Physical matches

[archiver]

Posted by Adam Hathaway.

Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 7/12/99 2:25 PM MST



I thought that the level of pushing and fighting among teams in Rumble made for more exciting matches. Thats the kind of excitment that will get more bystanders and average people involved in watching a FIRST event. Should FIRST go back to allowing teams to tip over others intentionally, or maybe just loosen up on the rules? Any ideas?

[archiver]

Posted by Kate.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 7/12/99 2:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Physical matches posted by Adam Hathaway on 7/12/99 2:25 PM MST:



I personally like the physical matches better.. It makes it a lot more exciting to watch.. Granted I wouldn't be all too happy if it happened to my team.. But it does make it more exciting.. I mean, even at kickoff.. Dean said make your robots robust as they may fall.. That was in reference to falling off the puck.. Is there really that much of a difference between falling (or getting knocked) off the puck?? I think it'd be worse getting knocked off the puck as compared to getting tipped over away from the puck.. There isn't the 5inch drop away from the puck.. I think that tipping should have been allowed this year with falling off the puck option.. There's my thoughts on that..

-KATE-

[archiver]

Posted by Mike Kulibaba.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 7/13/99 4:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Physical matches posted by Adam Hathaway on 7/12/99 2:25 PM MST:



: I thought that the level of pushing and fighting among teams in Rumble made for more exciting matches. Thats the kind of excitment that will get more bystanders and average people involved in watching a FIRST event. Should FIRST go back to allowing teams to tip over others intentionally, or maybe just loosen up on the rules? Any ideas?

I think pushing and tipping is a part of the competition, but it also makes for more broken robots. Just ask anyone who was at the 1997 Rumble at the Rock and saw TJ² get obliterated by Naval Undersea because they used a little tipping mechanism. This year in the quarterfinals, Ethicon and Nasa Ames Gunn High school played two teams( I can't exactly remember who they were) In the second match, Gunn purposely knocked over a robot that was clearing not trying to get on the puck and they definately had there floppies over 8 feet and I think the refs made the right call by calling a DQ because just going out to knock over a robot shouldn't be what this competition is about. Back in 1997 when my team's Robot got knocked over and totally smashed in half(and I mean right in half) I think it took away from the competition( I also might be a little biased cause it was my team that got toppled. But you do bring up a good point about people want to see Robot's banging and pushing and falling. I just think there has to be a happy medium. And I think this competition might have been close to a happy medium cause you got the tipping and pushing but it stayed away from the all out mayhem that could of taken place. Thanks For a great year

Mike Kulibaba Team 88 TJ²
'Kuli'

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 7/13/99 9:11 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Physical matches posted by Mike Kulibaba on 7/13/99 4:53 PM MST:



Mike,

I agree with you. Tipping is harsh. However I need to clear GRT's name on this one. We did not tip on purpose. We were trying to backdrive their elevator motors, which wasn’t beyond reason as we have two van door motors at a 6:1 gearing driving that puppy. In fact, we had been holding the robot down until the ref told us to back off. We didn’t understand, but we did what we were told, and when we tried to come back down they were already most of the way up. All we did was push down on that arm. Unfortunately, when we were backing off, a bolt got caught and we tipped them over. I’m not disputing the call, cuz I’m content with the fact that people saw our robot and hopefully think of GRT when talking about some of the “teams to beat”.

GRT would never purposefully break another robot. We know what it feels like; we had the same thing happen to us in 1997. I know what it’s like to see our pride and joy get lifted 3 feet into the air and dropped on it's head. Repeatedly. I was having a heart attack watching it! But it was within the rules, so we went home and got ready to build a stronger robot. In 1998 our robot was dropped off a truck when we were shipping it off. We had to fix a bunch of bent stuff and send it off again. That was another eye opener. This year we could have dropped that sucker off a truck and it would barely dent.

Accidents happen. Build your robot to take them. If GRT ever broke a robot, we would help them fix it. I promise, because that’s not our goal. We just play the game. We go right up to the edge of the rules, because common sense is enough to make us realize that nothing conservative ever wins.

Now for my own opinion (which has nothing to do with the way GRT plays the game):

I myself have never been an advocate of the way FIRST went about their anti-tipping rule. FIRST says in rule V5 that “strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of opponents' robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and will not be allowed.” First of all, no “rule” should be based on someone’s intent, as intent can’t be accurately evaluated by anyone other than those who acted on that intent. There must be a better way to limit tipping. In fact, I was not a fan of the way a robot on the puck can raise their basket and suddenly become invulnerable anyway. Why should putting yourself in a compromising position make you less vulnerable? I think the rules limited us in a way we shouldn’t have been limited. I agree with Jeff from TKO about how we could easily go overboard, but I feel there should be a slightly more liberal in-between. Teams like 16 who designed their robot to grab a pole while on the puck had the right idea. There are ways to defend against defensive tipping...if only we could limit tipping to defense. I’m sure there’s a way.

-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Mike King.

Other on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater Raynham and Johnson & Johnson Professional.

Posted on 7/13/99 9:56 PM MST


In Reply to: More info, and a little oppinion of my own posted by Daniel on 7/13/99 9:11 PM MST:



I agree with some of your points. In fact, if you had anazlyed our stragiy, we would clamp onto the pole, raise basket, then raise robot. When out robot is lifted off the ground, it becomes very untippable. (Remember the 1997 incident that Mike mentioned, we learned from that)

Although i doubt you ever saw it, we had full abiltiy to get on top of the puck. We just never did, because we would go for floppies until the last 30 seconds, and by that time it's very hard to push your way onto the puck. But when were on the puck, we also clamped onto the pole to stablize ourselves.

Now back to my point for writing this message, (the preceding was a tangent, we all love explaining our robot.)

The comment was made in 1998, and I'm going to attribute it to Joe Johnson, but I do not recall who said it excatly, and the exact wording, but you'll get the jist.

'If the competition comes down to how can tip who first, you'd better watch out. You'd see teams like Beatty, Chief Delphi, and TJ² launching the robots into the stands.'

It struck me funny at the time. Then it made me think about that engineer who was involved in the grill lighting contest with Liquid Oxygen.


I'm including a link to that engineers home page

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 7/13/99 10:24 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: More info, and a little oppinion of my own posted by Mike King on 7/13/99 9:56 PM MST:



I'm not saying we should blow each other up =)

I'm just saying a little defensive tipping should be okay. For example, tipping a robot that doesn't have any floppies raised should be illegal because it could be done just as easily by holding down their basket (something GRT did in almost all of it's rounds). However, tipping a robot that is raised, significantly alters that robot's score. Teams would be encouraged to build with a lower center of gravity and certain precautions such as grabbing a pole or extending anti-tipping thingies. I expect many will disagree with this, but I just feel that robots shouldn't be encouraged to make themselves vaulnerable like they were this year. Seriously, some of those lifts were just funny. Baskets were waving in the wind. Teams shouldn't be able to get away with that. Teams should build something they can be proud of; not something that looks like it was built by high school students.

-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Fran .

Other on team #166, Team Merrimack, from Merrimack High School and Unitrode/R.S. Machines.

Posted on 7/14/99 5:46 AM MST


In Reply to: no nukes posted by Daniel on 7/13/99 10:24 PM MST:



: I always thought the robots were supposed to be built by the students with guidance from engineers....obviously ours is. It is just as obvious that many robots have had the expertise of their engineers. I like our method of the kids designing and building the robot but it will probably keep us from learning from the year before. We always build from scratch which has its limitations and we will probably always be looking for help:). Hopefully we will find the right set of engineers who will become involved enough to attend outside events as we see on so many teams.

I found Rumble to be more fun than the regionals but that comes from see more competitions. The more you do and see the more you try....we all returned from regionals with a certain amount of awe ....it was amazing what some teams thought to do and that knowledge alone changed how everyone played the next time. Part of the physical play was acheived because you could go repair your robot and not worry about shipping it right to nationals without being able to repair until you arrived 3 days before competing......surely teams were more cautious at regionals........nothing to worry about at Rumble.

On another thought, thank you for all your assistance and did your robot make it back home or is it becoming a world traveler?


Fran
Team 166



I'm not saying we should blow each other up =)

: I'm just saying a little defensive tipping should be okay. For example, tipping a robot that doesn't have any floppies raised should be illegal because it could be done just as easily by holding down their basket (something GRT did in almost all of it's rounds). However, tipping a robot that is raised, significantly alters that robot's score. Teams would be encouraged to build with a lower center of gravity and certain precautions such as grabbing a pole or extending anti-tipping thingies. I expect many will disagree with this, but I just feel that robots shouldn't be encouraged to make themselves vaulnerable like they were this year. Seriously, some of those lifts were just funny. Baskets were waving in the wind. Teams shouldn't be able to get away with that. Teams should build something they can be proud of; not something that looks like it was built by high school students.

: -Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 7/14/99 11:47 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: they are built by students posted by Fran on 7/14/99 5:46 AM MST:



Having kids build your robot will keep you from learning from the year before? That is one thing I've got to disagree with. My best guess is you're basing this on the fact that students graduate. I suppose then it has some truth to it. However, there are non-senior members on your team so what about them? Can't they learn from their mistakes?

You were at rumble. What did we learn in the pits?

1) You don't want to use zipties to hold down your drill motors
2) You will want to carry a copy of your program on a floppy when you go to competitions
3) You may want to give your drivers a little more practice before you go to a competition (he did a great job under the circumstances, but I'm sure he would have liked a little more practice)
4) Watch the torque rating on the drill and make sure it doesn't leave the highest setting (there are ways to make it immobile too, so think about that)

I'm sure there are a bunch of people to whom these things look VERY familiar. That's because we've ALL done it. And now we do something differently and we have our own set of mistakes to learn from. So start with these and any other things I missed, and fix them for next year. I’d love to be able to drop by your pits next year in florida, and see your beautiful new motor mounts... =)

By the way, it was our pleasure to help you guys out in Plymouth. It’s something we would want others to do for us, if in need. So you’d better watch out in Florida next year. You never know what might happen. Oh and our robot should be here in about two weeks so I wont know if it decides to go on vacation until later.

Thanks for the t-shirt... =)
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Fran .

Other on team #166, Team Merrimack, from Merrimack High School and Unitrode/R.S. Machines.

Posted on 7/15/99 10:48 AM MST


In Reply to: smart students posted by Daniel on 7/14/99 11:47 AM MST:



: I didn't really mean we don't learn but it sounds like some teams make major changes in designs based on experiences.......anyway I agree our driver did super when he thought he was only coming to watch and I'm sure the experience will carry over in his contributions to the team this year. We certainly went to Rumble with just our spirits and I hope our driver learned alot in the pits that day.....thank you for your list, I will print it and share it with the team since I'm technically challenged and had no idea what you guys were doing! But I am very good at locating help or items or creatively coming up with ideas to run this program and I have a car that can carry the robot.
Ther's an idea for a new challenge next year: Time the engineers/advisors on how long it takes to load a car with robots/supplies (no crates) and leave room for people........I felt like I was putting together a puzzle while loading ours. Well hopefully I will get to see you in the pits next year....my first trip ever to Disney(not like my well traveled daughter) and who knows maybe we will assist some one instead of dialing 911.

Fran


Having kids build your robot will keep you from learning from the year before? That is one thing I've got to disagree with. My best guess is you're basing this on the fact that students graduate. I suppose then it has some truth to it. However, there are non-senior members on your team so what about them? Can't they learn from their mistakes?

: You were at rumble. What did we learn in the pits?

: 1) You don't want to use zipties to hold down your drill motors
: 2) You will want to carry a copy of your program on a floppy when you go to competitions
: 3) You may want to give your drivers a little more practice before you go to a competition (he did a great job under the circumstances, but I'm sure he would have liked a little more practice)
: 4) Watch the torque rating on the drill and make sure it doesn't leave the highest setting (there are ways to make it immobile too, so think about that)

: I'm sure there are a bunch of people to whom these things look VERY familiar. That's because we've ALL done it. And now we do something differently and we have our own set of mistakes to learn from. So start with these and any other things I missed, and fix them for next year. I’d love to be able to drop by your pits next year in florida, and see your beautiful new motor mounts... =)

: By the way, it was our pleasure to help you guys out in Plymouth. It’s something we would want others to do for us, if in need. So you’d better watch out in Florida next year. You never know what might happen. Oh and our robot should be here in about two weeks so I wont know if it decides to go on vacation until later.

: Thanks for the t-shirt... =)
: -Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Mike King.

Other on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater Raynham and Johnson & Johnson Professional.

Posted on 7/18/99 7:05 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: changes posted by Fran on 7/15/99 10:48 AM MST:



: : I didn't really mean we don't learn but it sounds like some teams make major changes in designs based on experiences.......anyway I agree our driver did super when he thought he was only coming to watch and I'm sure the experience will carry over in his contributions to the team this year. We certainly went to Rumble with just our spirits and I hope our driver learned alot in the pits that day.....thank you for your list, I will print it and share it with the team since I'm technically challenged and had no idea what you guys were doing! But I am very good at locating help or items or creatively coming up with ideas to run this program and I have a car that can carry the robot.
: Ther's an idea for a new challenge next year: Time the engineers/advisors on how long it takes to load a car with robots/supplies (no crates) and leave room for people........I felt like I was putting together a puzzle while loading ours. Well hopefully I will get to see you in the pits next year....my first trip ever to Disney(not like my well traveled daughter) and who knows maybe we will assist some one instead of dialing 911.

: Fran


You might try something our team did.

We took a used trailer, reconditioned and rebuilt it, and now it's our team's travel trailer.

Maybe you saw it at rumble. The Huge black/blue trailer with the TJ² logo painted on the side. It was half way down the parking lot on the right hand side. (standing in the pits looking at the parking lot)

It's large enough to take our robot, all our tools, miscellanious stuff, and it has a small workbench built in.

Later

Mike

[archiver]

Posted by Fran .

Other on team #166, Team Merrimack, from Merrimack High School and Unitrode/R.S. Machines.

Posted on 7/19/99 5:15 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: changes posted by Mike King on 7/18/99 7:05 PM MST:



: : :Who could miss such an incredible trailer......my 9 year old spotted it as we entered the parking lot
Hopefully one day we will be a more organized and have a more supported team by students as well
as engineers. Right now we take the firstaholics and hope for the best. I really enjoy the challenge of fitting it all
into my car but I'm sure I might not always be available but since I'm the 'arranger' , I will probably set up an alternative.
Thank you for a great suggestion

Fran



I didn't really mean we don't learn but it sounds like some teams make major changes in designs based on experiences.......anyway I agree our driver did super when he thought he was only coming to watch and I'm sure the experience will carry over in his contributions to the team this year. We certainly went to Rumble with just our spirits and I hope our driver learned alot in the pits that day.....thank you for your list, I will print it and share it with the team since I'm technically challenged and had no idea what you guys were doing! But I am very good at locating help or items or creatively coming up with ideas to run this program and I have a car that can carry the robot.
: : Ther's an idea for a new challenge next year: Time the engineers/advisors on how long it takes to load a car with robots/supplies (no crates) and leave room for people........I felt like I was putting together a puzzle while loading ours. Well hopefully I will get to see you in the pits next year....my first trip ever to Disney(not like my well traveled daughter) and who knows maybe we will assist some one instead of dialing 911.

: : Fran

:
: You might try something our team did.

: We took a used trailer, reconditioned and rebuilt it, and now it's our team's travel trailer.

: Maybe you saw it at rumble. The Huge black/blue trailer with the TJ² logo painted on the side. It was half way down the parking lot on the right hand side. (standing in the pits looking at the parking lot)

: It's large enough to take our robot, all our tools, miscellanious stuff, and it has a small workbench built in.

: Later

: Mike

[archiver]

Posted by Mike King.

Other on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater Raynham and Johnson & Johnson Professional.

Posted on 7/22/99 5:22 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: thanks posted by Fran on 7/19/99 5:15 AM MST:



: : : :Who could miss such an incredible trailer......my 9 year old spotted it as we entered the parking lot
: Hopefully one day we will be a more organized and have a more supported team by students as well
: as engineers. Right now we take the firstaholics and hope for the best. I really enjoy the challenge of fitting it all
: into my car but I'm sure I might not always be available but since I'm the 'arranger' , I will probably set up an alternative.
: Thank you for a great suggestion

: Fran

Our trailer was 90% student built. (The wiring was done by the electronics teacher. GO Chev!)

and the paint job was done by students and our very talented art teacher, Mr Phanef!

Later

Mike King

[archiver]

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 7/14/99 10:54 AM MST


In Reply to: More info, and a little oppinion of my own posted by Daniel on 7/13/99 9:11 PM MST:



Daniel,

In response to your statement: 'In fact, I was not a fan of the way a robot on the puck can raise their basket and suddenly become invulnerable anyway.'

Woodie clearly stated, and even acted it out with people at each competition, that it was OK to push, pull or drag a robot that is on or trying to get on the puck. And, if as a result of the pushing or pulling the robot happens to tip over, that is legal. However, it is when a robot is off in a corner, 'not engaging the puck', that you are not allowed to cause it to tip when it raises it's floppies.

I asked the refs (who did an excellent job throughtout the competition) to verify these rules for me when the competition started to see if they were using the same criteria as the FIRST refs. They also comfirmed that it was OK to hold down someone from raising the floppies as long as they wanted as long as they were not also getting pinned against a border of the field. That is why you were asked to back off - you were holding down the basket but were also pinning no. 178 against the border right in front of the human player.

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 7/14/99 12:03 PM MST


In Reply to: Rules clarification. posted by Raul on 7/14/99 10:54 AM MST:



Don't worry, I'm not disputing the call...you guys won that round.

I'm just saying that the theory of a robot in the corner becoming more secure by raising it center of gravity way up high is flawed. A robot should have to take certain precautions to make that a less fragile position. Perhaps FIRST should have made it possible to latch on to the field border. Then they wouldn't have had to outlaw tipping. All I'm saying is that there are ways to allow robots to stay upright on their own merit, instead of giving them a 'get out of jail free' card. You know what I mean?

So don't worry about that match. I talked to the refs too. You guys were great opponents in those rounds and I've got to say, those were a few of the most tense moments I've ever experienced. You guys were great.

See you next year!
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 7/16/99 5:43 PM MST


In Reply to: Rules clarification. posted by Raul on 7/14/99 10:54 AM MST:



On the topic of when is tipping allowed vs what is a team allowed to do to prevent an opponent from lifting:

What did folks think of team 177's strategy?

It seemed to me that they came very close to crossing the tipping line with their aggressive floppy snatching and basket holding. If just holding down were the purpose, how come some may opponent robots ended up on their sides?

For those who were not there, the crowd actually booed at one point.

By the way, 3D showed a lot of class in the elimination tourney when they accidentally tipped a robot that was FULL of floppies and then went BACK and righted them again. 3D went on to lose the match and leave the tourney as a result. Honorable.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Wible.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.

Posted on 7/17/99 9:00 AM MST


In Reply to: you make the call... posted by Joe Johnson on 7/16/99 5:43 PM MST:



I as many of you know I have weighed in on this topic before and created quite a stir.
I agree that strategies based on tipping are not in the spirit of F.I.R.S.T.. Look at the majority of the robots out there and you will see robots designed to carry out the tasks that the game required.
All the while maintaining a low center of gravity, and maximizing traction for PUSHING. Some may have even decided to incorporate a device to BLOCK an opponent's basket from raising.
Now it seems that some teams were able to use thier 'floppy picker' for another purpose, like grabbing onto baskets, and then pulling over other robots. This in my opinion is tipping. Also crossing the line
IMHO are robots that threaten tipping by pushing on another robots high point to hold them at bay.
The result of the referee's not calling these tactics are that most teams will design their robots to be more aggressive. I though we were supposed to win the matches by offensive tactics. Raising the most floppies,
getting control of the puck, etc. Attacking other team's robots, and inflicting damage creates a lot of bad feelings. I think the Bengi-Bot explanation sums it all up.
Basket BLOCKING is OK, robots battling for the puck may be toppled IN THE PROCESS, belligerent attacking is a no-no, intentionally damaging another robot(assuming the other robot was reasonably robust) is a no-no.
You can believe me, as a result of the allowance of aggressive attacks on robots, next year's teams will be focusing on keeping their robot alive, and less on designing reasonable mechanisms to carry out the tasks that the game requires.
Did you really think that teams would build a basket that could survive an attack, just to raise a couple of pounds of floppies? I am sorry to say that I think the integrity of the game has been compromised here.
I am thinking now,(going into 2000) that our team will have to take the rules with a grain of salt. Build it to play, but incorporate devices which may cross the line, and see if we can get away with using them for 'getting on the puck'.
It doesn't take much imagination to come up with a few tricky ideas. Our team this year did none of that, proud to say, but I feel that many will. I am still a firm beleiver in the spirit of F.I.R.S.T., play like your grandmother were watching.

Tom Wible
Team C.H.A.O.S.

[archiver]

Posted by Jacob Etter.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Student on team #177, Bobcats, from South Windsor High Schoool and IFC & Onsi.

Posted on 7/17/99 11:19 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: you make the call... posted by Tom Wible on 7/17/99 9:00 AM MST:




the ultimate goal is to win the compition, so why would you not do whatever it took to win, let the refs decide what is agianst the rules. first wants to be a sport, so act like one. in football i wouldn't hit somebody softly so they wern't hurt. i want to try to injure them, take them out of the game, within the rules of course. that is what will help my team.

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 7/18/99 8:59 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: you make the call... posted by Jacob Etter on 7/17/99 11:19 AM MST:



:
: first wants to be a sport, so act like one.

I'm in agreement with you here. Everyone's interpretation of the rules will always be a bit different.

: in football i wouldn't hit somebody softly so they wern't hurt.

I'm still with you... if you're gonna play the sport, you should be able to handle the contact.

: i want to try to injure them, take them out of the game, within the rules of course. that is what will help my team.

WHOA! Hold it right there. You should never try to injure someone, whether you're playing on the gridiron or battling with robots. You might want to re-think this one... after 16 years of playing football (grade school, middle school, high school, college, and semi-pro), not one coach ever directed me to injure an opposing teammate. I'll admit that there was temptations to do that, but the intent to injure should absolutely not be there. You should play the game within the rules... but not to maim.

just my $0.02

Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 7/18/99 11:02 AM MST


In Reply to: Robot Sport posted by Andy Baker on 7/18/99 8:59 AM MST:



As much as I hate agreeing with Andy... =)

We need to remember that football players and small babies bounce a lot better than high school students. We need to remember that if we drop these kids, they might not get back up again. I love a little bit of rough play (I'm sure you can tell from my team's bot), but rough play -- as Andy said -- should never be aimed at injury.

Be careful not to take these teams out of the game forever.

-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 7/18/99 12:51 PM MST


In Reply to: Robot Sport posted by Andy Baker on 7/18/99 8:59 AM MST:



Deliberate intention to destroy is where it crosses the line...

Remember Karate Kid...the bad guy was told to 'Sweep the leg'.....
and that's where it goes into the 'Dark Side'...

The only point I'd like to place on the table is this....Robots
are not people...they can and SHOULD be built for rugged interaction.
If you fear your robot breaking in a competition that clearly encourages
rough aggressive interaction...then take your robot to the malls and
Jr. High schools and other exhibition venues....do not take it to the
nationals cause neither you or your robot belong there...
(Tough guy ol'mr.b,ain't he?)

Robots WILL get knocked down within the rules...don't blame the other guy
if yours breaks...fix it, or build it better....after all isn't the point
to build the best robot competitor? A flimsy robot has no place crying
foul...Look at the robots that won this year...THEY ALL ARE RUGGED or
they have great pit crews who took the time to build spare parts...I
actually believe that a robot could not expect to break the Clinton
Robot even if it tried to do so deliberately..That's one small reason
why Clinton was top seed at Rumble, won the Ct. Regional and did very well
at the nationals...same for the other winners...look at 3D Services..good
grief...that machine was a warrior.

We should emulate these teams.

I urge all of you kids...and adults....don't think of yourselves as 'Victims'
If your machine breaks... fix it...or build it better.

I know this will sound harsh to some..and if I offend anyone I'm sorry
as that is not the intent....But gosh, this is about good engineering..
and robustness is a quality I feel is inherent in well designed machines.
As is preparation (such as spare parts for susceptible sub assemblies).

Like Formula I racing...Do you know why cars don't 'hit' one another in
F1....it's obviously because there is the MADD principle at work..
Mutual Assured Destruction. Remember that if you are built well,
then the attacking robot must weigh the risk of engaging your machine...

If you are a flimsy basket raiser...heck..your fair game in a fair battle.
And let's face it...mounting the puck is really 'King of the Hill' and
it's going to get rough...real rough...

So let's not stick our heads in the sand on this one...let's simply agree
that other than 'Deliberate destruction'...hey it's a rough game we've chosen
to play....

I can take the hit's I might be engendering on this comment...
so bring it on intelligent and informed students, engineers, teachers and
parents....=)

Mr.b

[archiver]

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Other on team #126, No, from what team I haven't decided yet and I don't know how I will!.

Posted on 7/18/99 10:33 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Robot Sport posted by michael bastoni on 7/18/99 12:51 PM MST:




my longwinded message is posted at the top of the page for your reading pleasure- but i must say i agree

and the point i made up top- i agree, FIRST is a rough sport but the game isn't all about scoring. Everyone should (has to) score to win. Everyone has the right to score. But every other robot has the right to take that away.

Build a robot that can defend your right to score and win- that's what i say.

(and thank you Mr.B. for the compliments on the 'bot- having a strong bot was the only thing that allowed us to score and do so well- we would have been out of the game quick had we not.. thanks :-)

[archiver]

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Other on team #126, No, from what team I haven't decided yet and I don't know how I will!.

Posted on 7/18/99 10:33 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Robot Sport posted by michael bastoni on 7/18/99 12:51 PM MST:




my longwinded message is posted at the top of the page for your reading pleasure- but i must say i agree

and the point i made up top- i agree, FIRST is a rough sport but the game isn't all about scoring. Everyone should (has to) score to win. Everyone has the right to score. But every other robot has the right to take that away.

Build a robot that can defend your right to score and win- that's what i say.

(and thank you Mr.B. for the compliments on the 'bot- having a strong bot was the only thing that allowed us to score and do so well- we would have been out of the game quick had we not.. thanks :-)

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 7/19/99 7:45 PM MST


In Reply to: i'm on your side posted by colleen on 7/18/99 10:33 PM MST:



To all the anything goes as long as you are not intentially trying to break anyone crowd:

I am afraid I disagree. There is legal and there is lousy.

I guess that I have a dislike of a strategy that is more than likely to cause an opponent robot to break.

Torriod Terror (the year of the tipper) was a good case in point. While it was legal to tip, I would venture to guess that more than half of the machines that were legally tipped didn't answer the bell for their next round (or if they did were hobbled beyond hope, a la TJ2 in the finals at the Rumble at the Rock II).

In 6 weeks, it is just to d--- easy to build a brute with a muscular spatula rather than an elegant machine that can pushes the engineering envelope AND take the Nestee Plunge onto a hardwood floor while doing it.

In my humble opinion, flipping/tipping/etc. was/is legal but lousy.

Be that as it may, we are willing to play the game, we just want to know the rules before we get to our first regional.

If FIRST is to become Robot Wars, so be it.

We will just make sure that we fall softly... ...and carry a big stick ;-)

Bring on the 2000 games...

Joe J.

L

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Wible.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.

Posted on 7/19/99 8:32 PM MST


In Reply to: MrB Vs. JJ posted by Joe Johnson on 7/19/99 7:45 PM MST:



Way to go Joe! I think you just said what I've been thinking all along, but in a more eloquent way.
Most of the people I talk to about this issue, agree: if we are here to tip, let us know. Don't tell us after we've built the 'bot,
that tipping would be a major part of the game. A lot of money and time go into these things to change the philosophy midstream.
The real question is: will next year's rules be open to interpretation? Will tipping be 'not in the spirit' but very present.
While I'm on a roll, let me mention another sticky issue that many overlooked. If a robot pins another robot to the rail using the puck, climbs the puck, now the weight of the robot on the puck prevents escape, is that pinning?
Just another weird situation that was never really mentioned in the rules. We experienced both sides of that issue this year. Clarification would have been good.
It seems that with a new game every year, it is very difficult to write the rules to cover all of the possible situations. F.I.R.S.T. does do an excellent job though. As well as the judges at Rumble, a very good job.
'Nuff said

Tom Wible
(psyched for 2000)

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 7/19/99 8:48 PM MST


In Reply to: MrB Vs. JJ posted by Joe Johnson on 7/19/99 7:45 PM MST:



JJ

You are right....six weeks is not enough time...that is and has always
been the problem....

Elegance is not ruled out by vigorous interaction...and many of us had
self righting bots this year and in years past in anticipation of
vigorous interaction...Self righting or robust design is part of the
elegance of design...don't you agree?

Yes TJ was badly broken in 96'...but let's agree right now that this
years rumble with machines going down and then getting right back up
was really quite breathtaking....so we've matured..nobody in the
upper brackets are building bots that break easy...and the game gets
more exciting.

Wether it's six weeks...or six years....flimsy design is flimsy design.
And wether it's intentional or not...chances are your robot will fall
many times during it's useful life...so don't build tall reaching arms
out of light flimsy materials...

In an effort to clarify this point I ask that you consider sailboat
racing...there are men and women who sneer at it...six knots ain't
racing they say...but when ALL the boats are prepared to compete at
six knots then the margins are close and the game exciting...and lightly
built boats break up in knarly seas...

So it is with vigorous interaction of robots...hey even car makers have
admitted that cars get into collisions even though the rules of the road
don't permit or encourage vigorous interaction of cars.....heck all I'm
hearing is how safe cars are getting...vehicles required by law to
sustain collisions not allowed by law...

Robot competitions are the same thing...I AM NOT NOR HAVE I EVER SUGGESTED
THAT FIRST ADOPT ROBOT WARS MENTALITY...NEVER NO HOW....but I have
always maintained the game is rough...and should be played that way.
Being knocked down requires that an attacking robot not use it's resources
to score...the attacker has chosen an option...an option that caused
Truck Town Terror #68 to loose their opportunity to get into the finals
in Philly...They chose to ravage our machine in lieu of scoring..and while
they handily dragged us all across the carpet...our partner Big Mo #314
went in for the score.....We were ruggedly built...survived the drubbing
and went onto the finals....and never looked back or cried foul..we
laughed alot about the match...AND THE CROWD LOVED IT.

So I do not agree that a pimordial shovel will necessarily win, rather it is
a fools errand to design such a machine...but should a team in only six
weeks design a robust rugged warrior that can score well and engage
other robots...and not break, then I concede that is a well designed
and engineered and fabricated machine and it deserves a chance at the
title. More than some elegant wisp of a thing that has trouble surviving
the shipping to Florida.

Lets allow natural selection full reign...like mother nature does..let's
not deliberately handcuff our imaginations and potential...It ain't
'Pleasantville' out there on the carpet...it's real life and in living
color....and we don't know what's going to happen...that's the exciting
part if we are not afraid to let it happen...otherwise let's agree to
not have an interactive competition...let's parade our lightly built
elegant machines before the crowd, one at a time...display there pedigree
and training for the crowd like show dogs...and await the applause meters
to determine the winner...and nobody gets hurt...no bad feelings...no
need to make spare parts.

I am not positioning myself as your advisary on these points JJ...I
respect your POV...I am only throwing this out, like others, in the
hope of building concensus....something this page was designed to do...
And something FIRST could benefit from.

I love you Joe...

Mr.B

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 7/20/99 7:27 PM MST


In Reply to: Mr.B does not vs JJ....he actually agrees with him on one point posted by michael bastoni on 7/19/99 8:48 PM MST:



Mr.B,

I love you too, man!!! ;-)

Just stirring the pot as are you.

Joe J.

P.S. For all the times you and I have gone round and round on these forums, we ought to number our various points for future reference: I'd say '13!' You would smartly retort, '27!!' I would calmy fire back, '7, 15, and 47.' and so on. It could save a lot of typing ;-)

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker.

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 7/19/99 6:15 AM MST


In Reply to: you make the call... posted by Joe Johnson on 7/16/99 5:43 PM MST:



I was coaching the Bobcat (team 177) during the elimination round matches against 157 and 23 that caused us to get booed. Our strategy was within the rules of the game and in the spirit of FIRST.

Rule V5 states: Strategies aime solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of opponent's robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST robotics competition and wil not be allowed. Accidental tipping is not considered damaging and will be allowed at the discretion of the referees.

Our strategy was to prevent scoring by holding down the basket of the Aztech. With our arm inside, but not entangled with, their basket, they could not raise their floppies. This left them with little choice but to try to get away from the Bobcat. When they tried to do this in the first match, they were tipped over. If they had stayed put, they would have stayed upright, but stil would have lost the match. I think that the booing occured in the second match, when it became obvious that we were going to use the same strategy. It didn't work this time though, and we lost. We won the third, and moved onto the quarterfinal against 126 and 45.

We used the same strategy in that round, but lost 2-0. In the quarter final round, I think that we were knocked over by 126 at least three times while trying to hold down their basket, much to the delight of the crowd. Holding down a basket put us in just as precarious a position as it did the robot we were holding down. The difference between the our first round win and our second round loss was most likely Colleen, she was just too good for us, again. I thought that all five elimination matches we played were very exciting and a lot of fun to watch. I think that means that they were in the spirit of FIRST.


As far as being close to the line goes, we were but we did not cross it. After the first match against 157/23 they protestes to the refs and the refs came to speak with us. They said it was fine to hold down the basket, but that if they managed to raise their basket we would have to leave them alone unless they were trying to mount the puck. We considered this to be the laying down of the law, and were not going to break it.

[archiver]

Posted by Jesse Wilkinson.

Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and Intetrnational Fuel Cells.

Posted on 7/25/99 4:59 PM MST


In Reply to: you make the call... posted by Joe Johnson on 7/16/99 5:43 PM MST:




I am one of the drivers for team 177. I have been a member of the team for the past four years. Over the past four years we have lost matches because we have been bullied around. We have also won matches while beeing bullied around. At Rumble at the Rock, we were not trying to harm any other machines. Our strategy for the most part was to prevent teams from eather getting onto the puck, or from raising above 8 feet. If we were such bullies with the strategies we used, then what about Truck Town Terror, or team 1, 3 dimentional services. Why aren't their strategies so horrible? I do remember hearing 'After today, these machines are nothing but spair parts.' That was what Mr. Bastoni said. This wasn't the cause of our choice of strategy. We weren't the only destructive team in this competition. Why haven't the other teams been menchined. Windsor Locks and Hamilton Standard Aces High was also booed. I honestly don't think we were so horrible.

Jesse, Team 177

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 7/25/99 9:00 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: you make the call... posted by Jesse Wilkinson on 7/25/99 4:59 PM MST:



To 177 and to all who participated in the 'You Make the Call' message:

My intent was not to pick on team 177 (a team that I have TONS of respect for).

I was mostly using it as an opportunity to discuss an important issue.

I was not in Philly, but I heard from folks that Truck Town Terror was brutal there. Also, I did not see the match that G-Force got DQ'ed.

I was using an example of rough defense that I did see to start a discussion.

From what I am hearing now, the ref's made the rules very clear and they enforced them pretty fairly as best I can judge now.

No offense intended.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 7/29/99 3:33 PM MST


In Reply to: Discussion is good posted by Joe Johnson on 7/25/99 9:00 PM MST:



JJ

You are right....six weeks is not enough time...that is and has always
been the problem....

Elegance is not ruled out by vigorous interaction...and many of us had
self righting bots this year and in years past in anticipation of
vigorous interaction...Self righting or robust design is part of the
elegance of design...don't you agree?

Yes TJ was badly broken in 96'...but let's agree right now that this
years rumble with machines going down and then getting right back up
was really quite breathtaking....so we've matured..nobody in the
upper brackets are building bots that break easy...and the game gets
more exciting.

Wether it's six weeks...or six years....flimsy design is flimsy design.
And wether it's intentional or not...chances are your robot will fall
many times during it's useful life...so don't build tall reaching arms
out of light flimsy materials...

In an effort to clarify this point I ask that you consider sailboat
racing...there are men and women who sneer at it...six knots ain't
racing they say...but when ALL the boats are prepared to compete at
six knots then the margins are close and the game exciting...and lightly
built boats break up in knarly seas...

So it is with vigorous interaction of robots...hey even car makers have
admitted that cars get into collisions even though the rules of the road
don't permit or encourage vigorous interaction of cars.....heck all I'm
hearing is how safe cars are getting...vehicles required by law to
sustain collisions not allowed by law...

Robot competitions are the same thing...I AM NOT NOR HAVE I EVER SUGGESTED
THAT FIRST ADOPT ROBOT WARS MENTALITY...NEVER NO HOW....but I have
always maintained the game is rough...and should be played that way.
Being knocked down requires that an attacking robot not use it's resources
to score...the attacker has chosen an option...an option that caused
Truck Town Terror #68 to loose their opportunity to get into the finals
in Philly...They chose to ravage our machine in lieu of scoring..and while
they handily dragged us all across the carpet...our partner Big Mo #314
went in for the score.....We were ruggedly built...survived the drubbing
and went onto the finals....and never looked back or cried foul..we
laughed alot about the match...AND THE CROWD LOVED IT.

So I do not agree that a pimordial shovel will necessarily win, rather it is
a fools errand to design such a machine...but should a team in only six
weeks design a robust rugged warrior that can score well and engage
other robots...and not break, then I concede that is a well designed
and engineered and fabricated machine and it deserves a chance at the
title. More than some elegant wisp of a thing that has trouble surviving
the shipping to Florida.

Lets allow natural selection full reign...like mother nature does..let's
not deliberately handcuff our imaginations and potential...It ain't
'Pleasantville' out there on the carpet...it's real life and in living
color....and we don't know what's going to happen...that's the exciting
part if we are not afraid to let it happen...otherwise let's agree to
not have an interactive competition...let's parade our lightly built
elegant machines before the crowd, one at a time...display there pedigree
and training for the crowd like show dogs...and await the applause meters
to determine the winner...and nobody gets hurt...no bad feelings...no
need to make spare parts.

I am not positioning myself as your advisary on these points JJ...I
respect your POV...I am only throwing this out, like others, in the
hope of building concensus....something this page was designed to do...
And something FIRST could benefit from.

I love you Joe...

Mr.B

[archiver]

Posted by Jeff Burch.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.

Posted on 7/13/99 6:33 PM MST


In Reply to: Physical matches posted by Adam Hathaway on 7/12/99 2:25 PM MST:



I like the physical play too, but I think we'd be going down the wrong path if we made all forms of tipping legal. I realize this may sound strange coming from a team that had a punching arm and no basket, but taken to it's logical extremes unlimited tipping would actually become boring.

First of all the threat of tipping would force teams to make low-riding, slow moving robots and would penalize agile, quick moving ones. The rules of the game would also have to be constrained to not force teams into overly vulnerable positions.

Imagine if there had been unlimited tipping with this year's rules. It would have been the obvious defensive measure that everyone would have built into their robot. No robot could have survived lifting floppies without big clumsy stabilizers. I can picture match after match where the floppy gathering robots hide in their corner at the start while the tipping robots try to topple each other or get to the opponent's floppy gatherer. The best toppler tips over the two opponents and then their alliance partner comes out to rack up points with no opposition.

The limit on tipping allows teams to implement a wider range of strategies and varied robot designs. You get the quick movers and crab style drive system. You get robots like ours with no basket - we could never have done that if the rules allowed the two opponents to gang up on and tip over our alliance partner. It could be that by the time we got to Rumble we'd seen the game enough to start getting bored and tipping seemed necessary for excitement, but try to remember the first regionals. This is how the virgin spectators at Rumble saw the game and the ones I spoke to were absolutely on the edge of their seats the entire time.

You can say that it's all the checking (hitting) in Hockey that makes it exciting, but even in Hockey there are lots of limits. You can't crack your stick across someone's back (cross-checking), you can't check someone if they don't have the puck (interference), you can't drive them into the boards unless they're next to the boards (boarding), you can't ... you get the picture. Obviously the game's no fun to watch if all the players are laying on the ice.

So my vote - keep the limited tipping. If a team runs away you shouldn't be able to chase them down and tip them over. If a team is engaging you or fighting for position you have the right to fight back and if toppling results that's OK. There'll be plenty of excitement with all the wild strategies and robot designs that the teams think up.

Jeff Burch
Team 45 - TechnoKats

[archiver]

Posted by Dave Leenhouts.

Engineer on team #176, Aces High, from Windsor Locks High School & Suffield High School and Hamilton Standard.

Posted on 7/21/99 6:03 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Physical matches posted by Jeff Burch on 7/13/99 6:33 PM MST:



I like aggresive physical robot interaction as well. It does make for a more interesting spectator experience, especially for people who just come in off the street. The only thing is . . . once the tipping rules are set in the rules book they should be adhered too at every event. To change the rules or adjust the refereeing biases the outcome of the competition. For example, if tipping were not allowed, the robots would not be designed to tip other robots, some might have arms, others might not. Then if tipping was subsequently allowed, robots with arms would be favored since they could more easily tip other robots.

Dave