Tipping opponents robots

[Homsar66]

Im wondering if a robot would be penalized for hitting an opponent's robot going over a bump, and flipping it, would be cause for a penalty. G36 says that strategies aimed at flipping over robots is a cause for a yellow, but then g37 states that high speed collisions and bumper to bumper interaction is legal. If a robot flipped another while it was vulnerable on the bump, would a ref call a penalty even if it was a bumper to bumper hit?

[Alex Dinsmoor]

That actually came up in one of our strategizing sessions yesterday, so I'm glad you asked this.

What we decided (which may be wrong) is that if you accidentally flip another robot over while making legal contact between the two robots, then it is completely legal.

Although if this is your strategy, or you contact them above or below the bumpers, then it is illegal.

[gorrilla]

Im wondering if a robot would be penalized for hitting an opponent's robot going over a bump, and flipping it, would be cause for a penalty. G36 says that strategies aimed at flipping over robots is a cause for a yellow, but then g37 states that high speed collisions and bumper to bumper interaction is legal. If a robot flipped another while it was vulnerable on the bump, would a ref call a penalty even if it was a bumper to bumper hit?

I interpreted G36 as it being intended to remove robot mechanisms or stratagies designed to flip other robots...

I't would really be up to the Ref' to decide if you intentionally "gave a flipper to the throat" (sorry, I had to put this in here, my football coach always says this to the defensive line) LOL:D

[dtengineering]

Seek clarification on the Q&A, but in the "Aim High" game, there was a 30 degree ramp leading up to a platform, and there was a LOT of "vigorous interaction" between robots on and around the platform. If you made legal contact with another robot on or around the platform... and they tipped over... that was their problem.

Not that you would tip them intentionally, or cheer when it happened, but you didn't have to worry about being called for tipping.

"Previous year's rules do not apply to this game, etc. etc."

Jason

[Homsar66]

That actually came up in one of our strategizing sessions yesterday, so I'm glad you asked this.

What we decided (which may be wrong) is that if you accidentally flip another robot over while making legal contact between the two robots, then it is completely legal.

Although if this is your strategy, or you contact them above or below the bumpers, then it is illegal.

That's what I thought, but then how is a ref going to tell the difference between a hit designed to flip a robot and a hit designed to stop a robot? I wouldn't think they would leave such an arbitrary decision to a ref. And g37 also says interaction outside the bumpers is legal on the ramps.

*sighs* Well they at least they're going to accomplish their goal of making it similar to mainstream sports. I think this year will leave more than a few teams unhappy with referee decisions.


EDIT: Thanks jason, that's what Im hoping they'll do this year. Obviously a flipping spatula is not legal, but I didn't want to either not block for fear of penalties, or have a game changing penalty for blocking, and flipping another.

[eugenebrooks]

There is no rule that says that a defending robot must clear
a path for an offensive robot to use in crossing a barrier.
It is a precarious crossing, crossing on top of another robot
would be done at your own risk.

A defending robot that "hits" a robot that is crossing,
causing it to be up-ended, will be something that is left
to the referees. In Aim High, the precarious spot was
the high value scoring position, and it was a real war
there for good reasons. I don't think that you have
that justification with the barrier crossings in this game.

Eugene

[Mr. Van]

So, with the photos of robots with 6, 8 (or 10 or 12 or ...) wheels "down" being posted more and more, I got to thinking about this issue again.

These "low clearance" robots hang out a considerable distance as they traverse the bump. This brings up several questions:

1. If a "low clearance" bot goes over the bump and comes down on top of another bot on the other side of the bump, is there a penalty? <G38>

2. If a "low clearance" bot is extended (hanging out over the edge) of the bump and another bot comes up underneath it moving in the opposite direction, it is likely that the "low clearance" bot will be flipped. Is this a penalty? <G36>

3. Does the answer to either question change based on "intention"? (How will a ref know?)

4. Is the bump a true "anything goes" zone?

From what I understand - a "low clearance" robot runs a substantial risk of driving on top of another robot, which violates <G38b> - so they've got to be real careful going over a "defended" bump.
On the other hand, they run the risk of being flipped by an aggressive defender, possibly making a defender guilty of violating <G36> which would suggest that blocking a "low clearance" bot is a very dangerous strategy.

Humm...

-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Ken Leung]

I would be very interested in seeing any clarification about this. For any robots designed to deny a particular zone from opponents, specifically, from opponents who cannot travel through the tunnel, this could be a really tricky situation to be in.

When an 8 wheel drive come over the bump trying to get into the zone you are defending, do you:

1. Get to the top of the bump first and deny them that position,
2. climb the bump at the same time as your opponents and hope to make bumper and bumper contact only,
3. push them while half their base is sticking out at the top of the bump,
4. Sit on the incline on the your side of the bump such that when their robot cross over, they will land on your robot,
5. wait until their robot stabilize on top of the bump before climbing and pushing,
6. or wait for your opponent to cross the peak and begin climbing down on your side before you start pushing.

I can see option 3 is being closed to violating G36, but option 4 might be acceptable to people.

Bear in mind all of these will happen within a split second, making it hard to tell what actually happened. What's the difference between climbing up your side of the bump, getting your front 2 wheels at the top, sit there, versus climbing up your side of the bump, get your front 2 wheels at the top, and begin pushing when the other robot gets there?

[Vikesrock]

I would be very interested in seeing any clarification about this. For any robots designed to deny a particular zone from opponents, specifically, from opponents who cannot travel through the tunnel, this could be a really tricky situation to be in.

When an 8 wheel drive come over the bump trying to get into the zone you are defending, do you:

1. Get to the top of the bump first and deny them that position,


This option may be very likely to get you flipped over on your back or sitting up on top of the robot you were trying to defend.

Even if all the contact remains bumper-to-bumper, the climbing robot will bu pushing up at a considerable angle on the robot sitting up on top of the bump.

[Raul]

Did anyone ever submit a question to have this clarified on the Q&A system?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

So, with the photos of robots with 6, 8 (or 10 or 12 or ...) wheels "down" being posted more and more, I got to thinking about this issue again.

These "low clearance" robots hang out a considerable distance as they traverse the bump. This brings up several questions:

1. If a "low clearance" bot goes over the bump and comes down on top of another bot on the other side of the bump, is there a penalty? <G38>

2. If a "low clearance" bot is extended (hanging out over the edge) of the bump and another bot comes up underneath it moving in the opposite direction, it is likely that the "low clearance" bot will be flipped. Is this a penalty? <G36>

3. Does the answer to either question change based on "intention"? (How will a ref know?)

4. Is the bump a true "anything goes" zone?

From what I understand - a "low clearance" robot runs a substantial risk of driving on top of another robot, which violates <G38b> - so they've got to be real careful going over a "defended" bump.
On the other hand, they run the risk of being flipped by an aggressive defender, possibly making a defender guilty of violating <G36> which would suggest that blocking a "low clearance" bot is a very dangerous strategy.

Humm...

-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

The following is my opinion and not that of a FIRST referee:

1> Maybe
2> Maybe
3> Not so much intention, but how flagrent it is
4> Most likely it will be the wild west. Expect contact, expect contact outside the bumperzone, and expect to get rolled if you are not careful about where and when you cross.


I would be very interested in seeing any clarification about this. For any robots designed to deny a particular zone from opponents, specifically, from opponents who cannot travel through the tunnel, this could be a really tricky situation to be in.

When an 8 wheel drive come over the bump trying to get into the zone you are defending, do you:

1. Get to the top of the bump first and deny them that position,
2. climb the bump at the same time as your opponents and hope to make bumper and bumper contact only,
3. push them while half their base is sticking out at the top of the bump,
4. Sit on the incline on the your side of the bump such that when their robot cross over, they will land on your robot,
5. wait until their robot stabilize on top of the bump before climbing and pushing,
6. or wait for your opponent to cross the peak and begin climbing down on your side before you start pushing.

I can see option 3 is being closed to violating G36, but option 4 might be acceptable to people.

Bear in mind all of these will happen within a split second, making it hard to tell what actually happened. What's the difference between climbing up your side of the bump, getting your front 2 wheels at the top, sit there, versus climbing up your side of the bump, get your front 2 wheels at the top, and begin pushing when the other robot gets there?

Again my opinions here:
1> will get the defending bot rolled
2> Best scenario, and the least likely to happen in the heat of competition
3> Most likely defense and most likely to roll the crossing robot
4> Least likely to happen because it'll be the most likely to damage the defending bot
5> Won't happen
6> Give up the advantage? won't happen.

Considering the options, anyone building to cross the bumps should be prepared to have to right themselves or figure out how to cross and avoid defense.

I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but I suggest you design for 'vigorous interaction' with other robots.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

That's what I thought, but then how is a ref going to tell the difference between a hit designed to flip a robot and a hit designed to stop a robot? I wouldn't think they would leave such an arbitrary decision to a ref.

Refs, FTAs and LRIs are the most highly trained volunteers in the competition. After seeing a few matches they will most certainly know.

I bet your answer contains the words "that would not be in the spirit of the FRC".

[Stephen Kowski]

I bet your answer contains the words "that would not be in the spirit of the FRC".

Maybe, but it could also contain words that deal with a high center of gravity or not having a righting mechanism. Really depends on who pushes, when they pushed and how it appears to the referees. As I found out while reffing, it is very difficult to judge intent.

[O'Sancheski]

yeah... if it is done by accident and no more than once, then it is ok... but if it seems intentional and you have been warned than you will get a red card...

oh one thing i forgot to mention... you will only get a red card if it is the contact damaged the other robot

[jamie_1930]

This is illegal under rule <G36>

<G36> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: YELLOW CARD

[Vikesrock]

This is illegal under rule <G36>

Yes, but how can you tell the difference between a robot that is trying to tip another robot and a robot that is just trying to prevent another from crossing the bump and entering a different zone?

[jamie_1930]

Yes, but how can you tell the difference between a robot that is trying to tip another robot and a robot that is just trying to prevent another from crossing the bump and entering a different zone?

Simple, as Al stated earlier repeated purposeful offenses are easily detected by trained field hands and refs, not to mention all the other teams that are watching you and realizing they don't want to be associated with teams participating in such actions. There's also the matter of Gracious Professionalism and honor that should prevent teams from performing such blatant rule violations.

[Ken Leung]

Here is the key of the issue.

Let's say the opponent is designed such that it is very difficult to trip their robot over, on or off the bump. Let's say their robot was tipped over after engaging in a pushing match with your robot on the bump. Is it considered a penalty if:

1. The tipping resulted from accidental contacts between the two robots.
2. The tipping resulted from bumper to bumper interactions between the two robots.
3. The tipping resulted from aggressive maneuvers from your robot.

Ok, second scenario.

Let's say the opponent is designed such that it is very easy to tip their robot over on the bump (a slight touch would do). Let's say their robot was tipped over after engaging in a pushing match with your robot on the bump. Is it considered a penalty if:

1. The tipping resulted from accidental contacts between the two robots.
2. The tipping resulted from bumper to bumper interactions between the two robots.
3. The tipping resulted from aggressive maneuvers from your robot.


To me, the opponent must bear some responsibility in designing their robot such that when they are crossing the bump, they cannot be tipped easily. Otherwise, no one will dare doing any sort of defense on the bump. If any actions that lead to a tipped robot also lead to a penalty, regardless of the situation, I am just going to let the opponent cross the bump.

[XaulZan11]

To me, the opponent must bear some responsibility in designing their robot such that when they are crossing the bump, they cannot be tipped easily. Otherwise, no one will dare doing any sort of defense on the bump. If any actions that lead to a tipped robot also lead to a penalty, regardless of the situation, I am just going to let the opponent cross the bump.

Agreed.

I don't think it should matter if the other robot tipped or if the other robot broke. If your robot was agressively intending to break or tip another robot, it should be a penalty, regardless of the result.

As an analogy, in football penalties are not thrown when a player get hurts but when an illegal hit occured. It doesn't matter if the QB suffers a concusion, a helmet to helmet hit results in a 15 yard penalty. Bringing this idea back to the first word, it doesn't matter if the other robot breaks or tips, contact outside the bumperzone or contact with intent to damage results in a penalty.




(Although, I'm tempted to build a robot that is super tipy to teams would be afraid to get even close to me :D )

[jamie_1930]

Here is the key of the issue.

Let's say the opponent is designed such that it is very difficult to trip their robot over, on or off the bump. Let's say their robot was tipped over after engaging in a pushing match with your robot on the bump. Is it considered a penalty if:

1. The tipping resulted from accidental contacts between the two robots.
2. The tipping resulted from bumper to bumper interactions between the two robots.
3. The tipping resulted from aggressive maneuvers from your robot.

Ok, second scenario.

Let's say the opponent is designed such that it is very easy tip their robot over on the bump (a slight touch would do). Let's say their robot was tipped over after engaging in a pushing match with your robot on the bump. Is it considered a penalty if:

1. The tipping resulted from accidental contacts between the two robots.
2. The tipping resulted from bumper to bumper interactions between the two robots.
3. The tipping resulted from aggressive maneuvers from your robot.


To me, the opponent must bear some responsibility in designing their robot such that when they are crossing the bump, they cannot be tipped easily. Otherwise, no one will dare doing any sort of defense on the bump. If any actions that lead to a tipped robot also lead to a penalty, regardless of the situation, I am just going to let the opponent cross the bump.

There is no merit to the differences between these scenarios, for this argument, strategy aimed at tipping your opponents are illegal and incur a yellow card under the violation of rule <G36>. The differences you've presented are whether or not the opponents robot is properly engineered to be as stable as possible or it is easily tippable. In the cases of accidental collisions it would be accidental and would incur no penalty. Although it does not matter whether the interaction was within the legal bumper zone or it was not purposefully tipping you opponents is an illegal action. Also aggressive actions would be considered purposeful and will incur a penalty.

For the actions you've presented on playing defense to a robot on a bump the best action, on your part, would be to stand in the opposing robots way, and push back with your robot as fit to prevent their forward movement. With this you should be able to prevent tipping on both sides, and if tipping does occur, in my opinion under these circumstances it would be considered accidental and therefore legal.

[Steve W]

They did say that you should build a robot that could right itself. Back in the day many a robot were pushed up the 30 degree ramp and then fell down. I never saw one penalty called and everyone knew what was happening. What I suggest has been suggested already. Put it on the Q&A and see what response you get. After all, they designed the game and rules so they can give the answers.

[Vikesrock]

To me, the opponent must bear some responsibility in designing their robot such that when they are crossing the bump, they cannot be tipped easily. Otherwise, no one will dare doing any sort of defense on the bump. If any actions that lead to a tipped robot also lead to a penalty, regardless of the situation, I am just going to let the opponent cross the bump.

I agree completely. Our robot, on it's own should not tip over during normal bump crossings. We are, however, one of those robots that "hangs over" as it attempts to cross the bump. We fully expect to be tipped at some point when making an ill advised bump crossing and will be prepared for when it happens.

As a coach I lobbied heavily for righting capability as I didn't want to be responsible for making the call (to go over the bump) that got us flipped and have sit there helpless the rest of the match. As a team we decided that the penalty (not in the rules sense of the word) for being flipped was too great to take the risk of not being able to get back up.

[IndySam]

Makes me glad we are not in a week one regional. The calls will be interesting.

[jamie_1930]

And makes me annoyed we are :(

[Ken Leung]

Did anyone ever submit a question to have this clarified on the Q&A system?

The following question is submitted in the Q&A Forum:

""<G36> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: YELLOW CARD"

I am looking for a clarification on the implication of G36 on Robot to Robot interactions occurring on the bump. For any robots designed to deny a particular zone from opponents, specifically, to deny it from opponents who cannot travel through the tunnel, it could be a really tricky situation to be in.

Consider the following scenarios:

Let's say the opponent is designed such that it is very difficult to trip their robot over, on or off the bump. Let's say their robot was tipped over after engaging in a pushing match with your robot on the bump. Is it considered a penalty if:

1. The tipping resulted from accidental contacts between the two robots.
2. The tipping resulted from bumper to bumper interactions between the two robots.
3. The tipping resulted from aggressive maneuvers from your robot.

Ok, second scenario.

Let's say the opponent is designed such that it is very easy to tip their robot over on the bump (a slight touch would do). Let's say their robot was tipped over after engaging in a pushing match with your robot on the bump. Is it considered a penalty if:

1. The tipping resulted from accidental contacts between the two robots.
2. The tipping resulted from bumper to bumper interactions between the two robots.
3. The tipping resulted from aggressive maneuvers from your robot.

(Bear in mind all of these could happen within a split second, so it could be very hard to tell what actually happened during a match.)


I understand teams are told to be really careful about the possibility of tipping while going over the bump. I understand teams are encouraged to build self-righting mechanisms on their robots. I also understands teams should not intentionally tip another robot over, whether the opponents are going over the bump or not.

It would be really helpful, however, to know if the ruling will be more critical toward robots unstable on the bump, more critical toward robots defending the bump from robots unstable on the bump, or equally critical to both."

[Stephen Kowski]

Simple, as Al stated earlier repeated purposeful offenses are easily detected by trained field hands and refs, not to mention all the other teams that are watching you and realizing they don't want to be associated with teams participating in such actions. There's also the matter of Gracious Professionalism and honor that should prevent teams from performing such blatant rule violations.

A) It may not be a rule violation based on interpretation. So I'm not sure the GP/honor spiel applies.

B) How do you tell something is purposeful? Do you know what that driver is thinking or what the strategy of the team is/was?

I think 06 is a good reference, many fell over without any penalties/yellow cards due to bumper to bumper interaction. Its just the cost of doing business with steep ramps.

As Steve W pointed out they told you to be able to right yourself in the kickoff broadcast. They said to be aware of a high center of gravity.

If the bumps are safe zones all of a sudden I hope the GDC says so clearly and soon. If this is 05 again we should know and be prepared.

[Ken Leung]

Response from the GDC:

We cannot address hypothetical tactical game situations. Academically speaking, we can provide the following clarification per Rules <G36> and <G37>:

1. Tipping as a result of incidental contact between two ROBOT is not a violation.
2. Tipping as a result of BUMPER to BUMPER interactions is not a violation.
3. Tipping as a result of aggressive ROBOT behavior will be left to the discretion of the Referees on site.

So, like many said earlier, I would be interested in seeing how the definition of "aggressive ROBOT behavior" evolve over the weeks. We are going to San Diego in week 1, so that will be very interesting.

Certainly ramming at full speed up the bump at the belly of the opponent can be defined as aggressive. But where is the line?

[Jared Russell]

One thing that caught my eye was the penalty for violating <G36>. Or, more accurately, the lack of one. <G36> violations receive a YELLOW CARD, but no explicit PENALTY. This is the only rule that I can find that has this particular punishment. Two or more YELLOW CARDS turn into RED CARDS per the Tournament rules, but to me this would indicate that you get one "get out of jail free" card per event (actually, one in the qualification rounds and one in the elimination rounds since you get a clean slate for the playoffs).

Lawyering the rules? Absolutely - but I'd rather the discussion begin now than after my robot has been intentionally flipped on Einstein...

[Carol]

One thing that caught my eye was the penalty for violating <G36>. Or, more accurately, the lack of one. <G36> violations receive a YELLOW CARD, but no explicit PENALTY. This is the only rule that I can find that has this particular punishment. Two or more YELLOW CARDS turn into RED CARDS per the Tournament rules, but to me this would indicate that you get one "get out of jail free" card per event (actually, one in the qualification rounds and one in the elimination rounds since you get a clean slate for the playoffs).

Lawyering the rules? Absolutely - but I'd rather the discussion begin now than after my robot has been intentionally flipped on Einstein...

Read also <G38>

[thefro526]

So, like many said earlier, I would be interested in seeing how the definition of "aggressive ROBOT behavior" evolve over the weeks. We are going to San Diego in week 1, so that will be very interesting.

Certainly ramming at full speed up the bump at the belly of the opponent can be defined as aggressive. But where is the line?

We'll be competing in week 1 as well, hopefully they'll be a bit understanding while we're all learning how to play the game...

After reading the GDC response I feel like I have a better understanding of this whole situation except for "Aggressive Robot Behavior". I'll probably have my Driver's ask the Head Ref about this during the Driver's Meeting before Qualifications just so that we can get a feel for how the refs will be making calls.

In my experiences as a Driver I found that What I considered to be non-aggressive contact usually is the exact opposite. Whoops.

[Molten]

There is no merit to the differences between these scenarios, for this argument, strategy aimed at tipping your opponents are illegal and incur a yellow card under the violation of rule <G36>. The differences you've presented are whether or not the opponents robot is properly engineered to be as stable as possible or it is easily tippable. In the cases of accidental collisions it would be accidental and would incur no penalty. Although it does not matter whether the interaction was within the legal bumper zone or it was not purposefully tipping you opponents is an illegal action. Also aggressive actions would be considered purposeful and will incur a penalty.

For the actions you've presented on playing defense to a robot on a bump the best action, on your part, would be to stand in the opposing robots way, and push back with your robot as fit to prevent their forward movement. With this you should be able to prevent tipping on both sides, and if tipping does occur, in my opinion under these circumstances it would be considered accidental and therefore legal.

I mean no rudeness, just to give warning. I'd expect to get tipped at least twice during the qualifications with this mindset. I'm not a driver, coach, or even participating in this years game other then reading on CD and watching online so I am no threat to tip anyone over. However, anyone out there is. Back in 2006 our robot tipped at the end of 75% of our matches because we couldn't make it up the ramp but continued to try. Our robot received no damage because it was built properly. Also, in 2007 our robot got tipped from a foot of the ground multiple times because we weren't seated on the lift properly. It happens. Accept it, expect it and build your robot robust. Otherwise you will regret it.

[dtengineering]

Here's the link to that Q&A response:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=14598

The important part of the response is:

1. Tipping as a result of incidental contact between two ROBOT is not a violation.
2. Tipping as a result of BUMPER to BUMPER interactions is not a violation.
3. Tipping as a result of aggressive ROBOT behavior will be left to the discretion of the Referees on site.

This is pretty much normal for FRC. I always tell people, "It's a non-contact sport... like Basketball." :) Bring on the bumps!

Jason

[Joe Johnson]

Here's the link to that Q&A response:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=14598

The important part of the response is:



This is pretty much normal for FRC. I always tell people, "It's a non-contact sport... like Basketball." :) Bring on the bumps!

Jason

How is this being enforced in practice?

We have a robust robot chassis with very grippy tires. Given our design and seeing 3 competitions live, I believe that our robot has a low enough CG together with enough traction, power and torque (and I use those terms advisedly) to basically tip over 80-90% of the robots in any given competition by just driving into them (the grippier their tires, the easier the task).

Forgetting for the moment about whether or not my braggadocious (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/braggadocious?r=66) claim above is true, suppose it is true for some team out there. GP and <G36> tell me that going around tipping robots is not a FIRST Appropriate Strategy (FAS), but where do you draw the line? When can the driver of that mythical robot put the pedal to the metal and when should she back off?

Can she push a robot up and over a bump? How about under the tunnel? Into the goal? What if it is a straight up pushing match in the middle of the field -- if the other robot starts to go over, does she have a moral obligation to back off to prevent a tip? Morals aside, what are the ref's going to call?

I am looking for advice on a real dilemma not a theoretical possibility. In this case, where do you draw the line between FAS and non-FAS?

Your thoughts are welcome, no more than that, sought out and celebrated.

Joe J.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Joe,
The refs are well versed in this and have a good handle on how the match is progressing by watching the robots up close and the faces of the drivers. This game is a little more difficult than most since many robots tip when coming over the bump. However, it is not as hard to tell that an opposition robot is in a position to help the fall or get out of the way. For instance, a robot that is already on two wheels and gets pushed over by another robot is not the same as the same robot backing off so there is no contact. A repeated hit on a robot that is already on the bump and terribly off balance is obviously an attempt to tip the robot. Pushing and shoving is expected, repeated charging from across the field is overly aggressive behavior.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

How is this being enforced in practice?

We have a robust robot chassis with very grippy tires. Given our design and seeing 3 competitions live, I believe that our robot has a low enough CG together with enough traction, power and torque (and I use those terms advisedly) to basically tip over 80-90% of the robots in any given competition by just driving into them (the grippier their tires, the easier the task).

Forgetting for the moment about whether or not my braggadocious (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/braggadocious?r=66) claim above is true, suppose it is true for some team out there. GP and <G36> tell me that going around tipping robots is not a FIRST Appropriate Strategy (FAS), but where do you draw the line? When can the driver of that mythical robot put the pedal to the metal and when should she back off?

Can she push a robot up and over a bump? How about under the tunnel? Into the goal? What if it is a straight up pushing match in the middle of the field -- if the other robot starts to go over, does she have a moral obligation to back off to prevent a tip? Morals aside, what are the ref's going to call?

I am looking for advice on a real dilemma not a theoretical possibility. In this case, where do you draw the line between FAS and non-FAS?

Your thoughts are welcome, no more than that, sought out and celebrated.

Joe J.

Joe,

We found that the grippier your wheels are the more chance that you will be tipped. We believe the reason for this is that the bumpers are 10" off the ground this year, giving a larger lever arm to rotate the robot in the 'roll' direction. Wheels that slip more tend to help a robot not go over while wheels with higher CoF 'dig in'.

Just an observance ;)

[Jimmy Cao]

Joe,

We found that the grippier your wheels are the more chance that you will be tipped. We believe the reason for this is that the bumpers are 10" off the ground this year, giving a larger lever arm to rotate the robot in the 'roll' direction. Wheels that slip more tend to help a robot not go over while wheels with higher CoF 'dig in'.

Just an observance ;)

I think you're describing 2 different situations here, tipping versus being tipped.

When tipping (intentional or not), you're either head to head, or you're pushing on the side of their robot. In both of those situations, higher CoF -> Greater force vector -> Better "tipper". I think this is the situation Dr. Joe was describing.

When being tipped, you're often being pushed from the side. Maybe in this case lower CoF makes it more difficult for you to be tipped over. I think this is the situation you're describing.

[Joe Johnson]

Joe,

We found that the grippier your wheels are the more chance that you will be tipped. We believe the reason for this is that the bumpers are 10" off the ground this year, giving a larger lever arm to rotate the robot in the 'roll' direction. Wheels that slip more tend to help a robot not go over while wheels with higher CoF 'dig in'.

Just an observance ;)

Certainly one way to ensure that you are hard to tip in the middle of the field is to have slippery wheels. Having grippy wheels also make you more vulnerable to tipping from the side.

We can debate the physics of this years bumper etc, but I remain firm in my thought that there are robots out there (my team's robot one of them, in my opinion) that could be quite effective at tipping other robots if they wanted to be.

So... ...what are the ethics and rules regarding this behavior?

That is what I would like to discuss.

Joe J.

[Jared Russell]

Certainly one way to ensure that you are hard to tip in the middle of the field is to have slippery wheels. Having grippy wheels also make you more vulnerable to tipping from the side.

We can debate the physics of this years bumper etc, but I remain firm in my thought that there are robots out there (my team's robot one of them, in my opinion) that could be quite effective at tipping other robots if they wanted to be.

So... ...what are the ethics and rules regarding this behavior?

That is what I would like to discuss.

Joe J.

We also have a robot whose CoG seems to be lower than 75%+ of those who we have faced. In head-to-head pushing matches (and even moreso in head-to-side cases), the other robot usually starts to tip. We didn't really try to use this to our advantage (especially after the story below), but some teams clearly did in the playoffs at NYC when facing some high-CoG bots - their first action in teleop was to ram their opponent and force them to flip. I believe that there were penalties for this, but no red cards.

At NYC, we did receive a red card for "aggressive robot behavior". We were pushing the bot that was playing defense on us, and they flipped over. Had we pulled back a split second earlier, they probably would have landed on their wheels (but it was impossible to see this at the time - the action was right in front of our player station and the collision was blocked by the body of the robot that was tipping).

Although the referee did not clarify the reason for the red card short of "aggressive robot behavior", I think that we probably would have been alright had we not then made repeated contact (though not explicitly intentional or damaging) with the flipped bot while we were scoring - the bot flipped right in front of our left goal, and the right goal had one of our teammates lodged in it, so we tried our best to squeak by the opponent and score. So my takeaway was that head-to-head pushing matches are fair game, but once somebody has been flipped you must take extreme care not to contact them - at least that's how things were called at NYC.

[Collin Fultz]

Joe -

To me, it's the difference between the old 5-yard and 15-yard facemask penalities. It's really a judgement call on the refs part, and I would have a student talk to your head-ref to see how they're going to call it.

If you tip somebody because you're both driving and it happens quickly, probably not a penalty/yellow/red card. To me, this is an FAS.

If you tip them because they're already off-balance and it looks intentional, that's probably a penalty and a non-FAS.

[Jon Stratis]

Refs can tell a lot about intentions after seeing teams play for 3 days. If you're driving aggressively (and most people are) but back off before tipping people most of the time, they're more likely to assume it was an accident the one time you do tip someone. On the other hand, if they see you tipping people match after match, they're going to start acting on it to make you stop. Likewise, if a match is close and tipping an opponent is likely enough to change the results, they're going to look closely at that.

As with most FIRST games, hard impacts and pushing people around is expected. The refs will do their best to determine intentional and accidental occurrences, but we can all help them out by remembering gracious professionalism, and acting in a way that leaves no doubt as to your intentions.

[TubaMorg]

I have been watching quite a few matches and the referees seem to be pretty consistent on the tipping calls. There is a difference between tipping from incidental contact and intentional tipping. The ones I have seen called were incidents in which two robots are pushing head to head and one gains the advantage when the other one begins to tip. At this point, if the "grounded" robot continues to push their advantage by driving through and flipping the other robot, then a yellow card is almost always called for "causing intentional robot damage". However, if a flip is imminent and the "winner" stops or backs off, then no call is made. I have not seen any calls where flips resulting from contact with the humps are coincidental with robot contact...as long as there is no obvious aggressive move to take advantage of a precarious position.

[ExTexan]

I have reffed 3 competitions this year and can offer my opinion. Be clear that this is a head ref call at each competition so my opinion is only that unless I have on the yellow shirt. That said, from my experience and what I read, we are pretty consistent.

The penalities I and others have called have been mostly described in this thread. When you lift a bot up and it appears to be tipping, your behavior at that point determines the penalty. If you clearly keep pushing it over or hit it again (in the ref's opinion, not yours) we have to decide intentional tipping. It's not a clear cut thing and subject to the viewer. Your driver may be pulling back on the joysticks before the other bot tips but maybe your wheels spin or there is a lag. We see one thing while you are trying and seeing another.

We also must decide if the tipped bot had a chance not to tip. Say 2 bots rear up (horse lingo) on each other in the middle of the floor. If one tips but could have backed away instead of fighting the rearing war then the call is questionable.

Clearly the GDC says this is a contact sport but the spirit of the game is not to turn the other alliance on their backs so your bots can win. Play hard, play clean, and if you get penalized when you think you shouldn't and you can't remember a single time that you didn't get penalized when you should have then you need to think harder! :yikes:

[Al Skierkiewicz]

So... ...what are the ethics and rules regarding this behavior?

That is what I would like to discuss.

Joe J.

Joe,
I don't think the culture has ever changed for this. Tipping on purpose is bad, and won't get you picked in the finals. Tipping on accident and feeling bad about it, is what is expected using GP as a guide. It will happen in the contact type of game we have. Avoiding it will demonstrate GP. Trying like mad to help keep an opponent from tipping while in contact with you in my opinion is also a good thing. I know many drivers that come in contact with a robot that is driving hard will just stop moving and let the other robot decide the next course of action. If they continue and tip, that was their decision. If you meet at the top of the bump and the opposing robot continues to try and drive over you ( while you hold your ground), they will suffer when they fall off and turn turtle.

[dtengineering]

I hope refs are also looking for robots that are "tippy" and yet still choose to get into pushing matches with machines that have a low CG.

Just as it behooves teams to not intentionally tip a robot, teams who have tippy robots should also bear the responsibility to avoid situations where they might be tipped.

It might not be gracious to intentionally tip and opponent, but it sure isn't professional to make your robot try and do something it wasn't designed to do. Teams with tip-resistant (or self-righting) good pushers sacrificed something during build to gain those characteristics and should be able to use them in competition.

Jason

[efoote868]

Seems to me that tipping is a very rare occurrence during qualifications, most teams are live and let live. The only time that heavy defense is played during qualifications is when two highly ranked teams, near the end of qualifications are looking to gain a few ranks on one another.

Other than that, it would seem that everything is much more competitive in the finals and its no holds barred. Tipping seems a much more common occurrence when a robot is going to score by pushing balls in... the ramp leading up to the goal seems to cause more problems for teams than the bump. This is probably because the teams, rules, and refs don't seem to see it as a problem area until its too late.

I hope to never hear an alliance say "You need to disable this robot through any means necessary." I'd much rather hear "Play heavy defense," or "Don't let them score." The intent behind the actions will determine how the team responds to averse situations.

[Joe Johnson]

All,
I am not a FIRST Noob. It's been a decade and a half since I read the Parade Article "They're competing with their minds - and loving it" by Michael Ryan (by the way, free Mt. Dew to someone who can find an online copy of that article for me to link to) -- an article that changed the arc of my life in ways too numerous to list...

I am asking for this discussion because
a) I have a new team with new drivers and one of the most aggressive chassis I have ever built. I really am looking for guidance. But more importantly,
b) I think that our lovely ChiefDelphi.com Fori have lost something in the several years since I have been away chasing a white rabbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rabbit) called Robotic Amusements (http://www.roboticamusements.com). We've lost the kind of discussions we used to have about what it means to be a FAS and non-FAS. Of course, we still have them but the signal to noise ratio is not what it once was.
I think we all can elevate our game here if we want to. As a small example, we can ask questions that are of specific interest but we can ask them in a way that has more general applicability.

So... ...the effort for me starts today. When are you going to start bringing your A Game to these fori?

Don't take too long thinking about it. We need more of us working to build the world we want to live in.

Join me...

Joe J.

[Andy Baker]

When are you going to start bringing your A Game to these fori?

Joe J.

OK, buddy. I am with ya. I promise to pay more attention to the fori and be a better CD user and mentor.

Andy B.

[ExTexan]

I think we all can elevate our game here if we want to. As a small example, we can ask questions that are of specific interest but we can ask them in a way that has more general applicability.

So... ...the effort for me starts today. When are you going to start bringing your A Game to these fori?

Don't take too long thinking about it. We need more of us working to build the world we want to live in.


I am hoping that this is not as condescending as it could be interpreted.

[Andrew Schreiber]

All,
I am not a FIRST Noob. It's been a decade and a half since I read the Parade Article "They're competing with their minds - and loving it" by Michael Ryan (by the way, free Mt. Dew to someone who can find an online copy of that article for me to link to) -- an article that changed the arc of my life in ways too numerous to list...

I am asking for this discussion because
a) I have a new team with new drivers and one of the most aggressive chassis I have ever built. I really am looking for guidance. But more importantly,
b) I think that our lovely ChiefDelphi.com Fori have lost something in the several years since I have been away chasing a white rabbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rabbit) called Robotic Amusements (http://www.roboticamusements.com). We've lost the kind of discussions we used to have about what it means to be a FAS and non-FAS. Of course, we still have them but the signal to noise ratio is not what it once was.
I think we all can elevate our game here if we want to. As a small example, we can ask questions that are of specific interest but we can ask them in a way that has more general applicability.

So... ...the effort for me starts today. When are you going to start bringing your A Game to these fori?

Don't take too long thinking about it. We need more of us working to build the world we want to live in.

Join me...

Joe J.

Ok, I'll bite, I just spent 20 minutes searching for that article. I think I found out a lot of stuff about the right Michael Ryan but was unable to find the article. Parade's online archives only date back to 2003. :(

Joe, my opinion, let the robots play. 397 has an aggressive chassis, a skilled driver, and we can't flip her if we try (we tried). FAS or non-FAS we should design robots such that they are hard to flip. Who knows, you might learn something.

[Dave Flowerday]

It's been a decade and a half since I read the Parade Article "They're competing with their minds - and loving it" by Michael Ryan (by the way, free Mt. Dew to someone who can find an online copy of that article for me to link to) -- an article that changed the arc of my life in ways too numerous to list...
I know I have a copy of that somewhere. I've moved too many times since then though so I have no idea where "somewhere" is... :( If I remember right, I'm in one of the pictures in that article, which is why I kept it.

Interestingly... that article was written back when tipping was perfectly legal!

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I am not a FIRST Noob.

Believe me, Dr. Joe, we know ... and I still have a set of bow-tied BB Carrier plates to prove it :D

[Joe Johnson]

I am hoping that this is not as condescending as it could be interpreted.


Nothing bad intended. If I insulted folks I am sorry.

I am not generally one of these guys who talks about the old days and gets all teary eyed, perhaps you are right in pointing out my "we've lost something" slant.

BUT regardless... ...There is no doubt that there is a lot of noise on the signal on these fori. There are 100 threads on that very topic.

I am calling all hand not to give up on them but to do something about it. Clearly we can make this place better. We can post more interesting posts, we can be the cooling rods when things get out of hand, we can be the moral compass when folks have lost their way. We can make this a place where good discussion flourishes and lousy conversationalists (aka flamers) move on.

That is my point.

Joe J.

[JaneYoung]

OK, buddy. I am with ya. I promise to pay more attention to the fori and be a better CD user and mentor.

Andy B.

Oh, thank goodness.

Jane

P.S. Thank you, Dr. Joe.

[ExTexan]

Fair enough, I commit to my best shot. However, CD being the largest, best and practically only outlet for the huge number of increasingly diverse student body involved with FIRST, I liken this noise to a robotics event.....better learn to wear earplugs because it's not going away! :yikes:

[eugenebrooks]

I witnessed a robot aggressively push another robot about 10 feet,
eventually into the bump at 45 degrees, tipping it, at SVR. I was
surprised that there was no penalty as the action appeared to have
no other purpose. It did not happen again, so I presume that ref's
told the team that this behavior was a bad idea. I thought it was
a fine example of bad behavior on the competition field.

Eugene

[JaneYoung]

Fair enough, I commit to my best shot. However, CD being the largest, best and practically only outlet for the huge number of increasingly diverse student body involved with FIRST, I liken this noise to a robotics event.....better learn to wear earplugs because it's not going away! :yikes:

Richard,
Over the past few years, we have lost some valuable input/guidance/humor/insight/integrity in CD because some of the folks who have helped to provide that have all but disappeared. Their posts definitely have. They may still check in or hang around and read but their posts have ceased - and it's sad. It could be that the chatter and noise level have made people grow tired of CD - I have no idea. Also, I'm not saying that members have to stay bound to CD forever, but there is always room for improvement and for good discussion to flourish, encouraged by thought-provoking and insightful posts.

When Andy Baker stopped wading into the middle of a ruckus or a good thread turned bad - or he stopped creating threads that introduced interesting topics, it was a loss for the CD community. The pathways to his knowledge, wisdom, and humor were closed. Shut down. Same with Dr. Joe. Those are just 2 examples where the standard of excellence was weakened and the whole of the fori suffered. Are they the only 2 people who matter to CD? No - but their absence has been felt. Missed. And there are more who could help bring it back into balance and restrengthen the standard of excellence. All of us.

I'll hush now and let you guys get back to your tipping talk.

Jane

[Joe Johnson]

I witnessed a robot aggressively push another robot about 10 feet,
eventually into the bump at 45 degrees, tipping it, at SVR. I was
surprised that there was no penalty as the action appeared to have
no other purpose. It did not happen again, so I presume that ref's
told the team that this behavior was a bad idea. I thought it was
a fine example of bad behavior on the competition field.

Eugene

Eugene,
See now that doesn't sound so bad to me... ...well until the tipping it bit. But the first part.

Suppose there is a defender harassing your prize scoring robot in the near zone. It seems to me that it is a FAS to push them across the field and even a bit onto the bump, holding them for a bit (until the pinning rules kick in) if necessary to defend my partner.

But of course, if we intend to tip them in the end, I suppose we've crossed the line even if we don't actually manage to accomplish it.

Thoughts?
Joe J.

[hektormagee]

*sighs* Well they at least they're going to accomplish their goal of making it similar to mainstream sports. I think this year will leave more than a few teams unhappy with referee decisions.


Haha. Sounds just like High School football!

[eugenebrooks]

The robot might have been harassing the robot that tipped them,
and pushing a robot is fair game, but the tip in the end, if that
was the intent, is not fair game. If it were to happen twice
it would become clear to the refs that it was intentional and
would likely be penalized. No other scorer and no balls were
in play when it happened, but it does take at least two such
events to establish a pattern.

Pinning has its limits in the rules, but pushing a robot back and
forth to keep it out of play has no limit in the rules that I know
of. This keeps the robot out of play, but also ties up your robot
doing it. Purposely tipping to put a robot out of play is not fair game,
in my opinion.

There are many situations where a robot might end up tipped
that are not purposeful. As an example, using your robot to
run interference on the other side of a bump might end up
with a tipped robot if it keeps coming over the bump on top
of the robot running interference. This, in my opinion, is
fair game. The tip was the result of an action taken by
the robot that ended up tipped.

The bottom line is that the line between the results of aggressive
but reasonable play and an intentional tipping strategy is a fine one.
In the end it is up to the refs to decide. I would not come to
a match thinking that there is a free license to tip another robot
to put it out for the rest of the match.

Eugene


Eugene,
See now that doesn't sound so bad to me... ...well until the tipping it bit. But the first part.

Suppose there is a defender harassing your prize scoring robot in the near zone. It seems to me that it is a FAS to push them across the field and even a bit onto the bump, holding them for a bit (until the pinning rules kick in) if necessary to defend my partner.

But of course, if we intend to tip them in the end, I suppose we've crossed the line even if we don't actually manage to accomplish it.

Thoughts?
Joe J.

[The Lucas]

I am hoping that this is not as condescending as it could be interpreted.

Dr Joe just has a talent for making bold predictions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55715) and pushing the forum in new directions. For those that join from 2008 and on, that is where the Looking Forward prediction concept came from.

There are many situations where a robot might end up tipped
that are not purposeful. As an example, using your robot to
run interference on the other side of a bump might end up
with a tipped robot if it keeps coming over the bump on top
of the robot running interference. This, in my opinion, is
fair game. The tip was the result of an action taken by
the robot that ended up tipped.


Where this type of play is particularly important is defending against a robot that hangs from the bump. I have seen very inconsistent calls for this, from ranging from no penalty to a red card and a penalty.

I really can't understand the red card and a penalty (from regional I will not mention out of respect, and to keep this discussion constructive dont post regionals either). The team didnt have a prior yellow card. Neither robot is touching the tower so no protection rules and that wasn't the call. So a <G36> yellow card for tipping should be the max for this offence. I think the ultimate call was a <G38> (penalty & red card) which obviously doesn't apply because both robots are on the bump so it is permitted under <G37>.

I made a point to watch these type of calls at our regional to feel out what was RAS (Ref Appropriate Strategy) and I was satisfied with how it was called. I would have used that strategy if given the chance.

[eugenebrooks]

Tapping or pushing a robot perched on the bump,
starting the process of reaching for the tower to hang,
is an attempt to prevent it from scoring two points.
Although the result of the tap may be upending the
robot, the goal is to prevent it from scoring two points,
not to upend it. The precarious position is a choice
that the team has made, and if they are smart they
will have some sort of wand that reaches out and touches
the tower as soon as possible to minimize the risk of
such a defensive move. That could no more than a
fine pointer on a servo, easy to do.

Eugene





Dr Joe just has a talent for making bold predictions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55715) and pushing the forum in new directions. For those that join from 2008 and on, that is where the Looking Forward prediction concept came from.



Where this type of play is particularly important is defending against a robot that hangs from the bump. I have seen very inconsistent calls for this, from ranging from no penalty to a red card and a penalty.

I really can't understand the red card and a penalty (from regional I will not mention out of respect, and to keep this discussion constructive dont post regionals either). The team didnt have a prior yellow card. Neither robot is touching the tower so no protection rules and that wasn't the call. So a <G36> yellow card for tipping should be the max for this offence. I think the ultimate call was a <G38> (penalty & red card) which obviously doesn't apply because both robots are on the bump so it is permitted under <G37>.

I made a point to watch these type of calls at our regional to feel out what was RAS (Ref Appropriate Strategy) and I was satisfied with how it was called. I would have used that strategy if given the chance.

[Tom Line]

Eugene,
See now that doesn't sound so bad to me... ...well until the tipping it bit. But the first part.

Suppose there is a defender harassing your prize scoring robot in the near zone. It seems to me that it is a FAS to push them across the field and even a bit onto the bump, holding them for a bit (until the pinning rules kick in) if necessary to defend my partner.

But of course, if we intend to tip them in the end, I suppose we've crossed the line even if we don't actually manage to accomplish it.

Thoughts?
Joe J.

I'll speak to this one. Of course you can push. To the bump. And hold them.

At one point at West Michigan, a defensive bot (I believe it was 2000) was harassing us in the O zone. Our driver got so frustrated at the excellent job they were doing that when they parked in front of the goal again, he got a running start and lodged them IN the goal. They stayed there the rest of the match. The running joke after that was that if he had pushed a little further, he might have scored some points with their bot.

We also noticed that their team learned from it - not ONCE did they ever put themselves fully up on the ramp again - they always had a portion of their bot not on it. So their play improved (and they were an even bigger pain-in-the-neck defender for the rest of the regional!).

I'll leave the whole 'intent' discussion to someone else. Basic common sense tells me that if the other robot starts to flip - you should back off a little.

[littlek050844]

Ha. yep. that was me. I actually looked at the ref after i did this to see if he was going to call anything and he just looked like he was doing his normal routine. so aparently trying to score defensive robots isnt illegal. lol

[sNeff]

Lots of aggressive chassis this year, and 192 definitely has one of them. I am frickin proud that our drive system can put defending robots exactly where we want them to be--and if they're in front of the goal, that sometimes means in the goal, as Tom pointed out.

There were several times during our last regional that 192 played offensive defense--keeping robots off of 1280 while they scored points during elimination rounds, for example. That meant pushing, across the field and into goals, walls and bumps (though not tipping). Several times in the qualifying rounds, that kind of strategy, employed by many of the teams there, did end with jammed or tipped robots, and countless more times one side would nearly flip, including ours at least twice.

I've been surprised to see that so many teams are relying on flipping just not happening--one of 192's highest priorities this year was having a consistent righting mechanism for the aftermath of a particularly intense contact with another robot. We expected it to be common, with intense battles around the bumps, and to have to use the righting mechanism at least once per match.

I'm glad that FIRST is letting the competition get a little more aggressive--it's more fun for spectators when the robots interact, clash and score points, even if it means a little more cleanup and repair for us in the pits afterward.

[The Lucas]

Tapping or pushing a robot perched on the bump,
starting the process of reaching for the tower to hang,
is an attempt to prevent it from scoring two points.
Although the result of the tap may be upending the
robot, the goal is to prevent it from scoring two points,
not to upend it.

I agree but be careful
I've seen:
top heavy bot on ramp + little tap by defender = Flip + Red card
Make sure you have someone watching to get a feel for how the ref at the event will call it before you try it.


The precarious position is a choice
that the team has made, and if they are smart they
will have some sort of wand that reaches out and touches
the tower as soon as possible to minimize the risk of]]]
such a defensive move. That could no more than more than more than a
fine pointer on a servo, easy to do.

Eugene

Sshh! Dont give them any bright ideas. We trying to defend them, remember;)

[eugenebrooks]

Its coopertition, The Lucas, its coopertition!

I agree but be careful

Sshh! Dont give them any bright ideas. We trying to defend them, remember;)

[EricH]

Too late, Brian. SF1-1, Arizona Regional, ended in a tie because a defender was in contact with one of the most reliable hangers there. Said hanger reached for the top pole of the tower, and the defender stayed in contact. The hanger made contact, and the two closest refs put flags up. The penalty took a win to a tie.

[eugenebrooks]

And a fine job 192 did, indeed!

Eugene


There were several times during our last regional that 192 played offensive defense--keeping robots off of 1280 while they scored points during elimination rounds, for example.

[eugenebrooks]

There is a role for questions to the head ref
during the pre-competition drive team meeting.

Eugene


I agree but be careful
I've seen:
top heavy bot on ramp + little tap by defender = Flip + Red card
Make sure you have someone watching to get a feel for how the ref at the event will call it before you try it.

[ExTexan]

Richard,
Over the past few years, we have lost some valuable input/guidance/humor/insight/integrity in CD because some of the folks who have helped to provide that have all but disappeared. Their posts definitely have. They may still check in or hang around and read but their posts have ceased - and it's sad.

Thanks Jane. Obviously I can not know the history of CD as many of you can. I can appreciate everything you say. Conversely, you that have seen a lot more CD than I ever will cannot appreciate what I see. This is a wonderful website that I can find any answer, much discussion, many viewpoints and information unavailable anywhere else. It also provides valuable input/guidance/humor/insight/integrity to me that may not be that great to you but is the best I know. It may have been 500% better before I was here but because it is the greatest resource I have for one of the greatest programs I have been involved in, my redneck hairs bristled to hear it wasn't an "A" game. :yikes:

I will maintain my commitment to make it the best I can. I understand and admire all you, Joe and everyone else says and will strive to be sure it is never an ExTexan that you find inappropriate here!

Back to tipping and back to refereeing at Troy Friday!

[GaryVoshol]

Tipping is barely addressed in the rules.

<G36> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: YELLOW CARDI've highlighted the key words there. As a referee, I will never post how I would make a call. It would be a rare instance for me to even state to a team what I might call before I see a situation - I just don't like painting myself into corners like that. I will say that those 3 words are what most referees will be considering when deciding to apply this rule or not.

The only other reference to tipping is <G37-c-ii> where it says a tipped robot might be expected to be contacted outside the bumper zone.

However, contact and robot interaction are mentioned many times in the rules (not even including those rules regarding things like contacting the tower): <G28>, <G30>, <G32>, <G34>, <G35>, <G37>, <G38>, <G39>. Perhaps the most telling statement by the GDC regarding their intent for this game is found in the blue box following <G38>:ROBOTS should be designed to withstand the expected contact outside the BUMPER ZONE.They expected robots would be contacted in a variety of situations, and didn't outlaw most of them.

Again, words like Strategy, Agressive and Intentional will come into any referee's decisionmaking process. We certainly would like to see a robot pull away when the opponent starts to tip. But that won't be the only consideration. And I would like to remind teams that what we see from the sideline and what you see from the endzone may be interpreted very differently.

[Radical Pi]

I don't think I've seen a single tipping penalty at the regionals I've been to. For example, in one of the QF matches at philly, immediately after teleop started one of the blue bots ran straight for one of the powerhouse teams, pushed them onto the bump, and flipped them, all before the other team could respond. There was no call against that.

[Grim Tuesday]

Philly, it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) had incredibly lenient refs. There were VERY VERY few calls or cards given compared to Fingerlakes. Now, some of this may be due to the rule changes, but these guys (and girls) hardly made any calls at all.

[Gene F]

There were at least two yellows followed by later reds at Palmetto. One was us. The yellow came in a seeding match when our driver station I/O lost connection and added a 2 second delay in response to the joysticks. Our driver did a good job of playing defense even with the limitations (no kicker, stuck in low gear, no hanger) but at one point t-boned the opponent and before the robot responded to pulling back on the sticks the opponent was on it's side. Our apologies to that team! The ref's made the right call because for all that were watching it looked like we just drove through them. The red came in the finals. This time it involved us and a team that we are very good friends with. In fact the two drivers are also very close friends from the same school. We hit them and they started to tip while chasing a ball. We tried to go after the ball and they moved in the same direction. ( their CG was a bit high) Over they went. Again sorry guys, it wasn't intentional but it looked like it, good call ref's.
The other yellow red combo was against us. Both times it was the same team hitting us as we were in contact with the tower inside the 20 seconds. The yellow also came with a penalty. The second red was in the second finals match, yes right after our red in the match before.

[thefro526]

Philly, it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) had incredibly lenient refs. There were VERY VERY few calls or cards given compared to Fingerlakes. Now, some of this may be due to the rule changes, but these guys (and girls) hardly made any calls at all.

We had a few penalties called against us during the course of the weekend and all of them were good calls. (Except maybe one of them but it didn't decide anything)

As far as tipping went though, there were quite a few tips throughout the eliminations in Philly, and there were no calls made against them. It seems that the refs realized how tippy some machines were.

[kirtar]

The only cards that I've seen given for tipping somebody were G34s in which the robot attempting to elevate was rammed repeatedly.

[Cyberphil]

I know I never purposely attempted to flip teams during this past weekend, but inevitably, some teams did flip, or at least went up on their side. Sorry for those who were unfortunate enough to get flipped. But we were never called on it. It was a great regional, and I can't wait for next year already!!:D

[ThirteenOfTwo]

I was a little irritated at our recent regional with the penalties which were alternately called and not called. Once we lost a match by one point because the refs failed to notice that a team on the opposing alliance had literally had one of its bumpers fall off, and Kalani High School almost got a red card for ending the match directly between a team and its tower (but not touching either and not trying to harass its opponent).

These were understandable mistakes given the amount of stress that the judges were under, but the one thing that was really excessive in its not-being-called was deliberately aggressive play. One team in particular became notorious; nearly every single robot that tried to play defense on them wound up flipped, broken, or stuck in one of the goals and unable to get out because of the two-inch lip. We were one of the very few teams who tried defending on them to make it out of the match intact, and that was pretty much only because a) we had an exceptionally sturdy and low-to-the-ground robot and b) we crossed the bump with a minute remaining to go help our alliance partner in the midfield score some points. Not a single penalty was ever called on them, and they ended up doing extremely well in the tournament. I don't mean to insult them, because they really do have a great robot and a talented driver, and they completely deserved their win, but I felt that the level of aggressiveness that was displayed as a part of their strategy was questionable and should have been called.

Even more prevalent than "accidental" tipping was getting jammed into the goals. If you can believe it, it was actually a defensive strategy discussed by certain teams to wait near the bump until a ball was herded into the goal, then charge the team that herded it in and ram them so hard that they would become stuck, effectively pinning them for the rest of the match. Teams that tried to play defense on robots with high traction by getting between those robots and the goals sometimes ended up with their robot pushed in instead of the ball, effectively neutralizing the entire alliance's defensive capabilities. Maybe the next update should have something to do with this...

[Vikesrock]

I don't mean to insult them, because they really do have a great robot and a talented driver, and they completely deserved their win, but I felt that the level of aggressiveness that was displayed as a part of their strategy was questionable and should have been called.

You are simply the latest to do this and by no means the most offensive, so I will apologize in advance for the fact that this is directed at your post. I am frankly tired of reading posts like these, and your post was just "the straw that broke the camel's back".

If you are going to post something, and you think it needs a phrase such as "I don't mean to insult them", or "no offense", or another disclaimer of the sort, please resist the temptation to click that button. Your post is almost certainly insulting or offensive, you know this already which is what caused you to add the disclaimer. Take a deep breath, wait a few days to let the emotions of the competition temper a bit, then if you still have a problem with a team address it in the appropriate manner, directly with that team. Many teams can be contacted via an email address on their website. You can also do a member search by team number here on CD and use the private message system to contact the team and ask for contact info for a mentor (if all you find is students or you can't tell if it is a student or mentor)

If you want the opinions of the community on a specific situation, rule, interpretation, or behavior, then please leave team numbers out of it. If you think your description will make it really obvious to people who you are talking about, consider using the FIRSTaholics Anonymous forum to mask what event you are talking about if that will help. What could possibly be gained by bringing team numbers into this type of discussion?

[ThirteenOfTwo]

I understand completely what you mean, and I apologize for bringing up a specific team number in my post. At the time of my original post, I was unaware of the existence of FIRSTaholics Anonymous, and my mentioning that the team in question won the regional, along with the knowledge of where I'm from, would have made it quite obvious which team I was speaking of. The original post has been edited to remove the number of the team from the thread. Mentioning that they did extremely well in the regional was necessary to underline my point that not only does this behavior exist, but it can be genuinely advantageous to use in a competition, and that teams are cottoning on to that fact. In my opinion, FIRST should cotton on too, and start calling it. I understand that judges were put off by the hundreds of penalties called in early regionals, but honestly, certain behavior is completely penalty-worthy. Like I said, this team never did it to us. I hold no hard feelings towards them, and I wholeheartedly congratulate them on their magnificent engineering, which will certainly be something to watch out for at Worlds. However, they are an example of a problem that I think is becoming quite widespread with this year's game. Has anyone else encountered this type of strategy in use?

[waialua359]

The "strategy" is simple.
Put balls into goals.
Your post sounds like we are the defensive bot trying to either flip or pin robots into goals on purpose.

We dont waste time getting into tug of war matches.
Being on offense as a striker, our job is to score balls. If a defensive robot gets in the way by trying to block the goal, what do you expect? We have always tried to push balls into goals regardless of whether a robot is there or not. You will not find a single match where we pushed a robot into a goal, over a bump or flipped over without the intent to possess a ball and/or score.

If you think a penalty should be called in every instance that this has occurred, perhaps you should study the game of soccer.

On another note, we've only use a FP/CIM on each side of our robot for our drive system for the 3 regionals we attended. For CMP, it'll be 2 CIM's on each side. We will continue with the strategy of scoring soccer balls into goals efficiently, with or without defense. As a selling point for our team at CMP for anyone that is looking for a striker, we take great pride in scoring every ball that comes into our zone. Our strategy with our partners is to never aim for goals from the midfield. It takes less time just getting it over the bump and we'll take care of the rest.

[rwood359]

Teams that tried to play defense on robots with high traction by getting between those robots and the goals sometimes ended up with their robot pushed in instead of the ball, effectively neutralizing the entire alliance's defensive capabilities. Maybe the next update should have something to do with this...
The GDC created the dimensions of the goals and of the robots. They designed in the lip on the goal. They wrote the one defensive robot rule without an exception for an incapacitated robot. I don't doubt that they knew that it would be possible for a robot to be pushed into a goal and that it would eliminate the defense.
The game animation warns that tipping is possible and should be considered in robot design. If in the eyes of the referee, a robot in intentionally tipped, it should be called.
All teams had to make design decisions. Some build very agile machines, some build more for power. Using a football analogy, the agile bot would made a good defender for a wide receiver. If it goes in over center on a goal line stand trying to stop a fullback, it is the wrong player for the position.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I was a little irritated at our recent regional with the penalties which were alternately called and not called. Once we lost a match by one point because the refs failed to notice that a team on the opposing alliance had literally had one of its bumpers fall off, and Kalani High School almost got a red card for ending the match directly between a team and its tower (but not touching either and not trying to harass its opponent).

These were understandable mistakes given the amount of stress that the judges were under, but the one thing that was really excessive in its not-being-called was deliberately aggressive play. One team in particular became notorious; nearly every single robot that tried to play defense on them wound up flipped, broken, or stuck in one of the goals and unable to get out because of the two-inch lip. We were one of the very few teams who tried defending on them to make it out of the match intact, and that was pretty much only because a) we had an exceptionally sturdy and low-to-the-ground robot and b) we crossed the bump with a minute remaining to go help our alliance partner in the midfield score some points. Not a single penalty was ever called on them, and they ended up doing extremely well in the tournament. I don't mean to insult them, because they really do have a great robot and a talented driver, and they completely deserved their win, but I felt that the level of aggressiveness that was displayed as a part of their strategy was questionable and should have been called.

Even more prevalent than "accidental" tipping was getting jammed into the goals. If you can believe it, it was actually a defensive strategy discussed by certain teams to wait near the bump until a ball was herded into the goal, then charge the team that herded it in and ram them so hard that they would become stuck, effectively pinning them for the rest of the match. Teams that tried to play defense on robots with high traction by getting between those robots and the goals sometimes ended up with their robot pushed in instead of the ball, effectively neutralizing the entire alliance's defensive capabilities. Maybe the next update should have something to do with this...

I'm sorry, but this post reads to me "Boo Hoo, Someones bot is playing agressive defense and my offensive bot cant score".

We play at GSR where defense is well known and played very hard. Our robot (while playing in the defensive zone) was flipped 4 times, and self righted 3 of those times (seems I remember something about selfrighting from kickoff). Tough defense was played, and those that scored earned those scores (congrats to them).

As far as stuffing a team into the goal, please find the rule number that prohibits that strategy. It sounds to me like your team did not take that 2" lip and memory foam into account when you built your robot. Not the fault of the defending robot.

Bumper to bumper contact is allowed (and even encouraged) within the rules. The higher bumpers this year created a lever arm that made it easier to tip robots. I'll bet you dollars to (Dunkin ;) )donuts that the defending bot wasn't purposely tipping others ... it was just happening with decent contact and high traction wheels.

Your robots are also supposed to be built with "vigorous (sp?) interaction" in mind. If bumper to bumper contact causes damage, then it most likely was not built strong enough. Again, we play at GSR where aggressive defense is always expected.

The above isn't meant to offend anyone (although it probably will) but I get sick and tired of hearing how unfair it is when teams play solid hard-nosed aggressive defense. Build your robot tough, and learn to play when the defense is strong.

[waialua359]

I'm sorry, but this post reads to me "Boo Hoo, Someones bot is playing agressive defense and my offensive bot cant score".

We play at GSR where defense is well known and played very hard. Our robot (while playing in the defensive zone) was flipped 4 times, and self righted 3 of those times (seems I remember something about selfrighting from kickoff). Tough defense was played, and those that scored earned those scores (congrats to them).

As far as stuffing a team into the goal, please find the rule number that prohibits that strategy. It sounds to me like your team did not take that 2" lip and memory foam into account when you built your robot. Not the fault of the defending robot.

Bumper to bumper contact is allowed (and even encouraged) within the rules. The higher bumpers this year created a lever arm that made it easier to tip robots. I'll bet you dollars to (Dunkin ;) )donuts that the defending bot wasn't purposely tipping others ... it was just happening with decent contact and high traction wheels.

Your robots are also supposed to be built with "vigorous (sp?) interaction" in mind. If bumper to bumper contact causes damage, then it most likely was not built strong enough. Again, we play at GSR where aggressive defense is always expected.

The above isn't meant to offend anyone (although it probably will) but I get sick and tired of hearing how unfair it is when teams play solid hard-nosed aggressive defense. Build your robot tough, and learn to play when the defense is strong.

I think the point I would like to emphasize again is that we are alway on offense and not defense. Its the defensive team that is complaining about us on offense.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I think the point I would like to emphasize again is that we are alway on offense and not defense. Its the defensive team that is complaining about us on offense.

Point noted (i missed that), but it doesn't change the gist of my post which is to design your robot for the game and for 'vigorous interaction'. If you don't then don't complain when your robot gets stuck or gets damaged. At one poing at GSR we had a robot on our lexan armor, no foul was called, nor did we expect one. It's just part of the game.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Daniel,
Sorry but I disagree. Stuffing an opponent into a goal to take them out of the game and to block a goal is not what I would expect in this competition. The goal is wider than most robots so there is nothing you can design around. You might as well push them over the side of the field border. The effect is the same.
If you know that a robot can be tipped and use that as a strategy then I think that is also wrong. To intentionally go out and tip over robots that are easy (by virtue of their design) is not in the spirit of the competition. I read G36 and G37 as support for this belief.
I want to lose a match to superior robot/driving/strategy. I don't want to lose to a team that has taken out my alliance partners by tipping and/or entanglement.
That being said, humans make mistakes, refs included. They miss calls sometimes, that affect match outcomes. What we see from the stands is not always what they see from the field, up close.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Daniel,
Sorry but I disagree. Stuffing an opponent into a goal to take them out of the game and to block a goal is not what I would expect in this competition. The goal is wider than most robots so there is nothing you can design around. You might as well push them over the side of the field border. The effect is the same.


Unless you can quote a rule that states otherwise then it is a perfectly valid strategy (not saying I agree with the strategy, but ...).

Oh, and you can design around it with either a good drivetrain (that can pull you over a 2" bump) or be wide enough to not go in fully.


If you know that a robot can be tipped and use that as a strategy then I think that is also wrong. To intentionally go out and tip over robots that are easy (by virtue of their design) is not in the spirit of the competition. I read G36 and G37 as support for this belief.


Agreed, but the real issue is intention. Many robots this year are far easier to tip due to the bumper position, the ramp near the goal, and the bumps. Thus, even without intentionally tipping a robot you can do so.

I instructed my driver to back off if he saw a robot tipping. We tipped one during our regional (sorry 501) and we ourselves were tipped 4 times even though we could go 90* and still come back on to our wheels due to our CG. The game is what it is and robots will tip. Build a self righting mechanism.


I want to lose a match to superior robot/driving/strategy. I don't want to lose to a team that has taken out my alliance partners by tipping and/or entanglement.
That being said, humans make mistakes, refs included. They miss calls sometimes, that affect match outcomes. What we see from the stands is not always what they see from the field, up close.

I don't believe that the refs are missing many calls (unless you count the balls that are staying under robots while they continue to play the game). Field entanglement has never been a penalty (unless it involves field damage), nor is unintentonal tipping.

Would you rather see a game where robots play tiddlywinks and can never touch another robot? do you believe that would be interesting? I don't. A level of interaction is always enjoyable to watch ... as long as teams are playing within the rules.

The above, as usual, is JMHO.

[rwood359]

Daniel,
Sorry but I disagree. Stuffing an opponent into a goal to take them out of the game and to block a goal is not what I would expect in this competition. The goal is wider than most robots so there is nothing you can design around. You might as well push them over the side of the field border. The effect is the same.

The goal is not the same as the side field border. It is key to the offensive team's scoring. In the action being discussed here, the offensive robot is in control of a ball and the defensive robot is parked across the goal. The offensive robot, leading with the ball, attempts to score by pushing the defensive robot. Most often, the defensive robot is forced to pivot and the ball is scored. Sometimes, the defensive robot is pushed into the goal. Well designed robots drive out of the goal. Referees have started pinning counts on the offensive robot. At which time it backs off as required. If the offensive robot is not allowed to touch the defensive robot that is blocking the goal, it is game over for any power design.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I am talking about the robot that is scoring and is forced into the goal and stuck. I have seen this happen more than one where the stuck robot is pushed up on the field border as well as being stuffed into the goal. That leaves only one goal to defend.
Daniel, I think we are in agreement on most points. Tiddlywinks with sewer covers might be pretty interesting though.

[rwood359]

I am talking about the robot that is scoring and is forced into the goal and stuck.
Thanks for the clarification, the discussion has switched ends of the field a couple of times.

[ThirteenOfTwo]

I'm sorry, but this post reads to me "Boo Hoo, Someones bot is playing agressive defense and my offensive bot cant score".
Like I said, it never happened to us. Right off the bat, it's pretty plain to see that I'm not complaining about what happened to our team. We were thrilled with our performance at the regional, and it was great to have competition, but what I heard some other teams talking about and what I saw some other teams doing slightly disturbed me.

We play at GSR where defense is well known and played very hard. Our robot (while playing in the defensive zone) was flipped 4 times, and self righted 3 of those times (seems I remember something about selfrighting from kickoff). Tough defense was played, and those that scored earned those scores (congrats to them).
As far as stuffing a team into the goal, please find the rule number that prohibits that strategy. It sounds to me like your team did not take that 2" lip and memory foam into account when you built your robot. Not the fault of the defending robot.
It sounds to me like you read neither my post nor the manual. I'm not sure how many times I will have to say that this never happened to my team. For the rule you requested: <G36> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: YELLOW CARD

Bumper to bumper contact is allowed (and even encouraged) within the rules. The higher bumpers this year created a lever arm that made it easier to tip robots. I'll bet you dollars to (Dunkin ;) )donuts that the defending bot wasn't purposely tipping others ... it was just happening with decent contact and high traction wheels. Defending robots didn't tip another robot once in the competition. Some, however, were discussing (and executing) the strategy of stuffing offensive robots into goals. When an offensive robot is in the goal, and the ball has already been herded in, ramming them from behind is obviously not aimed at being defensive via blocking them; it's aimed at entanglement. Clearly a yellow card, which was never called at the Hawaii regional despite the fact that it happened several times.


Your robots are also supposed to be built with "vigorous (sp?) interaction" in mind. If bumper to bumper contact causes damage, then it most likely was not built strong enough. Again, we play at GSR where aggressive defense is always expected.

The above isn't meant to offend anyone (although it probably will) but I get sick and tired of hearing how unfair it is when teams play solid hard-nosed aggressive defense. Build your robot tough, and learn to play when the defense is strong. Just like Vikesrock said to me: if you know that your post will offend someone enough to act on this by saying "I don't mean to offend you", don't post it. I don't appreciate messages from people who misrepresent what I say, nor do I appreciate messages from people who attempt to insult the level of maturity or the building skill of another poster. Like I said: none of this ever happened to us. Apparently it is inconceivable to some people here that a team could act not out of petty self-interest but out of concern for other teams.

The "strategy" is simple.
Put balls into goals.
Your post sounds like we are the defensive bot trying to either flip or pin robots into goals on purpose. I'm sorry for the ambiguity in my post; I both knew and meant to convey that you guys played offense.
After reexamining the rules, it comes down to a matter of judgment of intent. If you deliberately try to take out the opposing alliance's defense by playing rough with them, then you are definitely deserving of a penalty from <G36>. On the other hand, if you concentrate only on scoring and ignore whatever happens to an opposing robot, then while I am not a huge supporter of the strategy I admit freely that it is completely legal. However, the fact that this happened to nearly every single team who opposed you, in my mind, called into doubt your intent--could almost every single team being disabled have been a coincidence? However, if you say that you never intentionally disabled, flipped, damaged, or stuffed into a goal, and that these events were simply unfortunate side effects of your trying to score, then I will take your word for it. I hereby retract my questioning of your strategy.

If you think a penalty should be called in every instance that this has occurred, perhaps you should study the game of soccer.
It's kind of ironic that you should bring up soccer at this point in the discussion, because "studying the game of soccer" is one of the big reasons I question playing rough. Take this example: A striker takes a ball and tries to score it in a goal, and an opposing team's weak defender gets in his way. Rather than going around the defender, the striker simply pushes the defender into the side of the goal so hard that the defender breaks several bones, and then he scores. Would a penalty be called? I think so. Injuring another player in soccer by playing aggressively is a red card, no matter how pathetic the defender's training regimen was. In soccer, when the judges see such behavior, they do call a penalty every time. But Breakaway is not soccer, and therein lies my error.

To put it in concise terms, I basically agree with Mr. Skierkiewicz. Pushing offensive robots into the goals while playing defense is blatantly against <G36>. Pushing defensive robots into goals while you are playing offense is legal (if slightly against the spirit of gracious professionalism and "coopertition"). Like he said, I want to lose to a team that legitimately had a better robot/strategy/driving (e.g. teams 368 and 359) than me, not a team that just disabled my alliance partners via stuffing them into goals.

[waialua359]

I am going to make this one last post on the topic and leave it as that.

Sounds to me that you still question our intentions in terms of scoring with defense on us. I will reiterate again.
Our job as striker is to score balls. While it seems like robots on multiple occasions get pushed around by us, lets remember that the "defensive" robot is the one initiating the contact and we are simply trying to push/shoot balls into goals. We have successfully many times pushed balls into goals even though a robot stood in the way between the ball and goal. It seems to occur often because its often that teams try to block goals sideways while we attempt to score.
Outmaneuvering another robot isnt the only way to play the game to score. If that was the case, you might as well call this flag football and have rules for no contact. Heck, why even have bumpers then? You have exagerrated the facts by saying that these events occured for nearly every opponent that we played against.

We have broken an arm brace, 2 spots on our frame perimeter, 5 plaction wheels, a broken roller ball magnet and multiple air tanks broken off due to the "aggresive" defensive play by teams over 3 tournaments.
I havent complained at all because its part of the game, its not illegal, and we dont feel that any team has intentionally tried to hurt our robot at all (other than robots hitting us while climbing for the end game-which is a clear violation of the rules). After doing this the last 11 years, I have learned that building a robust robot is very important in addition to form and function.

Play within the rules, make sure you have a solid, robust robot and strategize to win your matches with your teammates. That is my only concern when coaching our alliance everytime we are on the field. I think we more than demonstrated that throughout the course of 3 tournaments. If your sleeping at night, then you havent strategized over and over in your head, more than us........4 weeks and counting. I believe that it is the main reason we have been successful this season, and not because we have to "take out" the defender.

[EricDrost]

In the past MORT has been targeted by other teams to pin, harass, gang up on, the whole deal. One year, I don't remember how long ago, we made a wedge-bot where any robot that would ram us would flip themselves over because they would drive right on top of us and lose control. Any time a robot was flipped because of this however, we would be penalized. I understand that in this game the field itself flips many robots but getting flipped by someone with a strong drive train, intentionally or unintentionally would fall in this same category as what happened to us. I am surprised there are not more penalties given because of flipping as it is against the spirit of FIRST.

[sdcantrell56]

In the past MORT has been targeted by other teams to pin, harass, gang up on, the whole deal. One year, I don't remember how long ago, we made a wedge-bot where any robot that would ram us would flip themselves over because they would drive right on top of us and lose control. Any time a robot was flipped because of this however, we would be penalized. I understand that in this game the field itself flips many robots but getting flipped by someone with a strong drive train, intentionally or unintentionally would fall in this same category as what happened to us. I am surprised there are not more penalties given because of flipping as it is against the spirit of FIRST.

I have a problem with this statement. In the game description this year they talked about the necessity for building robust robots that either would not flip or could self right. The GDC told every team that robot interactions this year could flip robots particularly with high center of gravity. Teams still decided to build robots that would flip with contact and even worse not have any type of self righting device. As a team who has built an absolute tank of a robot that has a very very small chance of flipping I find the idea of penalizing us for simply building a robot to the GDC's suggestions appalling. I agree if we go out looking to flip robots then a penalty should be called. However, if we are being defended against and someone flips as a consequence I dont see how we can be penalized.

As the coach, I tell our driver to avoid contact if at all possible as you arent scoring if you are pushing. Even with us avoiding contact we still managed to flip robots with higher center of gravity. Now we weren't doing anything malicious to flip them so I fail to see how this could be a penalized encounter.

I think lately especially, that GP has been perverted and used as a way to criticize teams that simply are building strong robots as encouraged by the GDC or taking advantage of rules that everyone was given to play by. It is not un-GP to maximize your scoring potential by building a strong low robot to avoid being flipped. Having a tippy robot this year should be motivation to perhaps pay more attention to the GDC and build more robust designs not to criticize teams for being un-GP

[thefro526]

It seems like there's a lot of discussion about aggressive play by scoring robots against defensive robots while trying to score.

In years past where I chose to take the defensive role, I never got angry towards the team I was defending if they "hit back" so to say. If you're trying to shut down an offensive machine through defense they have every right to react to your defense so they can score. I've yet to see a team this year purposely interact with a defending robot in an illegal way while trying to score, but I have seen solely defensive teams attempt to tip, and otherwise immobilize good offensive machines.

IMO it's just like self-defense, if you push someone then you better expect them to push back.


I think lately especially, that GP has been perverted and used as a way to criticize teams that simply are building strong robots as encouraged by the GDC or taking advantage of rules that everyone was given to play by. It is not un-GP to maximize your scoring potential by building a strong low robot to avoid being flipped. Having a tippy robot this year should be motivation to perhaps pay more attention to the GDC and build more robust designs not to criticize teams for being un-GP

Agreed.

[EricDrost]

I agree if we go out looking to flip robots then a penalty should be called. However, if we are being defended against and someone flips as a consequence I dont see how we can be penalized.

Oh I had never said I was for or against it. I was just saying that with all of the speeches about Gracious Professionalism and such, it is taken so lightly that robots are being toppled which often enough costs the unlucky robot the match and their dignity. I was using MORT's past as an example of how FIRST strives to uphold Gracious Professionalism.

Personally I think if it was unintentional, there should be no penalty. However, I would also think that the head ref of such a prestigious organization would have a different view on the matter.