Flipping Rule

[joeojazz]

Hello at our competition in Midland Michigan this week some robots came close to tipping us over in the playoffs. I was wondering if there were any rules preventing them from doing so, or if there was a penalty if they did.

[nick4130]

That depends on where you are on the field and what time of the game is it. If you look at the centerline district, there's a match were a robot is totally flipped by a defensive bot.

[joeojazz]

That depends on where you are on the field and what time of the game is it. If you look at the centerline district, there's a match were a robot is totally flipped by a defensive bot.

We are in their zone trying to score. Also was their a penalty when this happen couldn't find the video.

[tr6scott]

G24 Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping,
entanglements, or deliberately putting a BOULDER on an opponent’s ROBOT are not allowed.
Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD

So the action has to be ruled by the Judge as an intentional act of our strategy.
Being that we (TORC 2137) was playing D, which is allowed by the rules, and that the bot that was flipped, (don't remember number, it was in the semis "at Waterford" which I can not find posted on youtube) was actively engaging us, and other times we had hit them and backed off prior to flipping them, we were not penalized at all.

[nick4130]

Then, I believe there is no foul unless it's in the last 20 seconds.

[rsisk]

There was a red card issued for flipping a robot during the QF at Seneca yesterday

[joeojazz]

So the action has to be ruled by the Judge as an intentional act of our strategy.
Being that we (TORC 2137) was playing D, which is allowed by the rules, and that the bot that was flipped, (don't remember number, it was in the semis which I can not find posted on youtube) was actively engaging us, and other times we had hit them and backed off prior to flipping them, we were not penalized at all.
OK thanks a lot I'll make sure to look at the replay when it gets released.

[joeojazz]

There was a red card issued for flipping a robot during the QF at Seneca yesterday
Was it intentional or how was the robot flipped?

[tr6scott]

There was a red card issued for flipping a robot during the QF at Seneca yesterday

At Waterford there was discussion about ours, and I could have seen it being flagged too.

But I think the judge got it right in our case. We were playing hard D, which is allowed by the rules, it was not in the last 20 seconds.

You don't get to score a goal uncontested, because you designed a tippy robot.

[Richard Wallace]

There was a good example of this in F2 (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016milak_f1m2) at Lakeview. With about 50 seconds left, 85 and 5980 get into a head-on confrontation in front of the blue tower. BoB wins and the blue bot goes over backwards, out for the rest of the match. You can clearly see the Head Ref calling the foul (the only one assessed against red that match) a second or two later. No yellow card.

That same incident was featured in the Week 2 episode (Season 2 Episode 3) of RoboZone (http://robozonetv.com/episodes/). 2:48.

[rsisk]

Was it intentional or how was the robot flipped?

Robot was playing very tough defense. Had the other robot up on end, backed up, then hit again, causing the tip.

If video ever shows up, it will be here: https://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016njtab_qf4m1

[MrBasse]

There was a good example of this in F2 (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016milak_f1m2) at Lakeview. With about 50 seconds left, 85 and 5980 get into a head-on confrontation in front of the blue tower. BoB wins and the blue bot goes over backwards, out for the rest of the match. You can clearly see the Head Ref calling the foul (the only one assessed against red that match) a second or two later. No yellow card.

That same incident was featured in the Week 2 episode (Season 2 Episode 3) of RoboZone (http://robozonetv.com/episodes/). 2:48.

I'm not seeing what the flurry of fouls on blue was immediately after that red flag. If BoB could have just not done that last little push at the end I think they might have not earned that tipping foul either...

[Richard Wallace]

I'm not seeing what the flurry of fouls on blue was immediately after that red flag. Second blue robot in their courtyard.

[tr6scott]

Forgot about robozone, here is our hit at Waterford, that was not flagged.

https://youtu.be/jWBjueiorZw?t=18m35s

[MrBasse]

Second blue robot in their courtyard.

Ahhhh, you forget about the simple rules when you haven't played yet. Rough call though since the first one was definitely out of play, would that still stand if the flipped bot had been e-stopped?

[Chris is me]

Hello at our competition in Midland Michigan this week some robots came close to tipping us over in the playoffs. I was wondering if there were any rules preventing them from doing so, or if there was a penalty if they did.

The key phrase here is really "came close to". There is no rule for "intent to tip, but didn't" or anything like that, and for good reason. It's just too easy for it to accidentally happen, and ideally both robots return to the ground without tipping in this situation.

In the course of a normal pushing match between robots with high traction wheels, especially with bumpers high above the drive line, momentary tips where one or both robots leave the ground for a fraction of a second are very normal. When this happens, the pushing driver should back off on the controls to prevent the robot from fully tipping and allowing it to come back down to the ground to rest. If this driver continues to push forward, particularly if they contact the bottom of the robot they are pushing, and then takes the robot off of their wheels, then it is possible that they will get the tipping penalty, depending on a variety of factors (how tippable the opposing robot is, when did the tipper robot back off, etc).

[c.shu]

So the action has to be ruled by the Judge as an intentional act of our strategy.
Being that we (TORC 2137) was playing D, which is allowed by the rules, and that the bot that was flipped, (don't remember number, it was in the semis "at Waterford" which I can not find posted on youtube) was actively engaging us, and other times we had hit them and backed off prior to flipping them, we were not penalized at all.

S2-E2 Robozone. 17:43 (http://robozonetv.com/episodes/)

[prozack19]

There was a red card issued for flipping a robot during the QF at Seneca yesterday

hey we are the ones who got tipped on our backs.

[rich2202]

There was a good example of this in F2 (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016milak_f1m2) at Lakeview. With about 50 seconds left, 85 and 5980 get into a head-on confrontation in front of the blue tower. BoB wins and the blue bot goes over backwards, out for the rest of the match. You can clearly see the Head Ref calling the foul (the only one assessed against red that match) a second or two later. No yellow card.

IMHO, that is not a G24 "tipping". It doesn't seem like there was a "strategy" to cause the tipping. Blue kept coming at Red, and Red pushed back.

It could be a G24 "initiating deliberate contact" within the frame perimeter. When Blue tipped, it seems like Red might have contacted the bottom (within the frame perimeter) of the Blue Bot.

[YoshiCity]

An alliance was assessed a yellow card in playoffs at North Shore after attempting to shove a defensive bot out of the way, an almost, but not, tipping them in the process. The head ref called it egregious and aggressive ramming, however the defensive bot was perfectly in tact afterwards. One other thing to note is that the entire situation occurred behind a sally port, making it impossible for the offensive alliance to see well what was happening.

[antman]

Our alliance got assessed a red card for G24 in our third semi at PNW Mt. Vernon. In this case we were on offense and our alliance partner flipped the defender. Video https://youtu.be/l-T_Vg--H8o?list=PLwES-SbpsnxyW7GhP7gbcqmF6cgVS3_jh&t=63

[rich2202]

Our alliance got assessed a red card for G24 in our third semi at PNW Mt. Vernon. In this case we were on offense and our alliance partner flipped the defender. Video https://youtu.be/l-T_Vg--H8o?list=PLwES-SbpsnxyW7GhP7gbcqmF6cgVS3_jh&t=63

I can see that one. Blue robot was partially tipped, and red robot kept pushing. Blue Robot was pushed onto its bumper, and then Red kept pushing it a foot or two before Blue fully tipped. Once Blue was on its side (bumper), you could argue that G23 comes into play, and it becomes a protected robot for 10 seconds to give it a chance to untip itself. You can also argue a G24 (contact inside the frame perimeter) which occurred when the Blue robot was on its side (Red contacted the undercarriage of Blue, which is within Blue's frame perimeter).

[The Lucas]

There was a red card issued for flipping a robot during the QF at Seneca yesterday

Here is the video cued to the incident
https://youtu.be/T4hh_PJwARw?t=21871
After 869 and 1279 got in the tent formation, 1279 continued to drive forward eventually resulting in a tip after some distance. This was judged G24 with incapacitation, so a FOUL and RED CARD. Other near tips in that match where 1279 backed off before finishing the tip were not penalized.

[IronicDeadBird]

My understanding is if you flip a robot or start to flip a robot you have incap'd it and have prevented it from moving, this qualifies as a pin and doing so for an extended period of time is punishable. From the rules on pinning it sounds like you could start a flip and have it down as pinning, however finishing it or having the other robot flip themselves on you isn't covered anywhere in the rules as far as I can tell.

[blackwood]

We didn't need any defensive help flipping our robot. We were able to do it successfully all on our own in the very first match in Arkansas. You can see it at the 1:44 mark in this video. Fortunately it was our only flip of the tournament, things went pretty smoothly after that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGjUA3AsTlo

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

If you hit a robot with a high CoG and it tips, then you clearly do not deserve to be penalized

[The other Gabe]

I can see that one. Blue robot was partially tipped, and red robot kept pushing.

I was able to go behind the driver's station (I was a queuer at that event, so I got some back-seat views), and from their viewpoint, they would not have been able to see the robot they were pushing over due to the sally port; they probably thought they were stuck on a boulder. But they definitely had the option to back off, hence the card. Just in case anyone tries to say it was intentional. Those guys wouldn't do that.

This has really been the year of the red card... at least 3 occasions of it happening, and another few where it could have happened. amazing what happens when there's a lot of defense/contact between robots, wedge shaped manipulators, and robots with high clearance drivetrains :v

[cbale2000]

We are in their zone trying to score. Also was their a penalty when this happen couldn't find the video.

All matches from the Midland District are linked on the match pages on TBA (http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2016mimid) (though for some reason the video icons are not shown). Alternatively, they can be found on FiM's YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/FIRSTinMichigan/videos). Also, having looked at the videos from your 4 elimination matches, the penalties that were called appeared to be for other infractions, not for "almost tipping" or anything like that.


My personal opinion on tipping penalties is that if a robot tips/flips due to normal bumper contact with another robot while both bots are flat on the carpet and there's no other interference, then it's the fault of the tipped robots team for building a robot that's too tippy and not the fault of the defender who is otherwise following all the rules. If this isn't the case, you could essentially build a robot that was easily tipped to draw yellow/red cards on other teams and just claim ignorance.

If you don't want to tip, lower your bumpers as much as allowed (and practical given defenses), lower your CoG, and add ballast if you're under 120lbs.

[dtengineering]

My personal opinion on tipping penalties is that if a robot tips/flips due to normal bumper contact with another robot while both bots are flat on the carpet and there's no other interference, then it's the fault of the tipped robots team for building a robot that's too tippy ...

While I tend to agree with this sentiment to a certain extent, I can also see a very uniform message being delivered by referees at different events... "Don't tip robots."

It is very much like the hockey rule for high sticking where you are responsible for your stick. If it hits someone in the face... even if they weren't wearing a face shield, and even if you didn't mean to... heck, even if you didn't know you did it... you get the penalty. It's your stick, and it's your job to look after it.

If these calls had all gone the other way, and the rulings were "you can tip robots so long as you make it look like you weren't really trying to tip them", then I can see defensive strategies being devised to take advantage of this.

I totally get what you are saying... but congratulate the refs for sending a very clear message. Don't tip robots. You will be held responsible if you do. Even if you didn't really mean to. Just. Don't. Tip. Robots.

Jason

[cbale2000]

While I tend to agree with this sentiment to a certain extent, I can also see a very uniform message being delivered by referees at different events... "Don't tip robots."

It is very much like the hockey rule for high sticking where you are responsible for your stick. If it hits someone in the face... even if they weren't wearing a face shield, and even if you didn't mean to... heck, even if you didn't know you did it... you get the penalty. It's your stick, and it's your job to look after it.

If these calls had all gone the other way, and the rulings were "you can tip robots so long as you make it look like you weren't really trying to tip them", then I can see defensive strategies being devised to take advantage of this.

I totally get what you are saying... but congratulate the refs for sending a very clear message. Don't tip robots. You will be held responsible if you do. Even if you didn't really mean to. Just. Don't. Tip. Robots.

Jason

The difference though is that unlike Hockey, you don't always know where your robot is or what it's interacting with (or, for that matter, have control of it). A robot isn't physically attached to you, unlike a hockey stick (unless you're doing something stupid like throwing the hockey stick).

I guess my argument would be that teams in this years game aught to be perfectly capable of designing robots that don't tip when legally defended (unlike in 2010 where the bumper rules basically caused virtually any sustained robot-to-robot contact to result in one or both bots tipping). If the team is, to a reasonably astute observer not maliciously trying to tip the other robot, and not violating any other rules, the refs should not be automatically giving out cards.


Actually I find this topic somewhat similar to back in 2014 when people were complaining about defense being to rough and robot damage. I'm sorry, but if you don't want your frame crushed in during a game with a completely open playing field, don't build it out of <1/16" aluminum (or skipping an outer frame altogether and just using bumpers as the frame, like several teams did). A little common sense would go a long way for solving many of these issues.

[dtengineering]

The difference though is that unlike Hockey, you don't always know where your robot is or what it's interacting with ...

I guess my argument would be that teams in this years game aught to be perfectly capable of designing robots that don't tip when legally defended (unlike in 2010 where the bumper rules basically caused virtually any sustained robot-to-robot contact to result in one or both bots tipping). ...

...

I like to think I play hockey with the same GP I bring to the robot field, but from time to time my hockey stick has ended up in places where I never really meant for it to end up... the point is that I'm responsible for it whether I know what I'm doing with it or not. It completely eliminates the "but I didn't MEAN to do that" defense and saves the refs from having to determine intent, which, in lieu of a Vulcan mind-meld, is somewhat challenging.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that robots that wish to engage in pushing battles should be designed to engage in pushing battles. I specifically advised a rookie team this year to keep their bumpers as low as possible in order to gain advantage should they end up in a pushing battle... and in 2010 we added hockey sticks as "roll bars" to the top our robot. It was self-righting in any position except flat on its back... we made sure that it couldn't end up flat on its back. (Yes! We were responsible for those hockey sticks, too... and the ones we had on our 2008 robot!)

The point I wanted to make was that I appreciated the uniformity and clarity of the refs decisions. In the overall context of the game, delivering the message "don't tip robots" is much better than leaving it vague, or variable. Like you, I'd be fine if the decision consistently went the other way, too... but I think that might encourage teams to look at ways that their non-bumper mechanisms might 'accidentally' catch an opposing robot's bumper. A clear and consistent message of "don't tip" has been delivered and it is now up to teams (and other head refs) to see that it is followed.

Jason

(Besides, I always appreciate a 'no tipping' policy...)

[Hoover]

Here is the video cued to the incident
https://youtu.be/T4hh_PJwARw?t=21871
After 869 and 1279 got in the tent formation, 1279 continued to drive forward eventually resulting in a tip after some distance. This was judged G24 with incapacitation, so a FOUL and RED CARD. Other near tips in that match where 1279 backed off before finishing the tip were not penalized.

G24 states that a red card is given "If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy"

"harm or incapacitation" could be a matter of interpretation because does incapacitation mean that the robot was broken such that it could not be fixed, or just unable to compete in the current match. The refs were seen discussing the match for several minutes before the red card was announced, so it must not be so automatic.

The rules are not the same every year.

Several years ago in my first year (2013), my first tournament, I was asked to coach a team so I was the rookie. In our first quarter final match we got into a pushing match with another robot. It started to tip so I specifically told the driver to tip it over. In that year, that was a violation of rule G28 which was a technical foul and a yellow card. Therefore we only lost points.

The response from the crowd was mostly negative and I felt rather bad about it for a few days. Bringing it up on the forum I was surprised the response was mostly that the robot game had become wimpy compared to the old days.

But there was also a response that this foul is more Un-GP than most other fouls. I found this dichotomy interesting. What is the psychology of this?

In other sports, fouls are an expected part of the game. In basketball we see strategic fouls even to the point of a foul out. In soccer we see yellow cards and sometimes its for egregious behavior. But we don't see everyone crying about that.

[jds2001]

Ahhhh, you forget about the simple rules when you haven't played yet. Rough call though since the first one was definitely out of play, would that still stand if the flipped bot had been e-stopped?

Yes. DISABLED, e-stopped, or otherwise immobile ROBOTS are not exempt from penalties.

[macman828]

That depends on where you are on the field and what time of the game is it. If you look at the centerline district, there's a match were a robot is totally flipped by a defensive bot.

http://youtu.be/eAsyaGff80g. At time 3:40.

Centerline flipping robot. No penalty, no card.

The robot playing defense got flipped.

[Boltman]

G24:

Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping ,entanglements, or deliberately putting a BOULDER on an opponent’s ROBOT are not allowed.

Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD

Initiating deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT
on or inside the vertical extension of its FRAME PERIMETER is not
allowed.

[Boltman]

http://youtu.be/eAsyaGff80g. At time 3:40.

Centerline flipping robot. No penalty, no card.

The robot playing defense got flipped.

I think it did not meet the "strategies aimed at " definition looked like a cleared into courtyard contact that happened to be perfect to flip it and not necessarily a predetermined outcome.

[Boltman]

Our alliance got assessed a red card for G24 in our third semi at PNW Mt. Vernon. In this case we were on offense and our alliance partner flipped the defender. Video https://youtu.be/l-T_Vg--H8o?list=PLwES-SbpsnxyW7GhP7gbcqmF6cgVS3_jh&t=63

Probably because of the "follow through to flip" I see.

[Knufire]

Probably because of the "follow through to flip" I see.

This is how I was taught tipping was called when I was on drive team as a student. It depends on whether you back off or keep driving into your opponent after they start to tip up. If they start to tip up, you back away, and they keep going and flip over, no foul. If you keep driving into them after they start to tip up, that's when the foul is called.

[Hoover]

This is how I was taught tipping was called when I was on drive team as a student. Whether you back off or keep driving into your opponent after they start to tip up. If they start to tip up, you back away, and they keep going and flip over, no foul. If you keep driving into them after they start to tip up, that's when the foul is called.

Yeah I wish it was this simple.

We had a different occasion than the one I described above, same year, no intent, not our stratagy; a top heavy robot tipped because we pushed on it. It rolled away and flipped. Same outcome, yellow card, penalty... protested, no change. Completely two different sides of the spectrum, no difference.

From what I am seeing in these videos, getting one of these calls is a crap shoot. I don't see in G24 where it says this excludes the defender. If the robot on the offense pushes back then this isn't a "Strategy aimed at". Give me a break. If not everything a driving team is doing isn't strategy they shouldn't be out there. If it is based on intent or forethought, the refs can't know what that is so how do they decide?

In reality, most of the rules are worded in a way which makes them elastic. G24 isn't immune. When I see these videos, hands down some teams were robbed when G24 wasn't enforced. Likewise they'll be times when it was enforced and shouldn't have been. So what else is new?

[dsherw00d]

Below video at the 1 min mark is one of our partners accidentally flipping an opponent that we were red carded for. Since it was quarters, we were DQ'd for that match. It was a frustrating call because it does not appear to be excessive force - just a top heavy robot that went over very very quickly. They had their high shooting arm opposite the contact point and it just brought it over with what appears to be a mild push. We were hit and hit others much much harder then that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGs0atRJm5Q&list=PL99oFkB96Aum9g6VqDUZjasxlZewrRujQ&index=12

We did have a great time, it's a great event, and we accomplished our goals while adhering to FIRST principals. In that respect, we win every year!!

[antman]

Probably because of the "follow through to flip" I see.

Yes exactly, and the announcer stated such at the 5:00 min mark of the same video: https://youtu.be/l-T_Vg--H8o?t=296

Also, during the follow through there was contact within the frame perimeter (bottom) that finished the flip. Contrast that with this non-call from PNW Wilsonville finals match 2 where there is bumper-to-bumper contact that results in a flip but no contact within frame perimeter:

https://youtu.be/DcdKqWhxtNI?t=70

I thought the red card in our match was a good call and the non-call against 4488 in the other match was also the right call. Obviously my team was disappointed at the red card but if we had been on the receiving end we would have been disappointed if a red card was not given.

[idahorobot]

How was the 2056 flip at Waterloo first match of the quarter finals different than the 2013 flip at Toronto East? Looked like the head ref had a long discussion. Tough position to be in.

I'm confused.

[BotDesigner]

How was the 2056 flip at Waterloo first match of the quarter finals different than the 2013 flip at Toronto East.

I'm confused.

I am a little confused by that call as well. I feel like 2056 could have avoided tipping the other team.

[T3_1565]

I'm from the team that got flipped. I have not seen the team 2013 north bay event. But I'm also confused by the call. They drove us from the secret passage to the center of field.

It's an unfortunate call. From the driver station it looked easy to call. But from the refs point of view, who knows.

[Boltman]

I'm from the team that got flipped. I have not seen the team 2013 north bay event. But I'm also confused by the call. They drove us from the secret passage to the center of field.

It's an unfortunate call. From the driver station it looked easy to call. But from the refs point of view, who knows.

Any video of the call?

[KJS]

Ok, I need some help explaining the flipping rules to my team. We were flipped over in Utah in the quarter finals while playing defense. There was no call and as hard as was being upside down I think it was a good call because I didn’t think it was intentional. Then we went Colorado. In the quarters we were being defended and flipped over a tall, tippy, narrow robot while they had us pinned on the defenses (I had the drivers view and it is a different perspective when seen from the side).
https://youtu.be/w34O_lqwKFk?t=1m21s
Again the tip was not intentional however we were yellow carded but won the match. After the match one of the team members went to the question box and was told by the head ref that this was a warning and that in the same situation he would not give another yellow card. In the next match the same robot got in a pushing match with another of our team mates and ended up running over them and tipping to the side.
https://youtu.be/HWX2U5jih0U?t=1m36s
Our team mates were yellow carded. We won the match but the two yellow cards equaled a red card and we were DQ’ed. It crushed the kids. A few matches later 1619 gets hit from the side by 3288 playing aggressive defence and they are knocked over.
https://youtu.be/lyw0_XmMduA?t=1m5s
No yellow card. What do you tell the team? Seems pretty inconsistent a tough for the team to know what is going to happen to them in the same set of circumstances.

[Boltman]

Ok, I need some help explaining the flipping rules to my team. We were flipped over in Utah in the quarter finals while playing defense. There was no call and as hard as was being upside down I think it was a good call because I didn’t think it was intentional. Then we went Colorado. In the quarters we were being defended and flipped over a tall, tippy, narrow robot while they had us pinned on the defenses (I had the drivers view and it is a different perspective when seen from the side).
https://youtu.be/w34O_lqwKFk?t=1m21s
Again the tip was not intentional however we were yellow carded but won the match. After the match one of the team members went to the question box and was told by the head ref that this was a warning and that in the same situation he would not give another yellow card. In the next match the same robot got in a pushing match with another of our team mates and ended up running over them and tipping to the side.
https://youtu.be/HWX2U5jih0U?t=1m36s
Our team mates were yellow carded. We won the match but the two yellow cards equaled a red card and we were DQ’ed. It crushed the kids. A few matches later 1619 gets hit from the side by 3288 playing aggressive defence and they are knocked over.
https://youtu.be/lyw0_XmMduA?t=1m5s
No yellow card. What do you tell the team? Seems pretty inconsistent a tough for the team to know what is going to happen to them in the same set of circumstances.

The way I see it IMO..the first two incapacitated the bot and were foul worthy as the team causing the tip had a chance to not tip and the bots were tall enough to see the tip and back off

The Third one obviously the Courtyard ref called a FOUL on Blue and entered the foul, but after a few seconds the bot got righted. So perhaps the foul was discussed after the game betwen the refs and waived off?

That is the only difference I see between Example 1 and Example 2 in comparison to Example 3


Same refs only difference is last example the bot got up and could play within 9 seconds so perhaps they felt it did not really affect the game that much , where in other two it seemed the tipped bots never recovered.

In fact a RED CARD could have been issued on first or second tip against the entire alliance as per rules

-------------------

G24 Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping, or
entanglements are not allowed.
Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD

[BrennanB]

Ok, I need some help explaining the flipping rules to my team. We were flipped over in Utah in the quarter finals while playing defense. There was no call and as hard as was being upside down I think it was a good call because I didn’t think it was intentional. Then we went Colorado. In the quarters we were being defended and flipped over a tall, tippy, narrow robot while they had us pinned on the defenses (I had the drivers view and it is a different perspective when seen from the side).
https://youtu.be/w34O_lqwKFk?t=1m21s
Again the tip was not intentional however we were yellow carded but won the match. After the match one of the team members went to the question box and was told by the head ref that this was a warning and that in the same situation he would not give another yellow card. In the next match the same robot got in a pushing match with another of our team mates and ended up running over them and tipping to the side.
https://youtu.be/HWX2U5jih0U?t=1m36s
Our team mates were yellow carded. We won the match but the two yellow cards equaled a red card and we were DQ’ed. It crushed the kids. A few matches later 1619 gets hit from the side by 3288 playing aggressive defence and they are knocked over.
https://youtu.be/lyw0_XmMduA?t=1m5s
No yellow card. What do you tell the team? Seems pretty inconsistent a tough for the team to know what is going to happen to them in the same set of circumstances.

Not gonna lie, the first tip looked the worst of all of them. I feel like Tbone tips are way more realistic to call cards on since the tipped robot really can't do anything about it. (aka tip 1 and tip 3) Tip 2 was clearly incidental.

[BotDesigner]

The way I see it IMO..the first two incapacitated the bot and were foul worthy as the team causing the tip had a chance to not tip and the bots were tall enough to see the tip and back off

The Third one obviously the Courtyard ref called a FOUL on Blue and entered the foul, but after a few seconds the bot got righted. So perhaps the foul was discussed after the game betwen the refs and waived off?

That is the only difference I see between Example 1 and Example 2 in comparison to Example 3


Same refs only difference is last example the bot got up and could play within 9 seconds so perhaps they felt it did not really affect the game that much , where in other two it seemed the tipped bots never recovered.

In fact a RED CARD could have been issued on first or second tip against the entire alliance as per rules

-------------------

G24 Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping, or
entanglements are not allowed.
Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD

Spot on, the two times we got tipped resulted in two broken welds and one a piece of square one inch tubing broken in half. Should have been a red card for the first flip.

I feel like the call in the first match was strange because 3230, 2996, and 1977 got scale points AFTER they tipped us (for contact in the last 20 seconds) which won the match for them. If this is not a clear G11 violation I don't know what is.

Also, niether flips were due to a "pushing match" both were intense T-bones.

[kevin.li.rit]

What are you thoughts on this? The red alliance received a red card for this and there were no yellow cards prior to this match.

https://youtu.be/3bY5-YjrxgU?t=26s

[Boltman]

What are you thoughts on this? The red alliance received a red card for this and there were no yellow cards prior to this match.

https://youtu.be/3bY5-YjrxgU?t=39s

IMO Since there are now TWO RED bots tipped and incapacitated, I agree with the RED card and the foul. G24

Again Blue could have backed off..their drivers were close to the action, seems they chose to tip.

[Boltman]

Spot on, the two times we got tipped resulted in two broken welds and one a piece of square one inch tubing broken in half. Should have been a red card for the first flip.

I feel like the call in the first match was strange because 3230, 2996, and 1977 got scale points AFTER they tipped us (for contact in the last 20 seconds) which won the match for them. If this is not a clear G11 violation I don't know what is.

Also, niether flips were due to a "pushing match" both were intense T-bones.

Incapacitated robots are still subject to all foul just as a working robot is. I doubt the strategy was to go for a tip and get a free scale fouls in last 20 (heck all three robots could have earned a free scale by touching the fallen bot and if all three did that then that was smart understanding of the rules ) Was it the "plan" or simply an opportunistic play? I don't see a G11 based on the description IMO

I think tip happened not planned and then they took smart advantage of the situation in the last 20 seconds.

In reality ...your bot should have not been anywhere near there in last 20 seconds to tip.

Teams have to realize... any robot on their side of the field including even more so a defense bot are HIGHLY subject to FOULS, TECH FOULS and CARDS as that is where the rules FAVOR the attacking alliance especially in last 20 seconds.

[The other Gabe]

Once the video comes up you'll be able to see it, but Finals 1 at the Auburn District event (PNW) saw a double red card issued to the 1 seeded alliance for the intentional flipping of 2 robots in a single match, giving them a yellow card for the remaining matches (which they won).

Which is interesting, because I always thought that a red card was an automatic out - 1 and you're done.

[kevin.li.rit]

IMO Since there are now TWO RED bots tipped and incapacitated, I agree with the RED card and the foul. G24

Again Blue could have backed off..their drivers were close to the action, seems they chose to tip.

Yep there are 2 tips the first tip occurs when the one blue robot is traversing the rockwall in the opposite direction about 31 seconds in. (https://youtu.be/3bY5-YjrxgU?t=31s) and tips the red robot after they clear.

[EricH]

IMO Since there are now TWO RED bots tipped and incapacitated, I agree with the RED card and the foul. G24

Again Blue could have backed off..their drivers were close to the action, seems they chose to tip.
As would I (Side note: PLEASE get the alliance correct--you had me thinking that the red alliance somehow got two G11 yellow cards).

The first tip (before the link starts) you could argue either way. The second tip you could possibly argue that red is trying to drive up blue. However, two tips against one alliance in the same match is something that would be highly indicative of a strategy.


Gabe the Other, that's not quite how it works. A Red Card will give you (or your alliance) a result of NOTHING for the match. Should you already be on the wrong end of a 1-0 in the playoffs before the match, you are out. But if you're on the "right" end, it's now 1-1, but you need to be really really careful because you're now carrying a yellow card--any yellow card you get after that will automatically upgrade to a red card, and you could be out.

[BotDesigner]

Incapacitated robots are still subject to all foul just as a working robot is. I doubt the strategy was to go for a tip and get a free scale fouls in last 20 (heck all three robots could have earned a free scale by touching the fallen bot and if all three did that then that was smart understanding of the rules ) Was it the "plan" or simply an opportunistic play? I don't see a G11 based on the description IMO

I think tip happened not planned and then they took smart advantage of the situation in the last 20 seconds.

In reality ...your bot should have not been anywhere near there in last 20 seconds to tip.

Teams have to realize... any robot on their side of the field including even more so a defense bot are HIGHLY subject to FOULS, TECH FOULS and CARDS as that is where the rules FAVOR the attacking alliance especially in last 20 seconds.

Just to be clear the tip occurred with over a minute left in the match.


I think that if a robot is dead in their own courtyard you "force" the penalty on them by driving into them (in an action that is not a normal game function, such as an attempt to get onto the batter).
Just check out the blue box under G11

G11 does not apply for strategies consistent with standard gameplay, e.g. a TEAM obtaining a BOULDER from their SECRET PASSAGE,
CROSSING an opponent DEFENSE, etc. G11 requires an intentional
act with limited or no opportunity for the TEAM being acted on to avoid
the penalty. Examples include:
...
B. A Red ROBOT is parked in the NEUTRAL ZONE near the Blue
SECRET PASSAGE. A Blue ROBOT pushes the Red ROBOT into the
Blue SECRET PASSAGE, then drives away. There is no violation of
G21 by the Red ROBOT, as the Red ROBOT was forced by the Blue
ROBOT into the SECRET PASSAGE. The Blue ROBOT has violated
G11 by forcing the Red ROBOT into the SECRET PASSAGE for the
sole purpose of causing them to violate G21.

Can you explain the difference between G11 resulting from you pushing a robot into your secret passage and G11 resulting from flipping a robot and later taking advantage of the dead bot?

Also, flipping a robot better not be a "strategy consistent with standard gameplay".

I will reiterate:

G11 requires an intentional act with limited or no opportunity for the TEAM being acted on to avoid the penalty.

There was no possible way for us to avoid getting flipped and then run over by robots on the opposing alliance in the last 20 seconds.

[Thad House]

Once the video comes up you'll be able to see it, but Finals 1 at the Auburn District event (PNW) saw a double red card issued to the 1 seeded alliance for the intentional flipping of 2 robots in a single match, giving them a yellow card for the remaining matches (which they won).

Which is interesting, because I always thought that a red card was an automatic out - 1 and you're done.

The stream did not show either of the tips however. Just the aftermath.

And a red card is only a DQ for the current match. Always has been. Then you carry a yellow card for the rest of the time.

[EricH]

There was no possible way for us to avoid getting flipped and then run over by robots on the opposing alliance in the last 20 seconds.
Here's something to consider:

Were you, in any way, shape, or form, blocking access to the batter, as any "reasonably astute" observer should be able to tell? Note that I'm not asking about the initial tip. To put it another way: Would your opponent need to move/contact you to have a free shot at the batter?

If the answer is "Yes", then G11 is unlikely to apply, because the opposing robots are trying to accomplish a game objective by running for the batter, and your robot just happens to be in the way. And because the GDC has specifically stated that disabled/tipped/otherwise non-functional robots are NOT exempt from fouls (presumably to thwart a couple of possible strategies aimed at breaking rules to block massive points--I won't go into those here, but one may be fairly obvious from the location I'm currently considering), then it becomes a case where the refs have no choice.

Your BEST BET is to, if such a case happens, head for the question box and have this discussion with the head ref.

[Boltman]

Just to be clear the tip occurred with over a minute left in the match.


I think that if a robot is dead in their own courtyard you "force" the penalty on them by driving into them (in an action that is not a normal game function, such as an attempt to get onto the batter).
Just check out the blue box under G11



Can you explain the difference between G11 resulting from you pushing a robot into your secret passage and G11 resulting from flipping a robot and later taking advantage of the dead bot?

Also, flipping a robot better not be a "strategy consistent with standard gameplay".

I will reiterate:



There was no possible way for us to avoid getting flipped and then run over by robots on the opposing alliance in the last 20 seconds.

The way I see it IMO is you chose to put yourself at much higher risk of penalties (and tipping) by choosing to play defense knowing that (if you look at the rules) most game play fouls will be called because of actions your alliance does on your side of the field. Plus last 20 seconds that area is not a good place to be in.

The tipping I do not see as being pre-meditated unless you have shown prior you are very tip-able and always have played defense so any alliance might plan and think lets tip them and get free scales...I sort of doubt that was the case.

I think what happened is you played defense and got tipped in game play as defensive bot strategies usually are fairly aggressive...that is the the breaks. You had a choice of not playing defense too, and not risking as much direct contact.

The fact teams later fouled you after being tipped is just smart game play IMO and kudos for them knowing the rules. I don't think anyone would not want a team to be opportunistic within the rules.

Who is to determine best "path" to batter a straight line or a swerving one that touched a dead bot at less than 20 seconds?

As for secret passage it should be pretty evident that a bot got pushed in it, even so that can be a tough call too if its just defense jostling near SP.

[BotDesigner]

Here's something to consider:

Were you, in any way, shape, or form, blocking access to the batter, as any "reasonably astute" observer should be able to tell? Note that I'm not asking about the initial tip. To put it another way: Would your opponent need to move/contact you to have a free shot at the batter?

If the answer is "Yes", then G11 is unlikely to apply, because the opposing robots are trying to accomplish a game objective by running for the batter, and your robot just happens to be in the way. And because the GDC has specifically stated that disabled/tipped/otherwise non-functional robots are NOT exempt from fouls (presumably to thwart a couple of possible strategies aimed at breaking rules to block massive points--I won't go into those here, but one may be fairly obvious from the location I'm currently considering), then it becomes a case where the refs have no choice.

Your BEST BET is to, if such a case happens, head for the question box and have this discussion with the head ref.

We didn't flip ourselves in front of the batter, they flipped us in front of the batter. So even if we were in front of the batter in the last 20 seconds it was because we were forced to be there. G11 would not apply if we lost comms directly in front of the batter. By the yellow card it was acknowledged that the flip was intentional (or could have been avoided) and therefore it was their fault that we were in front of the batter. Their fault, their penalty.

[Boltman]

We didn't flip ourselves in front of the batter, they flipped us in front of the batter. So even if we were in front of the batter in the last 20 seconds it was because we were forced to be there. G11 would not apply if we lost comms directly in front of the batter. By the yellow card it was acknowledged that the flip was intentional (or could have been avoided) and therefore it was their fault that we were in front of the batter. Their fault, their penalty.

Agreed and they received that penalty as did you for being there in last 20 seconds blocking their way to batter motionless, perhaps making a scale or capture impossible.

Both penalties are separate actions...and the rules are the rules and each infraction is separate.

You had a choice not to play defense or to right yourself and get out of there to avoid the last 20 second penalties. Not sure where you are seeing a G11 unless you strongly feel it was pre-meditated. But in the end its what the ref crew feels that is important. As Erich stated the question box at end of the match is the final say and best place for an explanation.

I think this is a good example of thinking twice about defensive strategies and the potential risks. Defensive bots need to know the risks, and should not be designed to be prone to tipping in their own courtyards... same with reversible bumpers that flip colors due to contact with other bots while playing defense..... every team makes choices that greatly increase their risks of a bad outcomes. Sometimes its best to avoid the risks or at least mitigate them. Many defensive bots will be top-heavy that is their choice and their risk.

This is especially important with cheesecaked defense bots..it may change your center of gravity and make you more susceptible to tipping.

You asked what to tell your team..I think that is the lesson, "make your own outcomes and mitigate risk" plus "rules are rules" I think they will understand. I feel that's a better lesson than some theoretical "what if G11" call. G11's are pretty rare because you must determine "intent" that's a high bar to set for any ref or ref crew.

I don't think anyone could ever tip our bot and yes we played defense too when our shooter jammed...never tipped once in 24 or so matches and that's with tons of breaching too.

[EricH]

We didn't flip ourselves in front of the batter, they flipped us in front of the batter. So even if we were in front of the batter in the last 20 seconds it was because we were forced to be there. G11 would not apply if we lost comms directly in front of the batter. By the yellow card it was acknowledged that the flip was intentional (or could have been avoided) and therefore it was their fault that we were in front of the batter. Their fault, their penalty.
It was also their fault that they didn't move you AHEAD of time. Right? So now YOU're eligible for a G11 by arguing that they need a G11 (after all, you're arguing for them to get a foul for strategies aimed at causing you to get a penalty, which is itself a strategy aimed at causing them to get a penalty). Just some food for thought.

Look, I've seen some robots simply avoid those situations as best they could. Others take advantage. Your one and only chance is to talk it over with the head ref, who will tell you that there is nothing they can do, the rules require that they get free scales (though if your robot was incapacitated, bringing THAT up would likely be of interest to the head ref). Your next best chance it to tell the GDC in an email to frcteams@firstinspires.org that their ruling that it didn't matter who initiated contact caused your team to be (short version) screwed over. You'll probably get a nice email back something to the effect that they're sorry, but they will not change the rule or the match outcome, but will consider how to avoid that next year.

[KJS]

Spot on, the two times we got tipped resulted in two broken welds and one a piece of square one inch tubing broken in half. Should have been a red card for the first flip.

I feel like the call in the first match was strange because 3230, 2996, and 1977 got scale points AFTER they tipped us (for contact in the last 20 seconds) which won the match for them. If this is not a clear G11 violation I don't know what is.

Also, niether flips were due to a "pushing match" both were intense T-bones.

First of all the bashing you guys did to us earlier in the match resulted in broken welds on our climbing arm. Does that qualify you for a red card under G11 because you broke our robot so we could not complete part of the match? Also the second roll over was in no way a T-bone because your robot and 2996 were going head on and you ran over them when they backed up. Watch the video and tell me it was in any way a T-bone.

As far as the free scales are concerned, that same thing happened to us in quals in Denver, an alliance partner died in the court yard while playing defense and was repeatedly rammed after the 20 second buzzer resulting in 3 penalties AND a free scale for the robot that took advantage of the situation. So at least that call was somewhat consistent.

[The other Gabe]

The stream did not show either of the tips however. Just the aftermath.

And a red card is only a DQ for the current match. Always has been. Then you carry a yellow card for the rest of the time.

drat, I was hoping to actually see it... people were standing in my way so I didn't get to :v

and thanks for the clarification - I did not know how that rule worked

[KJS]

Just to be clear the tip occurred with over a minute left in the match.


I think that if a robot is dead in their own courtyard you "force" the penalty on them by driving into them (in an action that is not a normal game function, such as an attempt to get onto the batter).
Just check out the blue box under G11



Can you explain the difference between G11 resulting from you pushing a robot into your secret passage and G11 resulting from flipping a robot and later taking advantage of the dead bot?

Also, flipping a robot better not be a "strategy consistent with standard gameplay".

I will reiterate:



There was no possible way for us to avoid getting flipped and then run over by robots on the opposing alliance in the last 20 seconds.

Your bot was sitting in front of the defense when we crossed. Look at the video.
https://youtu.be/e7_Ajjj9_As
You fouled us in the defense. How is he supposed to cross if you just sit there? You could have easily avoided being run into by not blocking the defense. From his perspective he was trying to cross a defense and get to the low goal. You totally blocked the defense (of course that was not called either).

[Boltman]

Your bot was sitting in front of the defense when we crossed. Look at the video.
https://youtu.be/e7_Ajjj9_As
You fouled us in the defense. How is he supposed to cross if you just sit there? You could have easily avoided being run into by not blocking the defense. From his perspective he was trying to cross a defense and get to the low goal. You totally blocked the defense (of course that was not called either).

Thanks for the video link in watching it IMO I agree the blue bot should have yielded position due to being in a very susceptible tipping position parked longways very close to OW exit path and did park themselves in a position inviting contact and obstructed an exit.

I think the flip was called correctly IMO as red finished the tip process.

In fact a G11 for "inviting a tip penalty" could have been called the opposite way IMO

Just lucky the other two red bots didn't tag Blue too for another 20 points in last 20 seconds.

The last bot actually seemed to push Blue into SP to make room to reach the batter on right side , not sure they even knew about the free scale in watching that. So no G11 at all IMO

Have those kids watch the video again with the rule book and they should be able to call it themselves.

[T3_1565]

Any video of the call?

There will be video once the matches are uploaded. QF 1-1 of Waterloo.

Our students talked with the head ref. I'm proud that they held their own and were professional speaking with him (I asked the head ref how they were afterwards) but they were told it was too hard to tell from where the refs were standing.

[Boltman]

There will be video once the matches are uploaded. QF 1-1 of Waterloo.

Our students talked with the head ref. I'm proud that they held their own and were professional speaking with him (I asked the head ref how they were afterwards) but they were told it was too hard to tell from where the refs were standing.

That is great. Sometimes calls go your way sometimes they don't. I was watching students challenge 95% were GP and even saw a student that did not exhibit GP after a challenge come back and personally apologize to the head ref. I think students understand sometimes more than us mentors.

We were pretty upset in weeks 1 and 2 having to cross defenses too many times for lights to go out (Portcullis especially the way we did that) ...that is a big deal too with ranking points. I was happy to see changes were made to be more aware of crossings and haven't read many complaints since.

I think emails to first do get read and talked about, I'm not afraid to on behalf of our students to shoot then an email. Enough people do it changes get made. That is why I encourage all teams if they question a call to go to the question box by the head ref to be heard. If the call does not go your way and explanation did not satisfy your team then email first. Its also great to post about it as many refs and other support staff read these posts.

In the end I think pretty much everyone wants every team to succeed and any missed calls, incorrectly made calls or missed points are really no ones fault, it happens but thankfully its rare. I understood playing in week 1 it would be interesting..it was while they worked the kinks out. Was much better in week 2 and definitely better this week watching the events .

[NShep98]

What are you thoughts on this? The red alliance received a red card for this and there were no yellow cards prior to this match.

https://youtu.be/3bY5-YjrxgU?t=39s

Well I certainly have a few thoughts.

Actually, from where I was standing due to the drawbridge, I had no idea we had just been driven into. I thought I ran into one of the dividers too fast, and I couldn't see 125 get tipped either. Luckily our partners were able to see well enough to contest the situation.

[kevin.li.rit]

Well I certainly have a few thoughts.

Actually, from where I was standing due to the drawbridge, I had no idea we had just been driven into. I thought I ran into one of the dividers too fast, and I couldn't see 125 get tipped either. Luckily our partners were able to see well enough to contest the situation.

When I watched it live that is what I thought happened. I was watching the other end of the field at the time and only turned and looked after the fall. 4176 the Iron Tigers did not see your team (2079) either when they were crossing the rock wall.

For the 2nd tip on 125, the tip happened in a very quick sequence during the pushing match.

Our alliance was not intentionally trying to tip over anyone so we're really upset with the red card. We were also upset with the sequence of events that followed because of the contest with the officials from the red alliance after the match. Our alliance captain was not spoken to prior to the DQ for our version of what happened. When asked for an explanation they were told that we were DQ'd for intentionally tipping.

The first tip (before the link starts) you could argue either way. The second tip you could possibly argue that red is trying to drive up blue. However, two tips against one alliance in the same match is something that would be highly indicative of a strategy.

IMO Since there are now TWO RED bots tipped and incapacitated, I agree with the RED card and the foul. G24

Again Blue could have backed off..their drivers were close to the action, seems they chose to tip.

Thanks for the input Eric and Boltman, both tips happened very quickly. I think we're hitting on some earlier discussion where when playing either offense or defense against robots with high COG they tip over and who's responsible and what merits a penalty etc.

2 tipped robots definitely look bad but that alone I don't think is necessarily indicative of strategy especially not one of harm or incapacitation.

[bennettj800]

I dont want to be simplistic, but I think we should just trust the referies and wait for them to make their rulings. you can challenge it if you think its not fair, but to do that you should look at the G- listed fouls in the manual. I myself have no actual information about it, other than that it is a foul if the team touched you when you crossed a defense of the outer works or while you were in your own secret passage. other than that, I would look into the rules about malicious gameplay (such as *cough* pinning) to see if it is listed there. Hope this helps somehow... although i dont know that it will... :/

[MBimrose16]

At the AZ North Regional we were rammed by another robot in the neutral zone while making a turn and tipped onto our side. The other robot then backed up and ran into us again and then turned to cross a defense.

No penalty was called which makes me think that flipping calls are mostly on intention. I doubt that the second hit was malicious and was probably just the other drive team trying to turn to the defense but missed their mark. I'm sure the refs caught this which is why there was no foul called. I trust the refs for the most part on making calls like this that deal with malicious intent, but if there is any doubt I would definetly dispute it.

[IronicDeadBird]

I'm surprised there isn't a wobble check or wobble rules in place during a competition. I mean technically you could design a brilliant robot and test it out find out it wobbles, and is prone to tipping and you could go "Well if we leave it like this teams will think twice about defending against us because we could be flipped." Which is a strategically viable train of thought, but it is sloppy engineering, and it is the sports equivalent of faking an injury from another player.
That being said what the rules would be or how it would be enforced is I dunno, FLIPPING IMPOSSIBLE TO THINK OF!
See what I did?
No shame...

[rocknthehawk]

Well I certainly have a few thoughts.

Actually, from where I was standing due to the drawbridge, I had no idea we had just been driven into. I thought I ran into one of the dividers too fast, and I couldn't see 125 get tipped either. Luckily our partners were able to see well enough to contest the situation.

Based on this (https://youtu.be/xJpOMLC5OLI) video, that's exactly what happened.

32 seconds in, you're already tipping yourself. Reading G24 do you believe the blue alliance intentionally tipped you? (and then the shoving match of 125/2262 causing an intentional flip)

[kevin.li.rit]

Based on this (https://youtu.be/xJpOMLC5OLI) video, that's exactly what happened.

32 seconds in, you're already tipping yourself. Reading G24 do you believe the blue alliance intentionally tipped you? (and then the shoving match of 125/2262 causing an intentional flip)

It wasn't intentional on our part (2262). It all happened very fast, we wouldn't even want to attempt to wedge our robot under another robot. We have 2 RS-550 + 2 Planetary GB hanging right up against our frame perimeter in the front and our roborio in the rear.

[rocknthehawk]

It wasn't intentional on our part (2262). It all happened very fast, we wouldn't even want to attempt to wedge our robot under another robot. We have 2 RS-550 + 2 Planetary GB hanging right up against our frame perimeter in the front and our roborio in the rear.

Poor wording on my part, it was meant to be a question if the pushing match was an intentional flip. You guys played an extremely tough defense and we were worried about going up against you...definitely would have shut us down.

[kevin.li.rit]

Poor wording on my part, it was meant to be a question if the pushing match was an intentional flip. You guys played an extremely tough defense and we were worried about going up against you...definitely would have shut us down.

Thanks, I definitely understand the penalty and we're trying to be constructive with the situation.

[NShep98]

Based on this (https://youtu.be/xJpOMLC5OLI) video, that's exactly what happened.

32 seconds in, you're already tipping yourself. Reading G24 do you believe the blue alliance intentionally tipped you? (and then the shoving match of 125/2262 causing an intentional flip)

But in this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bY5-YjrxgU) video, you can see that we do not actually start tipping until contact is made, or at least fractions of a second before.

Do I feel bad that this happened in such a critical match? Of course. Do I believe it was intentional? Not at all. Is it my call to make? Unfortunately not for the blue alliance.

The fact of the matter is this is a game with a fair amount of gray areas, in which you must be extremely careful to not accidentally do something that looks purposeful. I doubt 4176 or 2262 meant to tip us or 125, but they did, and the refs used their best judgement at the time. In fact, my team got a foul from our own tip for interfering with crossing. If anything, the 125 tip was more up in the air.

Again, I am sorry this happened to the opposing alliance, and I understand their frustration, but I hope they don't take it too hard, as this is still only a game, and one they played very well regardless of the outcome of this match.

[cbf]

Yep there are 2 tips the first tip occurs when the one blue robot is traversing the rockwall in the opposite direction about 31 seconds in. (https://youtu.be/3bY5-YjrxgU?t=31s) and tips the red robot after they clear.
So I think our video has a better angle on the tipping of 125 at the Boston district event that you're referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ljx-Dsy-N4. Note that the video is over seven minutes long. It took quite a while for the judges to conference about this before they decided on the red card. (We keep the camera rolling on matches until the scores kept up. In this case, I wish my student cameraman had kept rolling so we could have heard the whole announcement about the red card.)

Personally, I think the first tip -- where Blue 4176 is just trying to cross back to the neutral zone and Red 2079 is just driving by, was completely inadvertent, and did not warrant a call. If anything Red 2079 was violating rule G43 by interfering with Blue 4176's crossing.

The second tip -- where Blue 2262 repeatedly hits Red 125 was different. Here Blue 2262 is quite intentionally playing a very aggressive defense -- which results in tipping 125.

But I have some problems with the award of the red card here. Part of it is that the very same Robot 2262 played similarly aggressive defense on us (2877) in the Quarter Finals and in fact damaged our robot in two straight matches. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edRyGRw-6G0?t=1m40s where they bash into us 4 times, after which we could no longer drive) -- which caused us to lose the match (and the one before it, which had a similar result) and get eliminated.

But they didn't tip us, so we don't get the benefit of a card -- or even a foul. It would in fact, have been practically impossible to tip our robot, which is quite heavy and low to the ground.

This is something that's bothered me for a number of years. In 2014 for example, there were some top-heavy robots that tipped easily. I believe that year, tipping a robot was a 50 point "technical foul". There was one robot I remember that was seriously top-heavy that benefited from that foul at least three times in one competition -- because nearly any contact would result in it tipping over.

So my question is whether this rule is fair? A robot like 2262 presumably thought they were playing aggressive defense within the rules (or else that ref sure failed to give us a foul call he should have a couple of matches earlier). The same actions that are fine with one robot however, cause another to tip. If you look at the video -- 2262's driver had very little time to notice that 125 is starting to tip and react. So yes, you can argue that the third and fourth time they ram 125 was gratuitous and worthy of a foul -- but they only got it because 125's robot was somewhat tippy (I know 125 tipped at least once simply crossing a defense, and given the number of matches they played, I'll bet they tipped more than once.) Should it be the case that if you build a robot that tips easily, you get extra protection from being strongly defended?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Refs. Refs wear zebra stripes.

Us blue shirts don't know or really care much about events on the field.

[kevin.li.rit]

So I think our video has a better angle on the tipping of 125 at the Boston district event that you're referring to: [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ljx-Dsy-N4"]
The second tip -- where Blue 2262 repeatedly hits Red 125 was different. Here Blue 2262 is quite intentionally playing a very aggressive defense -- which results in tipping 125.

But I have some problems with the award of the red card here. Part of it is that the very same Robot 2262 played similarly aggressive defense on us (2877) in the Quarter Finals and in fact damaged our robot in two straight matches. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4gXaHkGNo0?t=1m40s where they bash into us 4 times, after which we could no longer drive) -- which caused us to lose the match (and the one before it, which had a similar result) and get eliminated.

But they didn't tip us, so we don't get the benefit of a card -- or even a foul. It would in fact, have been practically impossible to tip our robot, which is quite heavy and low to the ground.

This is something that's bothered me for a number of years. In 2014 for example, there were some top-heavy robots that tipped easily. I believe that year, tipping a robot was a 50 point "technical foul". There was one robot I remember that was seriously top-heavy that benefited from that foul at least three times in one competition -- because nearly any contact would result in it tipping over.

So my question is whether this rule is fair. A robot like 2262 presumably thought they were playing aggressive defense within the rules (or else that ref sure failed to give us a foul call we should have a couple of matches earlier). The same actions that are fine with one robot however, cause another to tip. If you look at the video -- 2262's driver had very little time to notice that 125 is starting to tip and react. So yes, you can argue that the third and fourth time they ram 125 was gratuitous and worthy of a foul -- but they only got it because 125's robot was somewhat tippy (I know 125 tipped at least once simply crossing a defense, and given the number of matches they played, I'll bet they tipped more than once.) Should it be the case that if you build a robot that tips easily, you get extra protection from being strongly defended?

Exactly, it seems like robots are getting penalized for inadvertently tipping, top heavy robots during robot to robot interactions. We were trying to play aggressive defense on you and 125 but we weren't trying to tip or damage anyone. In real time you can barely see 3rd or 4th hit, it looks like one continuous interaction since us and 125 never fully disengage.

[PayneTrain]

>robot configured in a low-bar compatible size
>under 15" at least
>"top heavy"

Once again I am left off the mailing list for the armchair physicists club and frankly I am offended.

However this pales in comparison to no one notifying me of this convention of the armchair zebra club. Thanks for setting the record straight.

I hope Andrew can remind his team of the rule you all cited. 125 clearly committed a G11 in this match and should have received a yellow card. They intentionally built their robot in a 22"x24"x13" configuration under 100 pounds so the strong independent toasters of New England could be trapped into tipping their robot and get themselves kicked out of eliminations.

The only question I have is, when did 125 decide to flip themselves over to trap 2262? Was it after the first, second, third, or fourth hit?

It's pretty clear that the fix was in for 125 to win the whole event for a fourth year in a row.

[kevin.li.rit]

>robot configured in a low-bar compatible size
>under 15" at least
>"top heavy"

Once again I am left off the mailing list for the armchair physicists club and frankly I am offended.

However this pales in comparison to no one notifying me of this convention of the armchair zebra club. Thanks for setting the record straight.

I hope Andrew can remind his team of the rule you all cited. 125 clearly committed a G11 in this match and should have received a yellow card. They intentionally built their robot in a 22"x24"x13" configuration under 100 pounds so the strong independent toasters of New England could be trapped into tipping their robot and get themselves kicked out of eliminations.

The only question I have is, when did 125 decide to flip themselves over to trap 2262? Was it after the first, second, third, or fourth hit?

It's pretty clear that the fix was in for 125 to win the whole event for a fourth year in a row.

I don't know what you're trying to say. No on is accusing 125 of trying to intentionally cause other teams to violate g24. You can call it a 3rd or 4th hit if you want but when you watch it in real time it very quickly and looks like one engagement. Our main issue with what happened is that we did not intentionally tip 125 but we were penalized that way.

No one was claiming G11 or a fix, so really what is the point you are making?

[EricH]

I don't know what you're trying to say. No on is accusing 125 of trying to intentionally cause other teams to violate g24. You can call it a 3rd or 4th hit if you want but when you watch it in real time it very quickly and looks like one engagement. Our main issue with what happened is that we did not intentionally tip 125 but we were penalized that way.

No one was claiming G11 or a fix, so really what is the point you are making?
I believe he forgot his [:rolleyes:] tags.

[PayneTrain]

I don't know what you're trying to say. No on is accusing 125 of trying to intentionally cause other teams to violate g24. You can call it a 3rd or 4th hit if you want but when you watch it in real time it very quickly and looks like one engagement. Our main issue with what happened is that we did not intentionally tip 125 but we were penalized that way.

No one was claiming G11 or a fix, so really what is the point you are making?

Everyone knows planes can't fly, it's just the Illuminati using their magnet powers to propel their chemtrail spreading death tubes.

You were making up wild assumptions about a robot and disregarding written rules in an attempt to build and defend a case. I am not alone when I say that I find the approach to exist on a spectrum of "needlessly petty" to "willfully fantastic" so naturally I assumed we were engaging in the grand Chief Delphi tradition of an absurdity duel.

Not to be the person I hate and harken back to the olden times, but FIRST culture used to soundly reject the blatant self promotion of one's team I have seen in some threads and the fist-shaking "defenses" I have seen in this one.

[kevin.li.rit]

Everyone knows planes can't fly, it's just the Illuminati using their magnet powers to propel their chemtrail spreading death tubes.

You were making up wild assumptions about a robot and disregarding written rules in an attempt to build and defend a case. I am not alone when I say that I find the approach to exist on a spectrum of "needlessly petty" to "willfully fantastic" so naturally I assumed we were engaging in the grand Chief Delphi tradition of an absurdity duel.

Not to be the person I hate and harken back to the olden times, but FIRST culture used to soundly reject the blatant self promotion of one's team I have seen in some threads and the fist-shaking "defenses" I have seen in this one.

I don't think I'm making wild assumptions on a robot that I've observed over several matches between 2 events. I'm can definitely see why it was called the way it was and I can disagree with the call at the same time.

You can be absurd if you want. If you think we deserved a red card, fine. I'm okay with that too.

[Jessica Boucher]

Okay, let's take a breather. No use getting heated over completed matches.

[IronicDeadBird]

These kinds of interaction are always bound to happen when you have a contact game.

I mean the obvious solution is we just go back to Recycle Rush...

[kevin.li.rit]

These kinds of interaction are always bound to happen when you have a contact game.

I mean the obvious solution is we just go back to Recycle Rush...

Its funny you should mention that because....

https://youtu.be/P5PNV1LHjZk?list=PLH5vuk87UxfCAgOqHHcLdXVERgw9BDlx 4

[NShep98]

Its funny you should mention that because....

https://youtu.be/P5PNV1LHjZk?list=PLH5vuk87UxfCAgOqHHcLdXVERgw9BDlx 4

You guys just can't catch a break, can you?

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

I was wondering...

Let's say robot A is a tall robot with a high CG.
Let's say robot B is a low bar robot.
And C is a low bar robot able to upright itself

If A gets tipped over easily, because of their design, is that a strategy aimed at giving opponents red cards? Should the refs be more indulgent about moderate defense played on A that causes tipping?

If C gets tipped over, the same way B would get tipped over, but C is able to flip itself back on its wheels, would there still be a red card?

What if C decides to stay in that flipped position, like B would do because they can't do otherwise, would that be a violation of G11?

How unfair is it for teams who planned on being able to flip back if they got tipped over?

[Chris is me]

If C gets tipped over, the same way B would get tipped over, but C is able to flip itself back on its wheels, would there still be a red card?

There is no reason a robot that is able to self right would not still draw a red card in this scenario. The rule is against tipping robots, not against keeping robots tipped for the duration of the match.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

There is no reason a robot that is able to self right would not still draw a red card in this scenario. The rule is against tipping robots, not against keeping robots tipped for the duration of the match.

but the red card is given when damage or incapacitation occurs, so the robot that can flip back does not meet the criteria

[JamesBrown]

but the red card is given when damage or incapacitation occurs, so the robot that can flip back does not meet the criteria

Yes, that is correct ( I had to read the rule again)

Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping,
entanglements, or deliberately putting a BOULDER on an opponent’s ROBOT are not allowed.
This is Violated regardless of whether the robot can right itself or not

Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD
This specifies the punishment, Yellow card for the violation, but a Red card if incapacitation occurs.

I really hate this rule, especially in this game. It should be clear to teams that tipping is a risk in this game, which leaves them with the options to either design a robot that doesn't tip, or design a robot that can right itself. This rule seems to reward teams who did not take this into account.

I would much rather have this rule read Yellow card for strategies aimed at inhibition (though those means) and Red card tor strategies with the intent to incapacitate. I don't like that this has to be an eyeball test, but I like it more that giving a yellow card to a team who flipped a well designed robot, and a red card to one who flipped a robot with a design flaw.

There is no reason a robot that is able to self right would not still draw a red card in this scenario. The rule is against tipping robots, not against keeping robots tipped for the duration of the match.

That is how I remembered it too, but per G24 the red card is given if harm or incapacitation occurs.

Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD

[Andrew Schreiber]

but the red card is given when damage or incapacitation occurs, so the robot that can flip back does not meet the criteria

You ever flipped a robot? You NEVER know if there's damage until you find it later.

[JamesBrown]

You ever flipped a robot? You NEVER know if there's damage until you find it later.

If the robot were to right itself, and then continue to play, I could not imagine a referee calling a red card based on damage occurring.

[Andrew Schreiber]

If the robot were to right itself, and then continue to play, I could not imagine a referee calling a red card based on damage occurring.

To me strategies aimed at disabling or damaging opponents need to be met with the harshest penalty possible. If I wanted to play battlebots I WOULD (I do want to, I might in the future) but FRC isn't the place for that.

You'd be ok with a team flipping team A, team A self righting (prolly takes a couple seconds) then that same team flipping team A again repeatedly without a red card? The strategy is CLEARLY aimed at disabling or damaging A. And every time that team A goes over there's a risk of damage.

I am a firm believer in Vex's rule that (paraphrased) gives the offensive teams the benefit of the doubt in any interaction. Face it, we get the game play we encourage - if we don't penalize teams playing extremely aggressive defense more teams will realize it's a good way to shut down scoring robots and, frankly, games will get BORING. (see 2003)

[JamesBrown]

You'd be ok with a team flipping team A, team A self righting (prolly takes a couple seconds) then that same team flipping team A again repeatedly without a red card? The strategy is CLEARLY aimed at disabling or damaging A. And every time that team A goes over there's a risk of damage.
(see 2003)


I am not at all OK with that, see my earlier post. I think the rule is poorly written, however by the rule a red card is issued only when Damage or Incapacitation is the result of the strategy.

My point (like MaGiC_PiKaChU's) is simply that the rule as written seems to unfairly punish teams who built a self righting robot.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

the rule as written seems to unfairly punish teams who built a self righting robot.

now what if that robot decides to stay upside down? That would be a G11? That seems pretty unfair.

[sastoller]

Has anyone seen the refs check the tipped robot's bumper height after a tipping incident, before giving a yellow or red card to the tipping robot?

It seems to me that if the tipped robot had bumpers that were above the 12" height limit, the tipping robot should not be penalized. I realize that all robots are inspected prior to playing in qualification matches, but I have seen several cases where bumper brackets become bent during a match from repeated collisions and are no longer within the 12" height limit by the end of the match. This just seems like something the ref's should be sure of when making a decision to give a yellow or red card. This is something that teams with already high bumpers should keep a close eye on as well.

Unfortunately, this is yet another case where the rules call on the refs to judge the intent of a robot/driver. It's a bad deal all around, but I don't know a better way to assess a penalty for tipping in a physical game like Stronghold. It's a shame that there seems to be a lack of consistency between the Head Refs at different events on these "intent rules", and as a result, this has significantly changed the outcome of several events.

[kevin.li.rit]

Has anyone seen the refs check the tipped robot's bumper height after a tipping incident, before giving a yellow or red card to the tipping robot?

It seems to me that if the tipped robot had bumpers that were above the 12" height limit, the tipping robot should not be penalized. I realize that all robots are inspected prior to playing in qualification matches, but I have seen several cases where bumper brackets become bent during a match from repeated collisions and are no longer within the 12" height limit by the end of the match. This just seems like something the ref's should be sure of when making a decision to give a yellow or red card. This is something that teams with already high bumpers should keep a close eye on as well.

Unfortunately, this is yet another case where the rules call on the refs to judge the intent of a robot/driver. It's a bad deal all around, but I don't know a better way to assess a penalty for tipping in a physical game like Stronghold. It's a shame that there seems to be a lack of consistency between the Head Refs at different events on these "intent rules", and as a result, this has significantly changed the outcome of several events.

Part of the bumper problem is when you robot has a center wheel drop and the robot changes direction, the bumper height will change causing it to get wedged under/over another robot. No rules on the bumpers are violated (correct me if I'm wrong) since it will still pass bumper height requirements when standing normally on the floor. For our robot we realized this and put the bumpers in the middle of the bumper zone so it would still stay in the bumper zone regardless of which 4 wheels are touching the ground.

Maybe this is something FIRST should address next year?

[nuclearnerd]

I am a firm believer in Vex's rule that (paraphrased) gives the offensive teams the benefit of the doubt in any interaction. Face it, we get the game play we encourage - if we don't penalize teams playing extremely aggressive defense more teams will realize it's a good way to shut down scoring robots and, frankly, games will get BORING. (see 2003)

Like in 2015, when there was only offense? I'm not sure what we do with tippy robots being tipped, and/or aggressive plowing, but I know for sure that we shouldn't discourage defense with such a rule. There's nothing interesting or strategic about watching six teams do six things with no interaction. On the other hand, games like 2014 has me filling out new play sheets all the way through champs. This year's game already restricts defense more than necessary IMHO

[Andrew Schreiber]

Like in 2015, when there was only offense? I'm not sure what we do with tippy robots being tipped, and/or aggressive plowing, but I know for sure that we shouldn't discourage defense with such a rule. There's nothing interesting or strategic about watching six teams do six things with no interaction. On the other hand, games like 2014 has me filling out new play sheets all the way through champs. This year's game already restricts defense more than necessary IMHO

There's a world of difference between no interaction (2015) and discouraging teams who ONLY ram into other robots. In fact, you can avoid the latter with rules aimed at making scoring easier because it gives them a way to positively contribute. I want to see a rule about erring on the side of offensive robots because it means that crap like a defender breaking their intake on us doesn't give us a penalty (2014 NEDCMP)This rule absolutely needs to come attached to incentivizing the sort of zone defense that makes for more interesting matches.

And lest you think I'm all for no defense - 125 played defense on 1519's alliance last weekend but we didn't touch them (until they came over and tipped us). There's more ways to play defense than to ram into the opponent.

[jfitz0807]

Consider the case of a low bar robot with a large intake/shooter that can be raised high so it can shoot over a defensive robot. When the shooter is low, the robot has a low CG and when it is up, the robot has a high CG and is susceptible to being tipped. A defensive robot tries to bump it to alter the shot in the hopes of making it miss. If the defensive robot continues to push the shooter, it is possible that the shooting robot may tip.

If the shooting robot is about to tip, why is it not incumbent upon that robot to LOWER its shooter to prevent the tip?

[EricH]

Consider the case of a low bar robot with a large intake/shooter that can be raised high so it can shoot over a defensive robot. When the shooter is low, the robot has a low CG and when it is up, the robot has a high CG and is susceptible to being tipped. A defensive robot tries to bump it to alter the shot in the hopes of making it miss. If the defensive robot continues to push the shooter, it is possible that the shooting robot may tip.

If the shooting robot is about to tip, why is it not incumbent upon that robot to LOWER its shooter to prevent the tip?
For 90% of robots with a raisable shooter, the defender's drivetrain (including any driver reaction time) is a heck of a lot faster than their shooter's raising mechanism. For the other 10%, their reaction time plus transmission time evens it out to about equal. So maybe they're TRYING, but the defender doesn't give them the chance before they go over. You bet that they're not going to be happy that the defender didn't back off! (Read as: "I thought it was incumbent on the defender to back off!")

If it's actually an accident, you probably just hit them once. But a sustained push-through is a lot harder to class as an accident (and easier to class as intentional, thus, strategy)--and those accounted for almost all if not all of the tipping cards I was on a ref crew for!