end game defense

[Gary Dillard]

If your opponent has a dynamite 2 @ 12 bot, what do you think about having one of your alliance bots drive within the home zone and play defense, take the 30 points in penalties and keep them from scoring the 60? Net 30 to the good if you don't have 2 @ 12 capability on your alliance.

[Alan Anderson]

I think intentionally incurring penalties, even if it results in a net advantage in the final score, is a Bad Thing. It's an abuse of the rules. If I were in charge, I'd probably give a yellow card to any team doing it.

[Cody Carey]

I believe it is part of the game. A net gain in team-to-team point ratio is just that... a gain.

You shouldn't get there by being graciously unprofessional, but I see nothing against GP in following the rules. If the game design committee didn't want this to be an option, they would have made it a DQ offense. There will always be people that don't like it, just as there were people who didn't like getting on an opponent's ramp last year, but it is part of the game.

[Ianworld]

My team thought of this, but I don't think teams will do it. First you're breaking the rules which most people dont' want to do even if there is a finite penalty you can get for it. Secondly just by driving around the endzone you don't guarantee that you'll stop the other team. If you get those penalties and the other robots get lifted then you're really in trouble. Its better to just try to play your defence just outside the home zone and hope to stop at least one of the robots from getting back. The risk of loosing even more points is just too high.

[jonathan lall]

It is absolutely a part of the game and absolutely a viable strategy. To suggest otherwise I don't think gives the GDC enough credit. After all, there wouldn't be such a specific penalty if they didn't think long and hard about it. Is a basketball player slow to get back on D wrong to foul the guy and give him two from the line? Of course not.

[GaryVoshol]

The yellow and red cards were adopted from soccer (football). As a soccer ref, if I see a team deliberately breaking the rules, someone would get a caution (yellow card) for unsporting behavior. Specifically, for "bringing the game into disrepute".

Teams can deliberately break rules to their advantage, but if they do so they have to accept the consequences. I hope we have enough yellow flags in queuing.

Which brings up a point - somebody's gonna have to keep track of who is on a yellow card. I'll bet that's a new head queuer function.

[Ben Piecuch]

Gary brings up a very interesting strategy. We can all talk about GP and how it is encouraged throughout game play. But seriously, if you're going for a regional or national championship and it comes down to you blocking an opponent from getting on their partners back, I think GP goes out the back door.

Yellow and red cards are for excessive rough playing. But I don't believe that sitting in front of a ramp, or actively blocking another robot can be considered rough playing. Ramming them into a corner, shoving them repetitively against the rack, full-field runs into a robot... penalize them all. But blocking, that's just part of the game. The national and divisional finals in '06 had plenty of strong defense, but I didn't see anyone crying about GP. Getting trapped on top of the ramp was a brilliant strategy. I see the prevention of getting on this years ramp as an equally great strategy.

Now, do you have to be IN the endzone to be an effective blocker? Probably not. Will I cry if someone is in there defending me? Nope, I'll be out scoring more ringers or dropping a spoiler. Thanks for the extra 30.

BEN

[Lil' Lavery]

Ideally, most of the alliance would be trying to make up the 60 points by placing additional ringers and/or spoilers on the rack, but this may not always be possible. When it isn't, who says you have to wait until the opponent is in the home zone to try and stop them? You can get the same 30 point difference by keeping one of the opposing robots OUT of their home zone, and away from the lift bot. If the lift bot is out and driving around, you can negate all 60 points by keeping them out of their home zone.

[MikeDubreuil]

My personal opinion is that purposely violating a game rule for your own benefit would not fall under the category of a gracious professional behavior.
The Head Referee may assign a YELLOW CARD as a warning of egregious ROBOT or team member behavior. This will occur at the completion of a match, before the field is reset, and will be indicated by the Head Referee standing in front of the team’s PLAYER STATION and holding a yellow card in the air. In the first match that a team receives a YELLOW CARD, it acts as a warning.
To the GDC: It would have been helpful to provide examples of what egregious behavior would be.
egregious:
1. extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake; an egregious liar.
I would say that purposely causing penalties would be egregious behavior. A strategy that gives an alliance an advantage by breaking a game rule would seem extraordinary in some bad way to me.

[jgannon]

My personal opinion is that purposely violating a game rule for your own benefit would not fall under the category of a gracious professional behavior.
It seems that I am definitely in the minority with respect to this question. I expect to see yellow and red cards issues for aggressive play, but not for smart play. The gracious professionalism of breaking certain rules has already been discussed in another thread, particularly in an excellent post by George1902, and my follow-up.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=550003&postcount=119
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=550199&postcount=133

The rule being discussed is different, but I think the same logic applies. I'm certain you will see teams intentionally driving into their opponent's home zone after the start of end game, and I would not expect to see it frowned upon.

[jonathan lall]

The yellow and red cards were adopted from soccer (football). As a soccer ref, if I see a team deliberately breaking the rules, someone would get a caution (yellow card) for unsporting behavior. Specifically, for "bringing the game into disrepute".
Begging your pardon, what rule was broken by the team staying in the opponents' endzone? As far as I can see, rule <G25> was followed, and that team was assessed three 10-point penalties as per that very rule. Yellow and red cards in soccer are awarded for very specific infractions that must meet certain criteria as per the FIFA Laws of the Game. In soccer there is a specific rule against fouling someone that's clearly about to score, the penalty for which is a straight red card (and possibly a penalty shot if it's committed in the 25-yard box... Think Jens Lehmann in the UEFA Champions League Final last year, although the ref probably should have played advantage and cautioned Jens in that case... it's not important). Point is, in the FRC, the penalty is in <G25>: 10 points every five seconds, not a card.


Now, inevitably, someone brought GP into this discussion. This has nothing to do with GP I would argue. GP is about how you and your team conduct yourselves at all times (on and off the field) and includes elements of sportsmanship, keeping a calm demeanour, and all-around resourcefulness. I'm sure there are a couple people out there that can't get their minds around the fact that the practices of defensive play, descoring, or in the case of this game, using spoilers, are perfectly legitimate. I guess what we need to do is step back and analyze whether doing this violates the spirit of any part of Gracious Professionalism:

Can we agree that there's nothing ungracious in principle about deducting your alliance a few points to deduct a few more from the opposition? Think about it; it could just save you, and even if it doesn't, you should be applauded by the other alliance for thinking on your feet rather than whined at because they foolishly thought their strategy was safe. If you agree with that much you're over the biggest hump, because I'm sure you'll all agree that there certainly isn't anything unprofessional about it; quite the opposite, it's a calculated move that might only be performed by the most reactive strategists on the field. It's more than safe to say the GDC put in a very specific rule with a very specific penalty, knowing fully well that in certain situations it would get used. They can add. If they wanted it to be a bigger deal, they would have made it so.

Un-GP play on the field in my opinion would be intent to damage, or actually trying to make the opponent take a penalty. There are however, specific rules against both of these, which is not the case with <G25>.

[Bharat Nain]

It is absolutely a part of the game and absolutely a viable strategy. To suggest otherwise I don't think gives the GDC enough credit. After all, there wouldn't be such a specific penalty if they didn't think long and hard about it. Is a basketball player slow to get back on D wrong to foul the guy and give him two from the line? Of course not.

I agree. It is a strategy because it involves manipulation of the score. If an ALLIANCE desires, they can take a 10 pt. penalty and cap the opposing alliance's ringer onto an empty spider foot. There is no Ungracious or Unprofessional act involved in this.

[Tuba4]

All of the discussion here has been focused on <G25> and the associated penalties. But what about <G03>? It states:

<G03> END GAME - The final 15 seconds of the TELEOPERATED PERIOD is called the END GAME. During this period, no ROBOT may be in an opposing ALLIANCE HOME ZONE. (emphasis mine) The intent of this period is to permit ALLIANCES to attempt to score bonus points without undue interference. An audio signal will sound five seconds before the start of the END GAME period, and again at the start of the END GAME period.

This clearly speaks to the "intent" of the GDC for the End Game period. Violating the intent of the GDC could well be considered an egregious violation of the rules. I would not be surprised to see yellow cards handed out for "intentional" violations of <G03>. Or perhaps a further clarification of this rule may occur?

[Lil' Lavery]

All of the discussion here has been focused on <G25> and the associated penalties. But what about <G03>? It states:

<G03> END GAME - The final 15 seconds of the TELEOPERATED PERIOD is called the END GAME. During this period, no ROBOT may be in an opposing ALLIANCE HOME ZONE. (emphasis mine) The intent of this period is to permit ALLIANCES to attempt to score bonus points without undue interference. An audio signal will sound five seconds before the start of the END GAME period, and again at the start of the END GAME period.

This clearly speaks to the "intent" of the GDC for the End Game period. Violating the intent of the GDC could well be considered an egregious violation of the rules. I would not be surprised to see yellow cards handed out for "intentional" violations of <G03>. Or perhaps a further clarification of this rule may occur?

I'd tend to agree. To me, I see <G03> as the primary rule for prohibiting defense and aggressive driving in the opponent's home zone during the end game. <G25> restricts you ability to enter their home zone for other reasons (picking up ringers) which may cause accidental interference or take up space. Additionally <G25> adds more "teeth" to <G03>. Intentional defense of other bots, specifically the bot that is lifting the others, would be a flagrant and egregious violation of <G03>. Depending on the state of the other robots, you may also be able to make a case it violates <S01> and/or <G35>

[Dan Zollman]

"Penalty" does not mean "if you pay x points, we will make an exception in the rules for you." If the rules were made to allow an exception, the rule would clearly state that you can pay points in order to do certain things. Forget GP: Whether the penalty or punishment for an action is a number of points, a card, or disqualification, the action still breaks the rules.

Would the referees let it go if they see a team repeatedly break a rule?

[technoL]

I don't think that the repetitive use of this strategy is even necessary. It is quite possible that there will be several matches per regional, or even more, where this technique would be pointless because the opposing alliance doesn't have a robot with a ramp.

On the other hand, I do agree that it is indeed a great example of creative strategy, not bad usage of GP. But it is also a tradeoff that would have to be determined on a match by match basis. Similar to how an alliance would decide if they wanted to rush all 3 robots back to the home zone to get on a ramp or deploy a ramp, or would they sacrifice one to play defense on their scored ringers with spoilers.

[robochick1319]

If your opponent has a dynamite 2 @ 12 bot, what do you think about having one of your alliance bots drive within the home zone and play defense, take the 30 points in penalties and keep them from scoring the 60? Net 30 to the good if you don't have 2 @ 12 capability on your alliance.

I think that wouldn't be worth it The referree would most likely give you a yellow card and then you could only do that once.

It isn't worth it and it isn't "gracious professionalism" :o

[RichardJames]

I think in the spirit of GP the rule allows blocking as a strategy, because otherwise robot design takes a huge advantage over strategy in this situation. I have always thought the game designers included situations like this on purpose to make sure even well-designed bots can be countered strategically by a lesser bot (in this case anything with a drivetrain).

In any case, we probably wouldn`t see much of this activity in seeding. Strategy just gets so much more drastic in the finals....

[robochick1319]

I think in the spirit of GP the rule allows blocking as a strategy, because otherwise robot design takes a huge advantage over strategy in this situation. I have always thought the game designers included situations like this on purpose to make sure even well-designed bots can be countered strategically by a lesser bot (in this case anything with a drivetrain).

In any case, we probably wouldn`t see much of this activity in seeding. Strategy just gets so much more drastic in the finals....

So you are saying GP means intentionally cheating? :eek: I don't think that the game designer's wanted this strategy, otherwise it wouldn't illegal.

A HUGE part of robot design is strategy! How else do you know what to build?

I think that this supposed 'strategy' is disgraceful and I will lose all respect for those who attempt such a horrid method of winning. :mad:

[RichardJames]

whoa, I`m sorry. I didn`t mean to offend. I think no blanket statement will cover this little loophole, because there definitely is the possibility of using it in a very malicious way. I`m sure a rule clarification as to whether or not this would result in a yellowcard would clear this all up - if a yellowcard is issued for this type of blocking it is obviously not in the spirit of the rules. In my opinion, however, if the rules are clarified to state that it does not merit a yellowcard, then it is a valid strategy.

Either way it`s risky business, and a team would have to be in a pretty bad situation to opt for this.

[robochick1319]

whoa, I`m sorry. I didn`t mean to offend. I think no blanket statement will cover this little loophole, because there definitely is the possibility of using it in a very malicious way. I`m sure a rule clarification as to whether or not this would result in a yellowcard would clear this all up - if a yellowcard is issued for this type of blocking it is obviously not in the spirit of the rules. In my opinion, however, if the rules are clarified to state that it does not merit a yellowcard, then it is a valid strategy.

Either way it`s risky business, and a team would have to be in a pretty bad situation to opt for this.

:o Sorry to whig out on you. It's been a long exam-filled week. :ahh:

I think that FIRST needs to clarify this loophole. :)

[Billfred]

So how's about we take this to the Wonderful Wizard of Q&A? I've submitted a question to them concerning this sort of situation--we'll see what develops.

Edit: My question, as submitted:

Under <G25>, teams are prohibited from occupying the opposing home zone during end game. This raises two questions:

1) Would a clearly intentional violation of <G25> qualify for a yellow card under <T06>?

2) If a team were playing defense outside of the home zone during End Game but were pushed inside, would they be protected under the final sentence of <G25>, provided they were making a bona fide effort to exit the home zone?

[robochick1319]

So how's about we take this to the Wonderful Wizard of Q&A? I've submitted a question to them concerning this sort of situation--we'll see what develops.

Awesome idea! :p I hope we have an answer soon because this could totally change a lot of people's strategies!

[Vikesrock]

Note: This is not an attempt to interpret any rules in their current state. It is an opinion and should be treated as such.

It is my opinion that this violation of the rules should warrant a yellow card.

While this is a creative and excellent reactive strategy I have one huge issue with it. Attempting to defend liftees or the lifter during the End Game poses a threat to all robots involved. Defending in this manner will almost certainly lead to the tipping of one or multiple robots involved and could very easily lead to robot damage.

Someone likened this situation to a foul to stop a fast break in basketball. I believe this comparison is flawed for a number of reasons:

1. Foul shots can earn up to the number of points that would have been awarded for the breakaway basket. The penalty for violating this rule is half what the earned points would be.

2. A flagrant or intentional foul has a penalty GREATER than the potential points from the shot itself.

3. If a player (robot) becomes injured (damaged) as a result of a clearly intentional foul the player committing the foul is likely to be ejected from the game (E-stopped) and probably will be suspended by the league (refs) for a game or two (in this case a yellow card would be the closest equivalent).

[Kevin Sevcik]

I have to say that this is a patently silly idea. Wedge rules are suspended in the home zone, and a team is penalized or DQ'd for driving on an opposing robot. I think defending in the home zone is just asking for extra penalties or getting knocked over. In addition, I think that you have pretty much no hope of defending both robots at once. If you're defending the ramp bot..... Well. If 57 sees this happening, we'll probably add a few extra ramps to the front and back of our robot to discourage this. I really just don't think this is a smart strategy at all.

[EricH]

Guys, there IS NO ADVANTAGE here. Think about it for a minute: You prevent them from getting 60 points. To do that, you need your robot in their end zone for the entire end game. Aside from the fact that they can see this coming and beat you to the punch (gaining points), there are 30 points in penaties coming to you. AND, your partner can only lift one robot because you are at the other end of the field, giving you 30 points--just enough to cancel out the penalties. Net score: 0 points. So, the end score would be: 0 to (30-30=0) in bonuses.

[Lil' Lavery]

Guys, there IS NO ADVANTAGE here. Think about it for a minute: You prevent them from getting 60 points. To do that, you need your robot in their end zone for the entire end game. Aside from the fact that they can see this coming and beat you to the punch (gaining points), there are 30 points in penaties coming to you. AND, your partner can only lift one robot because you are at the other end of the field, giving you 30 points--just enough to cancel out the penalties. Net score: 0 points. So, the end score would be: 0 to (30-30=0) in bonuses.

If your opponent has a dynamite 2 @ 12 bot, what do you think about having one of your alliance bots drive within the home zone and play defense, take the 30 points in penalties and keep them from scoring the 60? Net 30 to the good if you don't have 2 @ 12 capability on your alliance.

'Nuff said about the possible best result

[jonathan lall]

Guys, there IS NO ADVANTAGE here. Think about it for a minute: You prevent them from getting 60 points. To do that, you need your robot in their end zone for the entire end game. Aside from the fact that they can see this coming and beat you to the punch (gaining points), there are 30 points in penaties coming to you. AND, your partner can only lift one robot because you are at the other end of the field, giving you 30 points--just enough to cancel out the penalties. Net score: 0 points. So, the end score would be: 0 to (30-30=0) in bonuses.
Who says my alliance can lift two above 12? Who says it can even lift anyone reliably or quickly? Who says I'm in there for the full endgame? In fact, who says I can't disrupt their loading process, get back, dance a jig, and get above 12 inches all in the endgame? You're making a multitude of dangerous assumptions.

All of the discussion here has been focused on <G25> and the associated penalties. But what about <G03>?
I agree; when I read that rule I thought to myself that it was the only possible grounds or justification a ref would have for interpreting the rules so liberally as to award a card. Stating the intent of any rules in a rulebook is bad practice, but it's been done so we must work with it; it might conceivably be interpreted as grounds to penalize further than the rules actually allow by the more liberal referees (despite the fact that <G03> is about something else entirely). But I'm sure there will be a clear guideline put out to all the head refs in conferences to come about this very issue.

Someone likened this situation to a foul to stop a fast break in basketball. I believe this comparison is flawed for a number of reasons:

1. Foul shots can earn up to the number of points that would have been awarded for the breakaway basket. The penalty for violating this rule is half what the earned points would be.

2. A flagrant or intentional foul has a penalty GREATER than the potential points from the shot itself.

3. If a player (robot) becomes injured (damaged) as a result of a clearly intentional foul the player committing the foul is likely to be ejected from the game (E-stopped) and probably will be suspended by the league (refs) for a game or two (in this case a yellow card would be the closest equivalent).
Actually, in basketball, stopping an imminent basket fast break with a foul changes the opponents' potential score increase from about 1.99 to about 1.4 or even less (think Shaq). I'll take a dunk over a pair of free throws any day of the week; if fouling late wasn't statistically advantageous to teams it wouldn't get done. Same thing goes for this game. In fact, you've outlined why this is an even more effective strategy than in the case of basketball all by yourself; there's an even bigger potential net gain.

Now if you damage another robot trying this, you should be held to account the same way you would be during the rest of the match, because nothing has changed. I'm all for tossing yellow cards all over the place when intentional tipping occurs, but anyone who tips intentionally on D deserves what's coming to them. Still, I would hold that placing one's robot in front of the opposing alliance's ramp bot is a pretty darn safe strategy. I've never been hit by a parked car before, but I'm pretty sure It wouldn't hurt.

[TheOtherTaylor]

I think that if you're going to try to play defensively, you're going to have to attempt to keep the lift-bot out of the home zone from outside of the home zone to avoid being carded. They have the penalties for you being inside the home zone for safety reasons as there will be robots lifted off of the ground and if you rammed the lift-bot at that point you could cause significant damage to the lifted robot.

I highly doubt that they will give you an card for violating <G25> if you make it clear that you are trying as hard as you can to play defense without violating the rule, but occasionally you overstep the line in your attempt to play defense.

As a water polo player, the best defensive strategies almost always include taking minor fouls in order to prevent an opponent advantage, but if you make a major foul in the process you are going to have to pay for your mistake. In FIRST, there isn't always a whole lot of distinction between intentional major and intentional minor fouls. In my experience with FIRST if you are going to violate a rule you had better make sure you're trying as hard as you can not to before you do.

[geowasp]

well, who says u gotta take a 30pt penalty......With decent driving, one could probably block out at least one of the opposing alliance's robots with a relatively high success rate W/O going into their endzone. Reasons for believeing so:
1. robots will be rushing to the endzone at a point where relatively little time is left in the game... ie. <20sec So, if you are able to simply impede their advances, blocking a straight path to the endzone, they may not have enough time to climb on/get lifted in time.
2. if robot A is the one that lifts/lets others climb on to it has grounded itself (expanded to brace for the other robots, which i believe has to happen for 120lb robot to be lifted by robot A) there is a very small/limited entry point to get the bonus points, as robot A is no longer mobile at this point.

therefore, there is no need to get into the endzone(and incur a penalty) to play defense against the "above ground" bonus points

Do you guys agree with me? or is it already clearly established that getting the 30pt penalty is inevitable?

[Brandon Holley]

As much as I think this strategy is kind of pointless, I do not think that in any way shape or form this should warrant a yellow card.

The GDC designed the game and stated that if you are in their home zone for the different time increments a penalty would be assesed. Why are we assuming that not only do you get a penalty, but you also receive a yellow card. Yes you are intentionally violating a rule, but thats the beauty of risk and reward here. Most criminals know fully well what will happen when they break a rule, and I guess some of them will account for what the risk to reward is. That may not be the best example, but it has merit.

If they GDC wanted this to not be a strategy then a yellow card would be awarded...if you think this is the only way to keep your opponents from gaining those 60 points, then by all means go for it. But why not just design a bot that can lift, or be lifted as well if not better than your opponents.

We need to stop searching for loopholes. THis is a viable strategy, but the much better strategy is instead of searching for possibly ways around the rules, to get down to business and design a bot thats better, faster, stronger....if you do that, then your opponents may be forced to consider this kind of strategy against you.

[EricH]

Who says my alliance can lift two above 12? Who says it can even lift anyone reliably or quickly? Who says I'm in there for the full endgame? In fact, who says I can't disrupt their loading process, get back, dance a jig, and get above 12 inches all in the endgame? You're making a multitude of dangerous assumptions.Actually, I'm not. Here's what I'm assuming:
1: Other than being in the opponents home zone, no rules are being broken. (No tipping other robots intentionally, in other words.--automatic DQ for you, IIRC, for tipping)
2: If you don't defend, your opponents will make it off the floor 12" within 5 seconds (which is feasable for a ramp or a high-powered lift).
3: You leave at 5 seconds or less, which gives you 30 penalty points. You are not able to fly across the field and hit a robot-sized target in 5 seconds or less. (You need to go faster than 10 f/s, which is about the upper limit of controllability.) If you leave sooner, one or two of the other alliance will score.
4: Your alliance is able to lift as many robots as necessary. This is a critical assumption. I'll explain why below.

Here is what will happen wiht the above assumptions:
Redabot A will play defense on Blueabots A, B, and C during the end game. Assuming that Redabot A is in the blue home zone, Redabot will incur up to 30 points. Redabot B, meanwhile, lifts Redabot C above 12". Redabot A plays defense until Blueabots B and C can't get up on Blueabot A (the hoister), then runs for the end zone to score. However, if Redabot A leaves Blueabots B and C alone, they will score (by whatever means, I don't really care what.) So, Redabot A incurrs full penalty points (30). IF they make it back, then it's 60 points for Redalliance, (minus 20 penalty points at best) but Bluealliance has scored between 30 and 60 points. So at best, it's 40-30, Red, in bonus, at worst it's 60-10, Blue (again in bonus) beacuse Redabot A didn't arrive in time. If Redabot A does not return, it's 30-30 at best and 60-0, Blue, at worst.

Now, let's say that Redalliance can't lift any robots at all. So Redabot A plays the same defense. At best: 0-0, assuming that all defense takes place outside the home zone. At worst: 60 to -30, Blue.

So, if you can't lift at least one robot on your whole alliance above 12", you're toast. If you leave early, you may be toast. If somehow you can legally defend in their end zone and win in bonus, I'll be surprised.

NOTICE: I am not saying anything about defending outside the home zone, because that is not included in the original question.

[Lil' Lavery]

Actually, I'm not. Here's what I'm assuming:
1: Other than being in the opponents home zone, no rules are being broken. (No tipping other robots intentionally, in other words.--automatic DQ for you, IIRC, for tipping)
2: If you don't defend, your opponents will make it off the floor 12" within 5 seconds (which is feasable for a ramp or a high-powered lift).
3: You leave at 5 seconds or less, which gives you 30 penalty points. You are not able to fly across the field and hit a robot-sized target in 5 seconds or less. (You need to go faster than 10 f/s, which is about the upper limit of controllability.) If you leave sooner, one or two of the other alliance will score.
4: Your alliance is able to lift as many robots as necessary. This is a critical assumption. I'll explain why below.

Here is what will happen wiht the above assumptions:
Redabot A will play defense on Blueabots A, B, and C during the end game. Assuming that Redabot A is in the blue home zone, Redabot will incur up to 30 points. Redabot B, meanwhile, lifts Redabot C above 12". Redabot A plays defense until Blueabots B and C can't get up on Blueabot A (the hoister), then runs for the end zone to score. However, if Redabot A leaves Blueabots B and C alone, they will score (by whatever means, I don't really care what.) So, Redabot A incurrs full penalty points (30). IF they make it back, then it's 60 points for Redalliance, (minus 20 penalty points at best) but Bluealliance has scored between 30 and 60 points. So at best, it's 40-30, Red, in bonus, at worst it's 60-10, Blue (again in bonus) beacuse Redabot A didn't arrive in time. If Redabot A does not return, it's 30-30 at best and 60-0, Blue, at worst.

Now, let's say that Redalliance can't lift any robots at all. So Redabot A plays the same defense. At best: 0-0, assuming that all defense takes place outside the home zone. At worst: 60 to -30, Blue.

So, if you can't lift at least one robot on your whole alliance above 12", you're toast. If you leave early, you may be toast. If somehow you can legally defend in their end zone and win in bonus, I'll be surprised.

NOTICE: I am not saying anything about defending outside the home zone, because that is not included in the original question.
Scenario 1, nobody on the Red alliance can lift, Blueabot A can lift 2 @ 12":
What if Redabot A defends Blueabot A (the hoister) for the full end game? Then the Blue Alliance gets 0 bonus points instead of 60. The Red Alliance incurs 30 points of penalties. Bonus/penatly points are then -30 Red, 0 blue, a net result of 30 points in favor of Blue. If the Red alliance doesn't play defense, the the bonus/penalty points are then 0 Red, 60 blue, a net result of 60 points in favor of Blue.
The same can be applied to a scenario where the Red Alliance can only lift one bot, or lift 1 bot 4" and 1 bot 12".
The only time where you can keep up (in terms of bonus points) is when your alliance can lift an equal amount of potential points (in this case, 2 bots at 12").

But now you must factor in what other factors may take place (such as playing defense outside of the home zone, further manipulating the rack, and possibly yellow/red cards).

I still think people are focusing on <G25> way too much though. <G03> is where most yellow cards in this scenario are going to originate, with possible additional backlashes from <S01> (safety disables) and <G35> (intentional damage). As I said earlier, <G25> is really preventing you from accidental interference when going for ringers in their home zone, not actual intentional defense on other robots.

[EricH]

Scenario 1, nobody on the Red alliance can lift, Blueabot A can lift 2 @ 12":
What if Redabot A defends Blueabot A (the hoister) for the full end game? Then the Blue Alliance gets 0 bonus points instead of 60. The Red Alliance incurs 30 points of penalties. Bonus/penatly points are then -30 Red, 0 blue, a net result of 30 points in favor of Blue. If the Red alliance doesn't play defense, the the bonus/penalty points are then 0 Red, 60 blue, a net result of 60 points in favor of Blue.
The same can be applied to a scenario where the Red Alliance can only lift one bot, or lift 1 bot 4" and 1 bot 12".
The only time where you can keep up (in terms of bonus points) is when your alliance can lift an equal amount of potential points (in this case, 2 bots at 12").

But now you must factor in what other factors may take place (such as playing defense outside of the home zone, further manipulating the rack, and possibly yellow/red cards).You're right about that, but you need a row of 5 to win in Scenario 1 assuming defense is played in the home zone and 6 for no defense. As in, you (alliance need to be able to put up lots of ringers in big rows. And, defense outside the homezone was not included in the original.

How I personally would play the end game defense: stay outside their zone and hamper any robot coming in. Might not be as effective, but I've got a shorter time to get back and fewer penalties. (better chance of bonus for my side)

Actually, we discussed this as a team last week. It didn't go far, other than that it depends on the match. I'd give you the results if you'd give me the lineup. (2@12 or not, what number of ringers can go up per alliance, etc.)

[jonathan lall]

Actually, I'm not. Here's what I'm assuming:
[...]

These are some huge assumptions, especially the one about having to stay for the entire endgame. Prediction: few alliances will have the coordination to climb a narrow ramp in even ten seconds, let alone under five as you suggest, especially in qualifying. In fact, I bet I could defeat most double loading robots incurring only one 10-point penalty, maybe even none. But I'm not giving away all my secrets. As for your further assumption that it's impossible to drive across the field and hit something in five seconds or less, I've seen it done. In fact, I recall personally doing it in two or three seconds in 2004 with a five foot tall robot that could travel at 16f/s, knocking a doubler ball off a movable goal and saving the match. Actually, I think there's a video of it on SOAP somewhere if anyone cares to look... Believe me, there's a whole new world above 10f/s. So are you actually suggesting that there aren't any scenarios you are able to conceive of in which the strategy we are talking about would be useful?

Allow me: my alliance consists of three dishwashers, in which case nobody's climbing, lifting, or pirouetting over anything. In this case if the opposing alliance can lift anything at all, it's worth a try, isn't it?

[EricH]

These are some huge assumptions, especially the one about having to stay for the entire endgame. Prediction: few alliances will have the coordination to climb a narrow ramp in even ten seconds, let alone under five as you suggest, especially in qualifying. In fact, I bet I could defeat most double loading robots incurring only one 10-point penalty, maybe even none. I'm not giving away all my secrets. As for your further assumption that it's impossible to drive across the field and hit something in five seconds or less, I've seen it done. In fact, I recall personally doing it in two or three seconds in 2004 with a five foot tall robot that could travel at 16f/s, knocking a doubler ball off a movable goal and saving the match. Actually, I think there's a video of it on SOAP somewhere if anyone cares to look... Believe me, there's a whole new world above 10f/s. So are you actually suggesting that there aren't any scenarios you are able to conceive of in which the strategy we are talking about would be useful?

Allow me: my alliance consists of three dishwashers, in which case nobody's climbing, lifting, or pirouetting over anything. In this case if the opposing alliance can lift anything at all, it's worth a try, isn't it?I think you're making some big assuptions too. How many teams are going to have ramps? Probably quite a few. Get lined up (2 seconds if you've got a bit of maneuverability), drive up (2-3 seconds, including stopping and locking in if you do that). Yes, you can do it in 5 seconds. I'm also not saying it's impossible to hit something from across the field with a robot in five seconds or less, I'm saying that it's impossible (or close to it) to hit a specific size of something in that time. Those doubler balls were big targets compared to a robot-sized ramp.

I am saying that I can't think of any scenarios where this might be useful. I am NOT saying that none exist. Care to enlighten me?

(And your "dishwashers"--can they put on a row of five without being spoiled by the other alliance? or six? If not, you lose on ringers placed by the other alliance, assuming that they recover while you are going elsewhere.)

[MikeDubreuil]

So how's about we take this to the Wonderful Wizard of Q&A? I've submitted a question to them concerning this sort of situation--we'll see what develops.
The GDC has answered your question (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1341)... sort of. It would be helpful if the GDC answered questions directly, rather than reiterating something which the question submitter clearly understood.

What I don't understand is why you would get a yellow card. There is a clearly defined penalty for intentional tipping; does that mean you won't get a yellow card for that? :rolleyes:

[Billfred]

The GDC has answered your question (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1341)... sort of. It would be helpful if the GDC answered questions directly, rather than reiterating something which the question submitter clearly understood.

What I don't understand is why you would get a yellow card. There is a clearly defined penalty for intentional tipping; does that mean you won't get a yellow card for that? :rolleyes:Given that they don't even mention yellow cards in their response, I believe their response indicates that a yellow card is (pardon the pun) not in the cards.

[TheOtherTaylor]

The GDC said you will be penalized "according to <G25>"

Since Yellow cards were specifically asked about and not mentioned at all in the responce, I would believe that means no yellow card.

Seems like intentional violation of <G25> is a legitemate strategy.

[gondilon]

supposing that your robot is deploying its ramp(s) a bot from the opposing alliance in your home zone gets hit by the deploying, would you get disqualified even though they are not allowed to be there?

[Lil' Lavery]

The GDC never addressed <G03>, yellow cards may still be a possibility, and <G03> should probably be asked on the Q&A

[Scott358]

The GDC could end this by means of making the penatly stiffer than the benefit (thereby eliminating the reason for doing this). Even a yellow card may not be enough reason to deter this in the finals (since you have 3 bots, you could take 3 yellow cards). I would think putting an end to this would take something like the GDC stating "playing defense in the opponents end zone during the end game will result in a 100 pt penalty".

My concern is that if the GDC does not address this, there is potential for confusion throughout, with refs interpreting the rules differently (as is happening on this board) in each regional, and perhaps differently on the different fields at nationals.

In the end, I don't want to imagine what my grandma would say if I told her I broke the rules on purpose, but it was part of the strategy to win (but that's between her and I). It's my belief that the rule is in place in order to eliminate defense in the end zone during the end game, but until there is a penalty stiff enough, people will do it.

[dlavery]

Taken from this answer (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=5423) in the official FIRST Q&A system:
If a team is clearly and obviously violating <G25> of their own will, what latitude do drivers of an opposing ramp robot (one that would qualify as a wedge under <R05> if it weren't for <R06>) have? Is the ramp robot required to be careful not to wedge the violator while attempting to adjust and allow its alliance partners up, or has the obvious <G25> violator waived that protection by continuing to violate <G25> in a part of the field where wedges and ramps are expected?
In such cases, the referees shall defer to the 25-1/2th commandment: "Woe be to ye who doth violate the Home Zone of thyne opponent. For thyne opponent's wedge may reach out and smyte thee, and ye shall be right out of luck."

If a robot (REDABOT) is in an opponent's Home Zone during the End Game, by definition it is already in violation of a game rule. In such cases, it will have given up standard protections offered under the rules. If the opponent (BLUEABOT) is in its own Home Zone and has a deployed ramp, then under the provisions of Rule <R06> the ramp can form a wedge and BLUEABOT will not be penalized. If in the course of normal play, REDABOT encounters the wedge and is upended, then BLUEABOT will not be penalized (since REDABOT should not have been there in the first place).

However, note that this is not an automatic pass for BLUEABOT to agressively pursue REDABOT with the express purpose of tipping over REDABOT. Rule <G35> still applies, and referees will assess any applicable penalties (including assigning red/yellow cards) in the event of overly aggressive play.
So REDABOT heads for the Blue Home Zone, expecting to pick up 30 points of penalties while preventing the Red Alliance from scoring a potential 60 bonus points, for a net 30 point result in their favor. But in the process, BLUEABOT-1 has just put a target locator on REDABOT. BLUEABOT-2 unfolds their ramps, and the two alliance mates start lining up in position. REDABOT gets in the Blue Home Zone and tries to block, as the penalty points start to accumulate. BLUEABOT-1 and BLUEABOT-3 push against REDABOT, and REDABOT is pushed unevenly against the ramp/wedge. Losing traction, REDABOT is pushed farther up the ramp/wedge, which effectively lifts one side of the robot, and REDABOT falls over. The referee determines that this is "normal game play" as the Blue Robots were trying to gain their position on the ramp and REDABOT was intentionally blocking the way. REDABOT spends the rest of the End Game lying on it's side on the floor, collecting 30 points of penalties, while the Blue Alliance gets all 60 bonus points.

The fact that ramps may effectively become wedges and the robots can be overturned during normal game play without penalty seems to make a big distinction in the complexion of the End Game. The substantial probability of an overturned robot and a big penalty seems like a pretty big dis-incentive. I would think that the potential 90-point differential is a pretty big reason not to muck around too long in the opponent's Home Zone during the End Game.

-dave

[Billfred]

Taken from this answer (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=5423) in the official FIRST Q&A system:

(quote)

So REDABOT heads for the Blue Home Zone, expecting to pick up 30 points of penalties while preventing the Red Alliance from scoring a potential 60 bonus points, for a net 30 point result in their favor. But in the process, BLUEABOT-1 has just put a target locator on REDABOT. BLUEABOT-2 unfolds their ramps, and the two alliance mates start lining up in position. REDABOT gets in the Blue Home Zone and tries to block, as the penalty points start to accumulate. BLUEABOT-1 and BLUEABOT-3 push against REDABOT, and REDABOT is pushed unevenly against the ramp/wedge. Losing traction, REDABOT is pushed farther up the ramp/wedge, which effectively lifts one side of the robot, and REDABOT falls over. The referee determines that this is "normal game play" as the Blue Robots were trying to gain their position on the ramp and REDABOT was intentionally blocking the way. REDABOT spends the rest of the End Game lying on it's side on the floor, collecting 30 points of penalties, while the Blue Alliance gets all 60 bonus points.

The fact that ramps may effectively become wedges and the robots can be overturned during normal game play without penalty seems to make a big distinction in the complexion of the End Game. The substantial probability of an overturned robot and a big penalty seems like a pretty big dis-incentive. I would think that the potential 90-point differential is a pretty big reason not to muck around too long in the opponent's Home Zone during the End Game.

-dave

Cleric: 'Once at the number three, being the third period be reached, then, drivest thou thy Holy Robot Lifter of Antioch around thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall topple it.'

This is what I was hoping to hear from the GDC No gunning for them, but they can't shut you down from fear of tipping.

[Wayne Doenges]

I think Update 15 answers the question about incurring the 30 points in penalties for being in your opponents home zone during the last 15 seconds to stop them from scoring. What do you think?

Rule <T06> allows for the Head Referee to assign a YELLOW CARD to a team for
exhibiting egregious behavior. Examples of egregious behavior include, but certainly are
not limited to, the following:
a) Behaving in an unsportsmanlike manner repeatedly or after receiving a warning
b) Damaging the field repeatedly
c) Ramming robots repeatedly and/or excessively
d) Using foul language and/or gestures while on the field
e) Tipping robots repeatedly and/or excessively
f) Forcing your opponent to commit a rules violation
g) Gaining an advantage by breaking a rule repeatedly and/or excessively

[Derek Bessette]

Based on the answer to the initial question in the Q&A I believe the rule will stay the way it is. If a team plays defense in the home zone for the whole end game they will receive 30 point in penalties, no yellow cards, and no DQ's. Team update #15, seems to suggest the possibility of a yellow card in this scenario, however, based on the clarity of the initial answer in the Q&A I don't see this happening. I think this is a viable strategy that teams will use sparingly. If a team is behind in a match, there is little to no reason to do this. If you are ahead in the match then it seems as though there would be a better way of trying to get 30 points.

I do not think there is anything wrong with this strategy. It is a clear rule with measured consequences. I don't see any problem with taking advantage of that.

[Wayne Doenges]

I do not think there is anything wrong with this strategy. It is a clear rule with measured consequences. I don't see any problem with taking advantage of that.
My team (1501) has a very effective lift mechanism. We can easliy lift 500+ pounds. I think it would be alright to lift and tip any robot that is trying to stop us from getting the 60 points. We can move with our ramps/lift down.
It's not GP, but neither is disrupting another team from getting 60 points by camping in their home zone and receiving the 30 point penalty. I think any team that does this should be yellow carded.
*dons flame suit*

PS This opinion is my own, so don't take it out on my team.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

My team (1501) has a very effective lift mechanism. We can easliy lift 500+ pounds. I think it would be alright to lift and tip any robot that is trying to stop us from getting the 60 points. We can move with our ramps/lift down.
It's not GP, but neither is disrupting another team from getting 60 points by camping in their home zone and receiving the 30 point penalty. I think any team that does this should be yellow carded.
*dons flame suit*

PS This opinion is my own, so don't take it out on my team.
I believe that the yelllow cards will be given out for falgrent purposeful breaking of the rules.

Should the refs decide that a team is purposefully blocking the lifting, in the home zone during endgame, they will yellow card that team.

Should the refs believe that your team is purposfully tipping other teams, you will be yellow carded

JMHO

[Wayne Doenges]

Robot tipping :) is not even remotely in our strategy.
The 30 point penalty is to discourage the opponent from being in the home zone during the last 15 seconds. This is to allow safe elevation to 4" or 12". Where do you draw the line? If your alliance partner is going for your ramp or lift and another bot hits them, causing them to skew and fall off the ramp. Is that GP? Of course not. Your alliance partners are going to make every effort to get the 60 points if it's available.
Please stay out for the home zone if you don't belong there.

Thanks :)

[cbale2000]

My thoughts on this are, if FIRST has already established a penalty for breaking a rule (in this case a loss of up to 30 points) then they have taken into account that blocking would be a potential strategy. I don't see how you could assess one penalty but then add another one due repetition or intention (which can't always be proved) unless it specifically says so in the rules.

If it says "the penalty for being in the home zone is 10 points per 5 seconds", then that is the penalty, it doesn't say "the penalty for being in the home zone is 10 points per 5 seconds and potentially a yellow card".



My team actually discussed end game blocking when we were designing which lead us to our two ramp design, so if one gets blocked, both robots can still get up on the other. :)

[Wayne Doenges]

it doesn't say "the penalty for being in the home zone is 10 points per 5 seconds and potentially a yellow card".
But it does say this. Below is an paragraph from Update #15

Rule <T06> allows for the Head Referee to assign a YELLOW CARD to a team for exhibiting egregious behavior. Examples of egregious behavior include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:
g) Gaining an advantage by breaking a rule repeatedly and/or excessively

[akshar]

But it does say this. Below is an paragraph from Update #15

Rule <T06> allows for the Head Referee to assign a YELLOW CARD to a team for exhibiting egregious behavior. Examples of egregious behavior include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:
g) Gaining an advantage by breaking a rule repeatedly and/or excessively

blocking in the endzone is probabably not a good idea. but if your in the opponents endzone, and you stay there, you ar enot repeadeatly breaking the rule, if you never leave. you broke the rule once and decided to stay there. however if judges remmeber that you are doing this every match, then its repeated.
also although i think that blocking in the endzone is not a good idea, i also do not think it is GP. its part of the game. if an alliance knowingly plans this, then they know the consequences, and should deal with them.

[EricH]

blocking in the endzone is probabably not a good idea. but if your in the opponents endzone, and you stay there, you ar enot repeadeatly breaking the rule, if you never leave. you broke the rule once and decided to stay there. however if judges remmeber that you are doing this every match, then its repeated.You break the rule between one and three times (depending whether you go by the penalties or the number of times in the zone).

Quite simply, once that first warning sounds, get out of there or it's penalty/potential tip/possible yellow card time. It isn't worth sticking around (which is how it was apparently designed to be.)

[akshar]

You break the rule between one and three times (depending whether you go by the penalties or the number of times in the zone).

Quite simply, once that first warning sounds, get out of there or it's penalty/potential tip/possible yellow card time. It isn't worth sticking around (which is how it was apparently designed to be.)

thanks for clarifying that