." However, I'm afraid how referees are going to interpret "actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming." It's a bit too subjective.

They have drivers meetings. If your drivers go to them & listen they will know about the rule changes. This has also gone out on the email blasts. The primary team contact gets them. Rather or not they actually them is the team's problem.

Referees are human. They will make mistakes. Occasionally the game's outcome will be effected by it. Get used to it. Before the last couple of rule updates, if a robot A ramming & destroying an appendage of robot B with structure their inside the bumper zone was legal. In fact robot B could have been penalized for robot As action. The updates are an improvement unless you want to play battle bots.

Sorry for the rant. Off to take my pills now.

[BrendanB]

Sometimes I wonder what goes through the minds of FIRST/GDC members when they make games and rules like this.

I for one agree with the rules to a degree and I will back up what Brandon said earlier which is we should see how it plays out in Week 4. Yes it does seem very open ended but let's see. For those of you competing, welcome to what it is like competing in Week 1. I for one and not a big fan of heavy defense damaging robots even if it is bumper to bumper contact however I have to ask the following:

Did the GDC even think this game through?

This is a serious question because now that I see this update they are trying to bring us away from heavier defense and bring the game down to what they see. I have a big problem that they didn't see this sooner because it is showing some lack of forethought on their part for a few reasons.

1. Teams have more in their drivebases than ever before. This is the second year we have been allowed to have 6 CIMs on our robot and look back over the years and read through Jim's paper on rules and you can see that 10 years ago was when CIMs were brought into the game. Now we have nearly any transmission available with a huge number of motors to throw in them.

2. The field is extremely open. We haven't had a field this open since the days of 2006 or 2009 (but this year doesn't fit well due to the low friction surface) but a lot of us looked back to 2006 when this game was announced and remember the defensive battles that took place. No, bumpers were not required but when goals changed there was a huge push from one side of the field to the other with many collisions and pushing matches. This is what happens when there is no traffic flow around the field and teams are working down field similar to football.

3. This has been mentioned before but what are the other two robots doing??? I can always see how FIRST wants us to play the game however I think they often get out of touch with how it will actually play out. There are many teams who just don't get their robots done and I think everyone of us has had to face an event or several matches as purely defensive because our upper assemblies just weren't working. Couple this with them pushing for more events with smaller quantities of teams in the district model even with many regionals and you have a smaller pool of teams to pull from. No matter what game FIRST makes, there will always be robots that for one reason or another just can't play the offensive role. In a year where they are only giving ONE ball to an alliance they just increased that number by a lot. Not because there are necessarily more teams who didn't finish but because with one ball the team who is better at scoring will have it for most of the time leaving many teams on the defense. Even teams who do play offense well have to play the defensive position. Our team inbounded and threw the ball over the truss in a matter of seconds and then played defense for the rest of the cycle because our offensive role was complete. We played defense on opponents and defense on the robots covering our main offensive scorer.

Now combine all three together and what do you have? A very defensive, tough, & rough game and it didn't take our team weeks to figure that out. We interpreted the signs immediately and that influenced our design choices on day 1 as it did with others in our area like 1058 who made a top notch drivebase to survive this game. How long was it going to take the GDC to figure this out? Week 4 of competition?

I for one feel like this game could be amazing but FIRST is definitely using fouls with large point values to control exactly how they want it played. That has already been debated but what I dislike the most about 2014 is I just feel the GDC is completely out of touch with how teams play. How many members of the GDC have ever been on an FRC team. How many of them have actually competed?

I have a lot of respect for the GDC as they have to make new games every year and the past few years have had hands down the BEST games. This year is a lot harder for everyone standing in light of the best game we have played. That being said though each year there are several portions of the game, rules, or manual that you have to sit back and ask, "Did they really think this wasn't going to be an issue" or "How were they expecting us to play this".

At the end of the day we are all human but these are the things that just baffle me.

[atucker4072]

Based on the way calls were going, our first 25 seconds of play in the 2nd final at Arkansas would have resulted in 3 or 4 tech fouls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA5JtkWG6QA&feature=youtu.be

Our robot (2992) is the tall blue one at the top of the screen on the blue side of the field.

After autonomous, we reverse downfield to play defense. The red robot coming downfield rams us on our side of the field (0:20) (or did we ram it? Who knows? Aggressive High-Speed Ramming penalty for us because they die?), but gets shoved backwards into the wall and dies. Oops, penalty on us for damaging their robot. Maybe we should have run away? Someone should have told me.

Immediately after that collision, we cross the field and ram another red robot (0:22) that is playing defense on our inbounder/truss teammate. Was it a high-speed ram? Again, who knows? Do the refs like us or not? We shove it across the field sideways to free our teammate. Uh-oh, looks like "strategic" play to me.

About all I can think of now is to just accept our penalties with gracious professionalism, tell the seniors that we hope they had a good time, and hope it gets better next year for the underclassmen.

The only thing that I could see being called is the collision right after autonomous. That in my mind would be a high speed collision and definitely seems like it could have damaging effects.

Still haven't seen any matches yet though. So we will have to see how it plays out. Regardless there is no need for high speed collisions. The best defense I've seen I short close contact.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

They have drivers meetings. If your drivers go to them & listen they will know about the rule changes. This has also gone out on the email blasts. The primary team contact gets them. Rather or not they actually them is the team's problem.

Referees are human. They will make mistakes. Occasionally the game's outcome will be effected by it. Get used to it. Before the last couple of rule updates, if a robot A ramming & destroying an appendage of robot B with structure their inside the bumper zone was legal. In fact robot B could have been penalized for robot As action. The updates are an improvement unless you want to play battle bots.

Sorry for the rant. Off to take my pills now.

My only concern with this new ruling is the implementation. Basically the how and when it will be called. As long as that is clear to all teams, things should be good.

[45Auto]

The only thing that I could see being called is the collision right after autonomous. That in my mind would be a high speed collision and definitely seems like it could have damaging effects.

Exactly why this game sucks so badly.

The red robot comes all the way down the field full speed, under the truss and onto our side of the field. We (blue robot) barely have time to straighten up at the white line and move one robot length forward before we hit.

And you believe that it should be a high-speed collision penalty on the blue robot because the red robot died?

Too many "judgement" calls.

[Andy A.]

The only thing that I could see being called is the collision right after autonomous. That in my mind would be a high speed collision and definitely seems like it could have damaging effects.

It didn't appear terribly high speed to me. It doesn't seem any higher speed than a dozen other hits in that match. My interpretation is that the red robot probably didn't adequately secure its Anderson connector. Is that the blue robots fault?

And there in sort of lies the problem. One persons 'high speed' is anothers reasonable bump (which, incidentally is really effective this year). On top of asking refs to gauge whether damage occurs (a non trivial task!) does anyone expect them to figure out what 'High-Speed' means, and apply that evenly?

I would be happy if FIRST just established some non-subjective criteria for what it considers fair play. A top speed, for instance, would be wonderful. Tell me what 'high speed' means in feet per second and I'll limit the robot to that in code and never have to worry about the penalty (neither will the refs!). Everyone can then design a robot and bumpers around a known impact (150lb robot moving at Xfps) going into the season.

I'm glad I didn't volunteer as a ref this year. Seems like an impossible job.

[sircedric4]

Sorry everyone, I think this new subjective ruling is totally my fault. I had this to say in another thread:

"Our beef is with the harsh and subjective penalties associated with the game Aerial Assist. Being on the field is a high stress environment for anyone much less over-stressed refs and high school students. Mistakes are easily made, and having so many penalties in the game, and making them worth so much is our issue. An inconsequential mistake that happens to be observed at that time can cost a team their game. That is why I agree with this petition that the technical fouls should be lowered, changed, or the safety zone improved to decrease the likelihood of bad feelings about this game."

It is obvious that I treaded on some GDC member's ideal version of the game and to punish us they have added even more subjective arbitrary rules for the refs to try and call.

My bad.

(This was sarcasm and hyperbole by the way. To be serious, I just can't see how adding more things for the ref to try and call can be a good thing. This game is now literally irrelevant to what robot you build, it all falls to luck and to what the refs see now. I don't even know how to react to this new rule. I am thinking we will remove our wheels, that way we know we can't foul.)

[E Dawg]

I am not a huge fan of the update. However, I think I can understand the reasoning behind it. This year's game is all about assisting. With heavy defense being played, it is difficult to assist and therefore show off the technical prowess of teams. It's difficult to show what your robot can do if it is stuck. This update is a quick and dirty solution to this problem.

I'm not saying I like what's going on. But perhaps we need to step back and consider the teams that can't get out of a tight spot and simply want to get a shot off.

[Oblarg]

The only thing that I could see being called is the collision right after autonomous. That in my mind would be a high speed collision and definitely seems like it could have damaging effects.

If that type of collision is illegal under the new rules, then all effective defense is dead. That was utterly mild - if that's not allowed, then if a flimsy robot is moving around, everyone else now has an obligation to run away from it.

[Woolly]

I am just visualizing some critical moment in the eliminations when a robot loses a roller and the opposing alliance gets a tech foul for what amounts to an incidental collision and a loose part. If the new rules are taken to the letter, then this scenario is entirely possible.


It probably would have happened at Greater Kansas City last weekend if this rule would have been in effect during Finals Match 3.

[geomapguy]

Anytime we played D at Arkansas, we tried to play passive D in which we'd essentially draw a pinning action from the robot we were defending.. It was very effective yet not detrimental to our robot or the opposing robot. I think this update will help lower the "battlebot-esque" defense

[Swan217]

If that type of collision is illegal under the new rules, then all effective defense is dead. That was utterly mild - if that's not allowed, then if a flimsy robot is moving around, everyone else now has an obligation to run away from it.

These sort of statements make me wonder if people on Chief Delphi have lost their collective minds.

We're talking about RAMMING, people. Taking your robot from across the field & smashing it against a prone robot. This should NEVER be a valid strategy in FIRST. Come on now, we're all better than that.

You're saying you can't play defense without ramming. That is LITERALLY like saying you can't play defense in hockey without leaving your feet, or boarding. Ramming with bumpers is like helmet-to-helmet contact in football - Yes, the helmets protect your head from damage, but only so much. This is like saying you can't play defense in soccer without bodychecking your opponents. It's completely un-gracious & un-professional.

You're saying that engineers, in the smartest sport in the world, can't figure out how to play defense without bashing another robot's skull in? I have been in FIRST for 15 years, and I KNOW there are better defensive strategies than you give us credit for. I think my respect for Chief Delphi posters has gone down quite a few notches from not just this but MANY posts in this thread.

[E Dawg]

These sort of statements make me wonder if people on Chief Delphi have lost their collective minds.

We're talking about RAMMING, people. Taking your robot from across the field & smashing it against a prone robot. This should NEVER be a valid strategy in FIRST. Come on now, we're all better than that.

You're saying you can't play defense without ramming. That is LITERALLY like saying you can't play defense in hockey without leaving your feet, or boarding. Ramming with bumpers is like helmet-to-helmet contact in football - Yes, the helmets protect your head from damage, but only so much. This is like saying you can't play defense in soccer without bodychecking your opponents. It's completely un-gracious & un-professional.

You're saying that engineers, in the smartest sport in the world, can't figure out how to play defense without bashing another robot's skull in? I have been in FIRST for 15 years, and I KNOW there are better defensive strategies than you give us credit for. I think my respect for Chief Delphi posters has gone down quite a few notches from not just this but MANY posts in this thread.

I think many people aren't worried so much about not being able to ram as about what constitutes ramming in the the first place. Preferably ramming falls under the category you think it does (all the way across the field), but does moving 1/8 of the field to intercept an opposing bot and colliding with it cause me a foul? That's where the issue comes in.

[Oblarg]

These sort of statements make me wonder if people on Chief Delphi have lost their collective minds.

We're talking about RAMMING, people. Taking your robot from across the field & smashing it against a prone robot. This should NEVER be a valid strategy in FIRST. Come on now, we're all better than that.

You're saying you can't play defense without ramming. That is LITERALLY like saying you can't play defense in hockey without leaving your feet, or boarding. Ramming with bumpers is like helmet-to-helmet contact in football - Yes, the helmets protect your head from damage, but only so much. This is like saying you can't play defense in soccer without bodychecking your opponents. It's completely un-gracious & un-professional.

You're saying that engineers, in the smartest sport in the world, can't figure out how to play defense without bashing another robot's skull in? I have been in FIRST for 15 years, and I KNOW there are better defensive strategies than you give us credit for. I think my respect for Chief Delphi posters has gone down quite a few notches from not just this but MANY posts in this thread.

This sort of statement makes me wonder if we're watching the same video.

We saw two robots, moving at a brisk pace, hit each other squarely on the bumpers. It was not particularly violent, it was clear neither had the aim of damaging the other, and it was utterly unavoidable unless one robot decided to cripple their own play by making an effort to not contact the other.

How can this possibly be made to penalize either party without completely breaking all strategies that involve robot-to-robot contact? Moreover, how would it be clear which robot to penalize? "Which one broke after the hit" is a terrible deciding factor for a number of very obvious reasons.

If that hit in that video is now illegal, then I do not know of a single defensive strategy that involves moving quickly around the field (i.e. all of them, save perhaps a goalie-bot) that would not be at grave risk of incurring fouls and losing the match. What, do you think you can get in position to set a pick or get between a robot and their ball without risking hitting them while moving? Are we supposed to cut our drive speed down in half when we're near other robots? How is this a benefit to the game? How is it fair to the teams that built their robots around powerful drives which they're now not allowed to use?

If a shooting robot has a beefy tank-drive, the only way to interrupt their shot is to hit them rather hard on the bumpers. Everyone who did more than a cursory analysis of the game saw this coming and built their robot accordingly. If other people didn't, tough luck - I don't see anything ungracious or unprofessional about hard defense, so long as there's no intent to damage or disable the other robot. Aggressive driving is good driving - it makes for more impressive games, more interesting strategies, and a much better spectator sport.

[Tungrus]

So what's next for the overloaded refs? Get a radar gun to check speed? If a robot cannot handle defense it shouldn't be on the field! Six robots running around trying to achieve their goal, crashes are bound to happen!

[Jared Russell]

You're saying you can't play defense without ramming. That is LITERALLY like saying you can't play defense in hockey without leaving your feet, or boarding. Ramming with bumpers is like helmet-to-helmet contact in football - Yes, the helmets protect your head from damage, but only so much. This is like saying you can't play defense in soccer without bodychecking your opponents. It's completely un-gracious & un-professional.

The concern is that we don't have a precise understanding of what "inhibition", "high-speed", "aggressive", and "ramming" mean in an Aerial Assist context.

This isn't just trying to be pedantic. Many people have already witnessed completely contradictory and inconsistent rulings when it comes to physical contact this year. You have teams intentionally flipping other teams without penalty at one regional, and then you have teams getting called for Tech Fouls because an opponent's intake fell off when they hit the field barrier at another. (Even before this update).

And then you have all of the missed assists because refs are too busy entering scores, watching human players, and trying to get the defensive calls right.

Now you have all of the new gray areas being thrown into the mix. Yes, there are cases where "high-speed aggressive ramming" is clear as day. But there are plenty of other big collisions that occur naturally between teams acting in good faith, and you have normal defensive contact that results in damaged robots due to bad luck or poor construction. How will these be called?

The NHL has had rules against boarding for a long time, and there are still controversial calls and tweaks to the rule from time to time (there was a major one in 2011). But tens of thousands of NHL games called by a fairly small group of professional referees have established precedent for how the foul is generally called. We are halfway through the FRC season and have a much larger pool of volunteer referees...

[atucker4072]

So what's next for the overloaded refs? Get a radar gun to check speed? If a robot cannot handle defense it shouldn't be on the field! Six robots running around trying to achieve their goal, crashes are bound to happen!

"Strategies aimed at" if teams are trying to get a ball they are trying to get the ball. If they are playing defense and ram into someone that is different.

[Oblarg]

"Strategies aimed at" if teams are trying to get a ball they are trying to get the ball. If they are playing defense and ram into someone that is different.

"Strategies aimed at" was already in the rule. The rule change added "or gameplay resulting in."

[E Dawg]

If a robot cannot handle defense it shouldn't be on the field!!

Some teams aren't capable of creating a bot that can handle hits. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to participate?

It seems to me the point of this update is to solve this problem. Many teams aren't capable of making a sturdy bot (as already discussed). I've never had one of my robots be totaled, but I can only imagine how heartbreaking that would be. 6 weeks destroyed by a single hit. With the carnage of this year's game, it seems to me that the GDC is trying to protect weak bots, not shut down the strong ones!

Now of course it would be great if every single robot was an invincible tank, but that isn't the case. From the general attitude in this thread it seems that most of the people in FRC have pretty robust robots, but some teams just don't.

I don't like the update, because it negates a lot of the abilities our robot has. And yet... I kind of agree with it, because I've seen way too much carnage in the past few weeks and it needs to stop.

[Oblarg]

It seems to me the point of this update is to solve this problem. Many teams aren't capable of making a sturdy bot (as already discussed).

This isn't true. The kitbot this year, if properly assembled (there are instructions), is quite sturdy. It can be trivially made even more sturdy with the addition of a few extra stiffeners (say, a minimum of 30 minutes of work and a $20 investment in some wood).

I've had robots I've spent 6 weeks on fail miserably. I learned from the experience. It was clear this was going to be a rough game; you cannot make it a not-rough game without choking it with penalties and forcing drivers to actively avoid contact, which is a terrible idea.

I will tell you that as a drive coach, it is very possible that this rule will be enforced in a way which will force me to advise our drivers to sit still and try not to touch anyone when they don't have the ball, or else do something completely benign and nearly useless like camping in front of the low goal. It is impossible to play active defense with a strong drive without having the risk of hitting another robot with a considerable amount of force. That is the nature of FRC; these are 150lb machines with north of 2 hp in drive power. If you did not build your machine to be able to withstand contact from another such machine, how is that any different than failing to build a shooter that shoots the ball, or a drive that drives? Perhaps we ought to remove the scoring, because it's unfair to robots that are unable to do it?

Of course, if a team shows up with a non-functional robot, I will do everything in my power to help them get it to a functional state and put it on the field. That is the spirit of gracious professionalism, and the competition demands it. Gracious professionalism should not, however, demand that everyone instead work around the fact that their robot is non-functional. For example, if a team's battery mount is haphazard, the onus on other teams is to help them improve it, not to go out of their way to avoid hitting them in matches because it might fall off.

[JohnFogarty]

The matches I've watched at Waterloo have had some mild collisions/defense and no penalties have been called in the matches I've seen.

I've heard (in the Waterloo thread) it did cause one of 2056's alliances to lose with 70 pts of penalties.

[Nemo]

I can live with the "high speed or repeated ramming" foul. Effective defenders get in your way as opposed to trying to beat you up, so that part of the update doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me. Obviously, it will be a game-destroying rule if the referees are overeager to call it at the slightest hint of contact.

The "gameplay resulting in damage to opponent robots" foul is pretty problematic. Now it's an advantage if your robot can visibly fall apart after minor contact in order to draw fouls.

[Jared Russell]

I can live with the "high speed or repeated ramming" foul. Effective defenders get in your way as opposed to trying to beat you up, so that part of the update doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me.

I don't necessarily agree. Hitting an opponent (in the bumper zone) at the precise moment that they are shooting can be extremely effective. I think this is a reasonable part of the game, and unlikely to cause damage if done correctly (and it certainly doesn't need to be a 20fps collision to work well).

Is this now repeated ramming?

[sircedric4]

Now it's an advantage if your robot can visibly fall apart after minor contact in order to draw fouls.

This is an interesting concept. Will this be the year of the Possum bot? (A robot that can play dead)

If they are going to actually enforce this new rule then they need to put a speed limit out and inspect to it. Otherwise it is way too subjective and open to such "gaming" of the system as mentioned above. I really don't want to see the last minute truss shot to win a close game turn into a last minute "possum" play to win a game that is nowhere near close.

[Nemo]

I don't necessarily agree. Hitting an opponent (in the bumper zone) at the precise moment that they are shooting can be extremely effective. I think this is a reasonable part of the game, and unlikely to cause damage if done correctly (and it certainly doesn't need to be a 20fps collision to work well).

Is this now repeated ramming?

Yeah, I also don't like how the rule opens the door for the referees to call a foul if you "ram" an opponent twice at 6 ft/s. To me that is shoving and bumping as opposed to ramming, but it is true that we are in a pretty fuzzy area with this rule. Like I said, it messes up the game if the referees are too eager with this foul.

[pfreivald]

I've been streaming pretty much every event today (two prep periods, and then a half day where I get to work on the syllabus for my new AP Physics 1 course--so I've got two computers up and am game-hopping while I work), and if anything I've observed fewer fouls, better games, and still a decent amount of pushing and shoving defense being played.

The sky is still where it is; it has not fallen.

[Swan217]

The concern is that we don't have a precise understanding of what "inhibition", "high-speed", "aggressive", and "ramming" mean in an Aerial Assist context.

This isn't just trying to be pedantic. Many people have already witnessed completely contradictory and inconsistent rulings when it comes to physical contact this year. You have teams intentionally flipping other teams without penalty at one regional, and then you have teams getting called for Tech Fouls because an opponent's intake fell off when they hit the field barrier at another. (Even before this update).

And then you have all of the missed assists because refs are too busy entering scores, watching human players, and trying to get the defensive calls right.

Now you have all of the new gray areas being thrown into the mix. Yes, there are cases where "high-speed aggressive ramming" is clear as day. But there are plenty of other big collisions that occur naturally between teams acting in good faith, and you have normal defensive contact that results in damaged robots due to bad luck or poor construction. How will these be called?

The NHL has had rules against boarding for a long time, and there are still controversial calls and tweaks to the rule from time to time (there was a major one in 2011). But tens of thousands of NHL games called by a fairly small group of professional referees have established precedent for how the foul is generally called. We are halfway through the FRC season and have a much larger pool of volunteer referees...

Understandable, and believe me, I know how overworked the refs are this year. Our field crew in Orlando was about one more replayed match away from a breakdown on Friday. I also know that referee inconsistency has become almost a given in FIRST, but the answer to that is obviously better designed games & better referee training.

But it's not like looking out for Ramming/aggressive play is an ADDITIONAL responsibility to what the referees are already looking out for - they're already looking at G27's. This is a clarification on what constitutes overaggressiveness, and more flexibility to the refs on the penalties handed out for G27.

And this amendment doesn't come out of thin air, it's clearly coming from the Head Ref call this week, with head refs being frustrated at not being able to stop the flow of drivers to their "?" box complaining about overaggressive defense (in addition to the missed assists & incorrect scores). I'm always pleased to see FIRST react to situations in the field & make changes instead of ignoring them. See my whitepaper for some more of my thoughts.

[IronicDeadBird]

I don't necessarily agree. Hitting an opponent (in the bumper zone) at the precise moment that they are shooting can be extremely effective. I think this is a reasonable part of the game, and unlikely to cause damage if done correctly (and it certainly doesn't need to be a 20fps collision to work well).

Is this now repeated ramming?

Isn't it even more effective though to not let them get into shooting range? I mean if you can't win a pushing war then shot disruption is viable but I would say burning time through pushing is better then attempting to disrupt.

[Chris is me]

Isn't it even more effective though to not let them get into shooting range? I mean if you can't win a pushing war then shot disruption is viable but I would say burning time through pushing is better then attempting to disrupt.

Pushing is a lot higher of an opportunity cost as it always takes more time away from you than it does the defender. With a well timed, moderate speed ram to spin a robot, you make them miss their shot and spent 10 seconds chasing after a loose ball, while you only needed to invest 2-3 seconds to perform the maneuver. In a dynamic game where switching from offense to defense in crucial, this is a big difference. But is this "aggressive"? Is moving toward a robot at any speed "aggressive"?

[sircedric4]

I've been streaming pretty much every event today (two prep periods, and then a half day where I get to work on the syllabus for my new AP Physics 1 course--so I've got two computers up and am game-hopping while I work), and if anything I've observed fewer fouls, better games, and still a decent amount of pushing and shoving defense being played.

The sky is still where it is; it has not fallen.

I would be interested to see if this is still the case tomorrow come eliminations. First day qualifiers under the "new" rules, it iss possible that there aren't enough good robots on the field at one time to really see the aggressiveness come out.

Everyone knows eliminations is another can of worms, and it is also when the games start to really "count". That is when teams drive their robots like they stole them because it is better to leave it on the field then lose because you didn't play hard enough.

This is also when the refs start to get worn out and the chances of mistakes start to really swing games. Subjective judgement gets foggier as you get burned out.

[raptaconehs]

Pushing is a lot higher of an opportunity cost as it always takes more time away from you than it does the defender. With a well timed, moderate speed ram to spin a robot, you make them miss their shot and spent 10 seconds chasing after a loose ball, while you only needed to invest 2-3 seconds to perform the maneuver. In a dynamic game where switching from offense to defense in crucial, this is a big difference. But is this "aggressive"? Is moving toward a robot at any speed "aggressive"?

This is the biggest question. If you come across the field at full speed and then hit a robot that is about to shoot, will you get penalized for it? Cause if blocking that shot can decide which alliance wins the match I think it will be hard to come at a reasonable speed. This will greatly effect close matches.

[IronicDeadBird]

Pushing is a lot higher of an opportunity cost as it always takes more time away from you than it does the defender. With a well timed, moderate speed ram to spin a robot, you make them miss their shot and spent 10 seconds chasing after a loose ball, while you only needed to invest 2-3 seconds to perform the maneuver. In a dynamic game where switching from offense to defense in crucial, this is a big difference. But is this "aggressive"? Is moving toward a robot at any speed "aggressive"?

I really wanted to be very precise when I used terms in this years game so when I talked to my team a while back I talked about active and reactive defense (I honestly don't think they remember though.) Anyway active defense is the process of defending from advantageous situations like stopping a ball from being brought into play by zonning or forcing a bad decision such as driving an awkward route to score. Reactive defense is when you are reacting to threats like a team about to score or a robot lining up for a truss. In my opinion active defense is always better then reactive. Reactive defense I find is always more aggressive, because more is on the line at that point. Active defense is a major time sink because its mainly about forcing the opponent to have only bad options and hoping they pick the worst one. Reactive is about neutralizing a "threat" as fast as possible in the end it really comes down to preference I suppose.

[Conor Ryan]

As of lunchtime at Buckeye G27 has not been called.

[George Nishimura]

The matches I've watched at Waterloo have had some mild collisions/defense and no penalties have been called in the matches I've seen.

I've heard (in the Waterloo thread) it did cause one of 2056's alliances to lose with 70 pts of penalties.

I'm not 100% certain of the details, but reportedly the technical foul (50 out of those 70 FP) was revoked retroactively after the "victim", team 781, graciously told the head ref it wasn't called correctly. They had originally won the match by 47pts, so it swung it completely.

Those with better knowledge feel free to correct/amend/fill in the story.

[Anthony Galea]

According to the Head Ref at Traverse City, this rule update just allows the referees to call fouls on heavy defense that causes major damage, and doesn't fall into any other foul.

Everyone is overreacting.

[Sam390250]

I agree, I think everyone is overreacting. I didn't watch every match at the Wisconsin Regional today, but the game play generally seemed better and I did not see any over abundance of "ramming" calls though there were definitely robot parts on the field. (Our Axis camera got destroyed one match).

[tStano]

They have drivers meetings. If your drivers go to them & listen they will know about the rule changes. This has also gone out on the email blasts. The primary team contact gets them. Rather or not they actually them is the team's problem.



I know that at least at Wisconsin, the driver meeting was before the update came out. There was not another driver meeting after the update. The head ref did walk around and show teams the rule change. However, he was very unclear about how stuff would actually be called.
Thats not his fault, every ref at an event will call stuff differently.

Although, this is not the end of the world. Its not being called unfairly, in fact, its barely being called at all, and I'm fine with that. The update encourages teams to at least be more careful.

[orangemoore]

I know that at least at Wisconsin, the driver meeting was before the update came out. There was not another driver meeting after the update. The head ref did walk around and show teams the rule change. However, he was very unclear about how stuff would actually be called.
Thats not his fault, every ref at an event will call stuff differently.

Although, this is not the end of the world. Its not being called unfairly, in fact, its barely being called at all, and I'm fine with that. The update encourages teams to at least be more careful.

When was the driver meeting. Because we missed it and I would like to know when it was.

[tStano]

When was the driver meeting. Because we missed it and I would like to know when it was.

It was Thursday morning; 9am I believe.

[jtechau]

I'm not sure which competitions some of you are reviewing. If you're concerned about a bit of high speed defense, you're missing the bigger picture. Last week saw some "defense" that was clearly attempting to overturn or disable an opponent by repeated, aggressive ramming. That's just not right, in the context of FRC, and it seems that the GDC is making a statement to that effect.

According to the Head Ref at Traverse City, this rule update just allows the referees to call fouls on heavy defense that causes major damage, and doesn't fall into any other foul.

Everyone is overreacting.

Thank you.

[coalhot]

According to the refs at Lenape, this foul is going to be called as "no harm, no foul". Don't know how that'll work, we'll see tomorrow when we get some actual matches in.

[BBray_T1296]

Everyone who did more than a cursory analysis of the game saw this coming and built their robot accordingly. If other people didn't, tough luck - I don't see anything ungracious or unprofessional about hard defense, so long as there's no intent to damage or disable the other robot. Aggressive driving is good driving - it makes for more impressive games, more interesting strategies, and a much better spectator sport.

This. This right here.

I do not think one single team has gone out for a match with the express intent to break someone else's robot. Of course, robots do get broken--particularly under-engineered ones, or because of accidents (such as intakes inside other robots). Everybody is right. This is not Battlebots, and I am certain nobody pretends it is, but that does not mean it is BEST (with zero robot contact allowed). The bumpers are there for a reason, and that reason is because this is a contact sport.

Also, comparing this game to any other sport (hockey, football, American football, lacrosse, or anything else) cannot be accurately done.

[cglrcng]

1 step forward...2 steps back. I would be glad I stayed home this weekend (avoiding showing my displeasure or any non-GP in front of students or anyone else), except the link to my teams Regional event from FIRSThas yet to even work at all today, concerning the standings & schedule.

So looking up where the team is in the standings at any time today, was totally impossible on the web, without bothering my scouting Wife via text or phone, who is super busy as always. And the link to the streaming video didn't even work until game #21 (Thank You theredalliance.com for finding a valid link, much appreciated here.

And, whoever is posting the vids to YouTube though they are also very much appreciated, & much better quality than the actual stream, doesn't stay on long enough to record any of the final scores (or any of those important penalties assessed), on even 1 of the vids, and on the stream of course, commercials always interrupt the stream at just the absolute wrong moment for sure. A tough day all around I'd say. 8th isn't bad for the amount of no shows they were force to not play with. Tons of short handed matches today for sure. And needless to say, I was lost all day...Thank goodness those little current seeding #'s were there next to the team #'s....I could at least somewhat tell something, when those went up or down the next match they played (much later though), whether they won or lost or tied the previous match.

Sure wish I had high blood pressure normally, so at least I'd have some medicine to take right now. Lol.

I don't disagree w/ the actual call of "less battle bots" and more FIRST Robotics update (except another subjective call added in that absolutely...nobody needed one more of those in this game...Especially the ref's).

Penalties overall seemed a bit lower thanks to TUESDAY's changes though, and the Ref. assistants seemed to help quite a bit....Some even hit balls back onto the field personally & repeatedly protecting the fancy pads they were operating...LOL. (You can trash any actual season points rating system if keeping track though, meaningless with all the existing changes now). anyone who is relying on one, is lying only to themselves.

It is the timing (announced while some are on the road traveling to a place w/ no real net access...Surprise! We changed things, let us tell you about it in the driver's meeting), of the actual change that really bothers me (personally, I don't care though...I'm not actually playing the game myself)....As long as they keep changing everything daily, and weekly (whether I personally like or don't like the changes matters very little), like this, it will be a completely different game by the time the Championships get here.

Of course nobody will remember exactly what the rules of the game really are...But, who really does now anyway? (Dead ball card...what is that really, except a 1 minute or so wall decoration, that isn't often seen?) 2 ball Auto...Nobody really cares if you have 2 balls contacting your robot to start....Their minds are no doubt elsewhere, trying to keep those penalties straight.

Are all the (truss crossing), 180 degree "wrong way auto's", I have seen so far, really NOT intentional? (can we allow them a rule change to put "FRONT" or "Point This Way!" on the front bumper please?) And I thought our team was confused when we built a bot that picks up on one end shoots out the other!

And how about all those sadly missed auto balls (But, why don't we truss it anyway just to see what happens), or are they just meaningless practice shots to burn up more time for no gain?

I'm beginning to wonder if it was only the adults who read the rules fully this year. Or are we only the confused ones. Maybe they changed that "Auto ball leftover," earns absolutely no truss points rule too, and they only told the students. Guess I'll go read the rules again...Nahhhhh. Not happening.

Good Luck Teams!

[s_forbes]

I haven't seen any rampant robot destruction or resulting penalties at AZ, but I haven't had a chance to see all of the matches. Our "damage prone" grabby mechanism is safely intact after a day of qualifications! We'll see how elimination matches play out tomorrow...

2 ball Auto...Nobody really cares if you have 2 balls contacting your robot to start....Their minds are no doubt elsewhere, trying to keep those penalties straight.


In case you are referring to our 2 ball autos, all of them have been 100% within the rules (the second ball is away from the bumper by about an inch). Ian was watching us pretty closely during our practice day antics to keep us in check. :)

[AdamHeard]

We got the ONLY G27 call all of Friday at la while playing offense under double defense.

It's a bit ridiculous.

[Max Boord]

We got the ONLY G27 call all of Friday at la while playing offense under double defense.

It's a bit ridiculous.
Specifics?

[sebas]

I agree that the rule may be subject to abusive calling, like many others in this game, however imagine this:

A robot is performing its part in a cycle when suddenly it is rammed by an opposing robot from a high velocity. That robot, for whatever reason, loses communication. All of the sudden you have a dead ball and one less alliance partner for some time during the match.

For us, it was a matter of electronics rather than metal. Something completely out of our control even though we built a fairly tough robot and secured electronics well.

So while, no, I'd rather not encourage the rising foul points awarded, there is merit to preventing overly aggressive gameplay. Defense is integral to Aerial Assist, but not damage.

[bobl]

Yeah, I see this causing a bit more harm than good. I can see fouls being called for light defensive play now.

Also, isn't one of the primary ways to defend shots (and distinguish between the best scorers and the good scorers) to ram them right before they take the shot?

The post does say bumping is reasonable, but there's some gray area between that and when it becomes "aggressive ramming."

Yes, I agree that it could the rule could use clarification. Perhaps something like the old 2 line pass in hockey rule.

Defense is part of every game ever played. Having said that, I have watched as robots travel from the Red zone, through the White, into the Blue to ram an opponent in the process of making a shot into the high goal. No attempt to slow down or minimize the impact ever made, sometimes completely disabling the opponent, and no foul was called. This situation, in my opinion, was why the rule was adjusted.

FIRST made adjustments to the possession of an opponents ball inconsequential vs consequential) that were necessary to the flow of the game. I saw this being called correctly at many venues. I don't understand why ramming with the intent to damage is not called more often.

[E Dawg]

I don't understand why ramming with the intent to damage is not called more often.

Because if someone is trying to damage a robot (which they are hopefully not), how is the ref supposed to tell that between trying to stop the robot from scoring?