The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Last year in Rebound Rumble, the Coopertition Bridge offered a way for alliances to help each other on the field. It was a real crowd pleaser when it happened.

It offered a bit of a chokehold too. We were a rookie team last year, bad shooting percentage (almost non-existent), but we could climb a bridge. In post season play we actually made it to rank 2 one time by climbing the Coopertition bridge more times than anyone else, so it may have been weighted a bit heavily. (we were 96/99 in our district in regulation play!)

But this year there is no such way to cooperate on the field. And what I am seeing is, in elimination matches the game is getting a bit rough. There is a lot more bumping then, pinning, *brushing by* a robot which is sticking partly out of the tower cage to make it miss, and even some occasional robot toppling. Yellow cards. There are interactions which are not for the faint of heart. You hope you built your robot tough enough to be ready for the next match.

I am hearing the comments in the stand, in contrast to last year, things that can't be repeated here.

Since this is only our second year, what are some of the long timers take on this considering past years? Is there any cooperation action they could have added to the game?

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Even I'm relatively new to FRC still (06/07 season), but I think you'd need to watch even older match footage to see really rough match play :p

I actually love that this year finally allows for rough and defensive play. More so than the last few seasons. I love it! Imagine this without bumpers, oh how awesome that would be.

As for the coopertition/cooperation stuff: I was not a fan of that last year. It did not always allow for proper seeding of the best robots in the top and it isn't fun when your ranking depends on your opponent being able to balance with you or not.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

05 still allowed defensive wedges. This led to a lot more flipped robots.

04's step saw a fair number of robots that would get shoved off.

03 was full on autonomous ramming on top of a ramp.

Bumpers? What are those?

This ain't rough guys. Our bot took a bit of a beating in Orlando but nothing like the damage robots used to take.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

The past few tears, defense has always seemed relatively light compared to this year. As Aakash said, older FRC is A LOT more brutal than even this year. I love this years game and think the amount of defense allowed is great,and very excellent for forming the game's own "meta game"(pro League of Legends fan here). This overall leads to a much more dynamic game.

I loved the coopertition bridge last year, but I don't see any way something similar could be used in this game.

As for negative comments in the stand,that'll happen every year no matter what, and sadly its an unavoidable inevitability.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I remember needing to take a sawzall to 1075's 2004 frame after a head-on fullspeed autonomous collision at the Wonderland Invitational, because the frame bent so far the wheels couldn't turn any more. We had an awesome auto, and defending it just meant "ram them full-speed".

1075 in 2003 though, had bumpers before they were cool. Full-speed auto ramp ramming. Fun times. I miss the days when your robot fell apart if you didn't build it to take a beating.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Coopertition was a great showcase of FIRST values, but it really hurt elims play. While it was great for newer/less-capable teams to make it into elims, I speculate that very few of the teams that ended up as alliance captains without effective scoring found much success; since the alliance captain and first pick are the primary scorers on an alliance, if the captain is a defender w/balance they have a severe handicap. I wouldn't mind if co-op added a second order sort criteria (sort robots based on QS, then co-op, then auton) or a fractional amount of QS, but I like this years system better.

A lot of the reason defense is so aggressive this year is because of the open field; not the lack of coopertition. Last year the bump limited many robots to primarily one side of the field (bridge traversal worked but wasn't good for running back and forth). This years game encourages alliances to leave their own turf for easy game-pieces, and the game pieces don't obstruct traffic when they litter the floor.

I personally like the visceral game play (as long as nobody gets hurt), it adds a lot to the action.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I wouldn't call defense "the dark side"...that sounds far too ominous.

My experience goes back to 1998, when there weren't even alliances much less coopertition. Oh, and no bumpers either.

I can remember seeing steel framed robots designed to punish. I remember teams rewinding motors to get the performance they wanted. I remember collisions so hard that steel welds broke and bolts went flying.

FIRST has come a long way since then. And, yes, I've observed that newer teams have been surprised when good defense shows up. But, if it's clean defense (no contact inside the frame perimeter, no long distance ramming, etc) then it's part of the game.

Speaking specifically about my team (FRC 2789), we play hard stifling defense. Heck, we've cleanly played defense under our opponent's pyramid. The bot has dents and scratches galore. And yes, there is risk to this strategy. We've accidentally committed penalties, we've had disagreements with referees, we've had arguments with teams. But, after actually looking at the rules and discussing the situation, emotions tend to die down and things generally go in our favor. Oh, and we've been picked by a #1 and a #2 seed, and been Finalists and Winners this year.

So, just because it lowers the score, don't think defense is all bad. Actually, it can lead to some more exciting matches when a good defender can shut down a good scorer by exploiting a weakness.

All part of the game.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Defense is beautiful this year it allows for younger teams and teams with less resources to out play,out defend older more expirenced team that arnt used to having to think multi demensionaly.forcing these teams to take defense into mind and strategy that was close to non existent last year

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

There were some nasty collisions in the pre-bumper, pre-red card era, but I've seen some collisions this year that are just as violent as in the 2002-2007 heyday of defense. That's what you get with a relatively wide open field (to <28" tall robots) and a proliferation of 6+ motor, high traction, and inexpensive 2 speed drives. The drive train arms race is at an all time high level of escalation.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I don't feel that the defense has been too heavy this year, especially considering that penalties have been very harsh.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

We are a 5 year team, and are still in the process of building our program. We often dream big in terms of robot design and either run out of time, don't have enough mentors, deal with materials sponsors pulling out, etc.

Needless to say, we don't always wind up with the robot we want, but try our best to make due with what we have. One of our team's strongest suit is our ability to read and break down the rules to make the best out of our competition experience. This plays out by us determining the best defensive strategies allowed by the rules.

As JEE7S said, we play stifling defense, and we play it proudly. In the past three years we have consistently either been in a picking position or been picked for elims, and as we have seen, matches in elims have fundamentally different dynamics than matches in quals. Defense is part of the game, and as someone else pointed out on another thread, these competitions aren't engineering exhibitions, they're games with strategies, and as with any game, regardless of what mechanisms we have, we will play as graciously, professionally and competitively as we can :)

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I think a lot of it has to do with where you're playing.

In MAR, specifically the portion of which that once would have been The Philadelphia Regional, Defense this year is something else. On one hand, it's really nice to finally be able to 'escort' a robot around the field without fear of penalties as long as you steer clear of the protected zones, but on the opposite, fixing your robot after every match (especially Eliminations) gets old really fast.

In our 20 or so matches played at Chestnut Hill, I think 6 or 7 of them ended with robots tipped over or otherwise immobile from 'legal' contact. A few teams got rammed into the pyramid in such a way that they were more or less high centered on the 10pt bar which was really, really interesting to see. IIRC, in one match of our qualification matches, two of three robots had been rendered immobile by the 1 minute mark.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

As someone involved in FRC since 08, it doesn't seem to be any rougher than the average, the only aspect that seems to add to it is the pyramid.

In one instance we pushed an opposing bot out of our way so we could shoot and they got stuck on the pyramid but I believe we got penalized for that as well.

There was a lot more opportunity for carnage in breakaway with the potential to flip bots near the bump.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

In 06 bumpers were introduced and were optional. Our robot from that year
still has a bent rear frame from taking a bad hit but it wasn't bad enough to
keep it from running. Agressive defense has its good and bad points.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Back in the day, our team built a robot with a ridiculous steel frame and absolutely destroyed another team's weak aluminum frame. We ended up on their alliance, and we took a sawzall, some sheet aluminum, and box tubing and completely rebuilt their frame in about 1 hr. Even in rough play, GP was still there.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I agree with many of the posts above. I also agree with you that defense can seem mean spirited, especially when conducted by powerful, heavy robots. The offense and defense aspect is something I wish there was more of. If you check out Aim High in 2006, there were dedicated periods to offense and defense.

I have always found that the NJ/Philly/NYC area competitions are more for the strong-willed. Sometimes negative attitudes, salty language, etc. sneak their way in more than I've noticed at any other regional. It's unfortunate, but I think inevitable and part of life. Like one of our other mentors said last week, students will learn from the most tense/stressful moments, and there won't always be someone there to give you a high five and tell you you're great. Is this an excuse? No, not really, just putting a positive spin on it.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

These replies are exactly opposite what I expected. Having only started in 2012 I have a different perspective since the game moved to more and not less competitive. Actually quite a refreshing view point, thanks all.

I will tell my story. In the quarter-finals we ended up down a bot for repairs. Our team was pushing on two of their bots at the same time. The pushing match did not subside and I saw no ref reaction. One of their bots began to tip so I told the driver to barrel through. Flip. For this we were yellow carded even though we thought we were valid (perhaps because we enjoyed it too much?).

Oddly they never displayed the "corrected" score so I don't know how much our penalty was but it was a 2 point loss. We actually ended up winning the quarter-final in the end by continued harassing by our bot in the 2nd and the arrival of the 3rd bot for the 3rd game.

Meanwhile my daughter 11 in the stands said "people were saying bad words daddy. They said ####". The conversation went like this.

Husband: <censored>
Wife: Relax its just a robot
Husband: It is NOT just a robot. <more rant>

I think these robots somehow become and extension of their teams. If it is hurt, they feel it. I think of it as "just a machine" because I was there when it was built. Do I need therapy?

In another match, I saw a robot hit another front bumper to front bumper square. It was what would have just bumped most bots but because the 2nd bot was top heavy it went straight back and down. Yellow card and they lost.

I am in agreement with a lot of you that the defense of the game this year has been hobbled. We had a stationary full court shooter on our alliance and so then had to devote one robot to protect it, no shooting from it. Our defense was more or less a pushing match the whole time. Meanwhile they had two excellent mobile shooters to our one mobile shooter. This is why I don't think with a stationary full court shooter on a team can they can win. If we could have eliminated the push-bot we could have assisted in defending our one mobile shooter. Or they could have gotten to the full court shooter if the other way around. Instead no change in the balance the whole match.

Seems kind of lame you have to penalized for what are now considered harsh defensive measures, that without there is not possibility of a win. Because of the penalties and the reaction to them it makes me feel like I've done something sleazy quite frankly. That is why I refer to it as 'The Dark Side'.

But I'll get over it. I've seen in the high scores thread how many fouls are occurring in the high stakes matches. There are those who are not afraid to defend in spite all the friction.

I also enjoyed reading the stories about damaged robots. Thanks for sharing. That could be its own thread. I wonder what kind of damage stories happened more recently and how they compare.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Just guessing, but you may have received a technical foul for G28: "Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed."

If you just hit someone and they happen to go over, that's not a strategy. But if you are pushing them and have them partially tipped, and then either continue to push or move back and hit them again, that can look pretty much like a strategy.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

"not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed"

That is the part that makes me think they've gone soft. Is the spirit of FRC that we just play an offensive game and show what the robot can do? This is mostly what we did during qualifying matches.

I think you are right about the strategy thing. But doesn't it seem like a strategy could be to put one robot out of commission in the first of a 3 match final event? Or is that a red card? But some teams might say so what.

Another observation is that once point accumulation is so high, teams can afford lots of fouls. So does this mean once a team is an ultra high scorer they lose the spirit of FRC. Just sayin...

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

My interpretation of "not in the spirit of FRC" would be thinking, "hey, team XXXX, its team XXXX so I gotta destroy them!" or "our strategy is just to simply knock every robot over!"

And as someone who was behind the glass (opposite of 4281) in the match referenced above with a robot tipping over, I'm not gonna debate/argue over what the call was, but the confusion over the final score was due to the head referee initially accidentally giving the foul points to the wrong team. After the following match, this was announced and corrected.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

"GONE soft"???? That particular rule has been on the books in one form or another since 1994 or so. (Scary thought: Some of the students in the competition might not have been born when the rule was first enacted!)

Guess what, some of the games since then have been extremely rough on robots. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2000 as I recall, 1999 maybe... I saw an arm torn off in 2007; multiple flipped robots due to field elements in 2006 and 2010 and some partner robots in 2007.

I'll address the strategy question first before I go into why defense tends to get penalties. There's an interesting story there.

If you can put one robot out of commission in the first of 3 matches, and you strategize to do so, yes, it's a red card. More than that, you WILL be facing 3 robots in either the next match or the third one, though they might not be the same--and chances are, you will have a yellow card against you as well. You really don't want that.

Anyways, back to the defense. Up until about 2005, all contact was metal on metal (except for a few teams who used bumpers). But in 2005, an event occurred that won't happen again (due to elimination tiebreaks): a 0-0 tie. In eliminations. Due to DQs (this is before red cards). Seems two teams with wedge-shaped robots managed to each tip one opponent in the same match. Both were DQed, taking their alliance with them to the red card. During the offseason, there was strong support for the wedges from the "offense-oriented" teams, as many of them had them primarily for defense against defenders who would otherwise harry them, even in their loading zone (that year, a 30-point penalty nicknamed the "Kiss of Death" for its ability to win--err, lose--matches). Essentially, the argument was "If we don't have protection, we will simply play the game these guys are playing. We will build a box on wheels with no apparent purpose other than to beat on other robots. Then the competition will REALLY stink." (This to counteract defense arguments that "We can't hit these guys without falling over, this competition stinks!"

But, FIRST apparently did not want the wedges to stay as defense, partly due to the double DQ, I think. For 2006, they rolled out a standard bumper design, but made it optional. No wedges were allowed. Ditto for 2007. Bumpers were made mandatory in 2008; from 2006-2010 there were no protected zones (besides a home zone with time in 2007 and "odd-man" offense areas/times in 2006 and 2010, as well as 2010's tower protection).

Somewhere along between 2010 and 2011, someone seems to have decided that offense is good and should be protected more than it was. So, we get the lanes in 2011, the key and alley in 2012, and of course this year's areas, along with various contact restrictions, some of which have always been there.

I think part of the restrictions is that it emphasizes the difficult parts of the game, or the areas where if you don't play smart defense, safety of either the robot or the nearby humans will be compromised. Imagine a robot falling from Level 3... and landing on YOUR robot! (Wait. Don't. I don't want you to be completely frightened.) Or imagine getting hit in the key last year... and shooting straight at the head ref's face at relatively close range. (Or how about the frisbees this year, from the feeder zone? I bet some GDC members figured out how many Ultimate Frisbee players were likely to try to go long...)

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I agree completely. I'm a 5th year FTC student (and a 2nd Year FRC) and our robot is designed around being an defensive robot. For FTC (and FRC sorta) many teams use a four corner, four motor all direction omni wheel bots, in comparison our team uses a 6 motor strait drive train (with the capabilities of pushing both of our opponents robots at once) and in our first competition this year our servos went haywire and we spent all competition as just a drive train bot. We ended up getting picked by the 4th place team and we won the competition.

Just goes to show that defense is a game changing strategy.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

EricH,

Thanks for that great history of offense vs. defense. This sounds like something political enough it could have split the organization, but I am glad it didn't. There could have been a sort of battle-bots spin off. I think that has been taken care of by the MIT type folks, but it is more exclusive.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

On the other hand, some legendary offense and defense teams are VERY good friends.


Actually, there is one game where defense did not exist. We don't like to talk about it... 2001: Diabolical Dynamics. 4v0vclock. No defense, just a "did they Estop before or after their multiplier dropped, and how many points did they get before they did?" Very strategic, if you could stay awake.

In 2011 we got a yellow card which ruined our event at championships. The ref called our defense not in the spirit of the game when we hadn't pinned, damaged, nor tipped the opposing robot. We only drove side to side to block them from their rack. He called it not in the spirit of the game and we were forced to resort to offense which was our lesser talent. It really depends where u are and who you get.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I love that this year's game is physical. Our robot took a dive in the first round of the finals. In Qualification, a robot fell from the 20 point level. Bomb Squad fell from the 30 point climb height, as well as another team whose number I forget. It makes this year much more strategic and allows for defensive bots to have a big factor. Case in point: St Louis. Last year, robot interaction was very limited due to that bump in the middle and the time it took to cross the bridge. Dont forget that this is the first year in many years where game pieces can not be thrown to the middle of the field by the human player. In logomotion, our human player was able to throw the inner tube well past half field. Last year, nearly, if not all, human players could throw the ball to bounce over the bridge, thus getting the ball to the side of the field it needs to be on. I think FIRST did a good job this year on designing a well rounded challenge.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Those big jerks over at team 16 (;)) got into a pretty rough collision at Hub City that actually split the welds on our frame. Through the bumper. Wasn't really a big deal, covered the bot in tin foil and had it re-welded. We've yet to see any carrer ending injuries.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0CDop_IwW8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?=37eo0d1PqW4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5nnGGRi-94

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Entertaining. The more things change the more they stay the same.

While putting a robot out for a match might be considered strategic, if they couldn't play the rest of the N-final, as EricH says, that doesn't do any good anyway. So terminal elimination wouldn't be desired. We don't think like that anyway and in fact I was having trouble getting the students to even touch another robot for much of the tournament. The fact that the driver began doing the bulldozer for the quarter-finals was miraculous. In fact he thought the 'incident' to be strategic and wondered why it was a foul.

Referring to rule 2.5.4: Backup Teams, in this years manual, you become the fourth member if you get knocked out. That is why I was perplexed that before we got our replacement wheel back on for the last match of our semi-final, that the official came and told us if we were not back on the field in time we would be 'disqualified', their words. I would have disagreed, but we got our replacement wheel back on with help from another team, so we never got to test this out.

If they are as quick to call tipping a 30 point foul, I am wondering if anyone has ever tried a 'play dead' strategy. Could a robot be built and programmed to tip itself, perhaps using a throttle burst, if a large enough jolt occurred. There would be some finesse involved to make this look real. It seems like if a game was close and they are so quick to call it, it might be a good 30 point play. I mean look how hard people worked to make a 30 point climber, the auto-tip seems a bit easier.

Especially if you also had an up-righting mechanism :)

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Wait, what?

Trying to "put out a robot" for any length is NOT ok and should be penalized. Actually, the fact that your driver thought that tipping was strategic is a direct violation of [G28], which directly calls out "strategies aimed at .. tipping."

You called a time-out, I assume. The rules say that you have to be ON the field by the time the time-out ends. The refs do enforce this: in 2009 it cost 188-610-1305 the Greater Toronto Regional. Besides, even if you DO disagree with the ref, the Head Ref's word is final.

This ruling might have changed though: in Montreal, there was a team in the finals that was off the field after their time-out ended. They were allowed on the field, but had to be disabled due to [G07]. So, even if you HAD been let on the field, you probably wouldn't have been able to move your robot anyways.

Again, the manual kind of ruins this idea. [G26] says "ROBOTS may not intentionally fall down or tip over to block the FIELD." So that's one big minus against you. Then you've got the whole [G18-1] thing, which is all about not drawing penalties (like you would be if you made it look like people were tipping you). So, no, nobody has ever thought of building a flipping robot, because to do so would almost certainly mean losing every single match you ever play.

So yeah, literally EVERYTHING that you suggested in this post is against at least one rule in the FRC-Manual. I'd suggest giving it another read or two.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

No doubt this is a key factor, Jared. You and I both began in an era when many (if not most) FRC robots were two-motor two wheel drivetrains. Not too long ago teams looked at 4 motors in the drive as "expensive" in terms of money and allotment. Then came the CIM, and the first real kit gearbox ... and now the improvements and pricing make lots of teams think a 4 motor drive isn't "enough". Exciting times for sure and I wonder what my old team's 2007 bumper-less robot would have looked like at season's end with 2013 options and rules applied.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

After reading this and giving it a thought to our 2005, 2006, and 2007 robots all I can say to myself was, "Oh my God!" lol

Those robots would have been ridiculous. 2006 bot: 6 CIM drivetrain + 2 miniCIM for shooter = auto-victory.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Even with the higher CIM limits in 2013, 6-motor drivetrains are every bit as rare as they were in previous years. 1712 has encountered only one at each of our events (341 at Hatboro, 225 at Lenape). Most teams are still sticking with 2/4 CIM drivetrains.

Even more curious, imo, is how many teams didn't opt to go with high powered or high traction drives this year. Perhaps it was the relatively low contact nature of the 2012 game, but there are a number of teams (including some very good veterans) who opted for more finesse-oriented drives in 2013. 1712 has a relatively standard drive system by many years' FRC standards (4CIMs, 1-speed transmission, ~10fps, Versa wheels), yet we were among the strongest drivetrains at both districts we attended. We've only encountered two teams that were able to displace us, 225 and 2729 (and neither could do it quickly). A lot of teams seemed to forget what happens in "open field" games when designing their robot. Especially ones that also have chokepoints.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

For some reason, people feel that more maneuverability is demanded with an open field, weighing it higher than a drivetrain with power behind it. I think the logic behind this decision is with an open field, defense is more viable, so these teams wish to maneuver around the defense.

I've only seen 1 6 CIM DT at both events I attended, but plenty of two speed drivetrains, and certainly more 4 cim DT's than before.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I don't know about that. There was a maximum muzzle velocity in 2006, so putting more power on the shooter isn't going to increase your range. Keep in mind that the 2006 KoP also had Fischer Price motors and the Minibike CIMs, neither of which are available anymore. You could put just as much wattage in your drivetrain and shooter in 2006 as you could today, and there were plenty of teams who did.

What the greater CIM limit (and BAG and MiniCIMs) are really great for is applications that involve stalling motors. The greater durability of these motors has the potential to simplify arm/elevator/manipulator design for low and mid-level teams, in order to better avoid the stall conditions that cause failure in fan-cooled motors (Fischer Price, Banebots 550 and 775, RS-9015, etc.).

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I did not know that; my freshman year was 2007.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

This is true, they will run the match without you, but it is not and has never been an automatic disqualification. Teams have run matches 3v2 for years, and if the Head Ref says you are disqualified unless three robots are on the field, that is a problem.

I think there was definitely less accessible available motor power in 2006. Your main option for an FP based shooter was a DeWalt transmission, which not everyone could modify. Otherwise, you had to use an extremely heavy motor up high (minibike) or you had to get rid of one of your 4 CIMs.

All of that aside, teams have access to more than 16 >200W motors this year. (6 CIM, 4 Mini-CIM, 4 550, 4? AM)

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I really hope FIRST keeps the motor allocations the same in future years. It would not be fun to have to go back to 4 CIM drive.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Lets just play stack attack with the motors we have now, no bumper rules and see what happens. 6 cim drive with brecoflex belts here we come. Back on topic though, I think teams don't teach enough evasive driving. A good driver will beat a really good defensive robot most of the time. FIRST doesn't want to see any defense in these games anyway and writes the manual as such. They allow a few things to make it interesting but the intent over the past few years has been for a high scoring game. Which is what I agree FIRST competitions should be.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Given there was hardly a need for any high powered articulation in that game, might as well lob all 10 CIM/MiniCIMs into the drivetrain.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

This to me was the original point of the post. Correct me if I am wrong.
I have hesitated to post this for a long time and I will not reply to any comments posted after this.
I just want to preface the following comment by saying that I am a big fan of a rougher game, whether I am on the receiving end or giving end of the hit.
The problem was not on the field. It was clearly in the stands.

I will not repeat specific quotes or specific teams, but there were students, parents, and coaches all over the arena openly screaming for teams to knock over Team 225 in both the semi-finals and finals at Chestnut Hill. Here is a team that has never been in the finals in their history and everyone is openly cheering for them to be toppled. People were openly screaming "Knock them down", I know what I heard.

That is something I have not seen in 14 years of FIRST. It was a disgrace and there are some people in MAR that are in need of a serious "Gut Check".
Blast away if you wish.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Back in 2006 our bumper-less Tank Drive aluminum frame robot used a 6 motor drive (two large FP CIMs and 4 normal CIMs); We played lot of defense and offense (the advantage of the drive in either case being that you can push other robots out of your way).
The only time we ever had an issue with damage on the robot was one match where the front cross support got bent because the robot rammed into one of the ramp side guards too hard. We bent the beam back into place and played the rest of the matches without incident.

Frankly, IMO, robots were much higher quality back when they actually had to be designed to take a beating, and the matches were much more interesting with defense as a viable strategy.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

While certainly true this year, there was a robot specifically designed for flipping robots if you dig deep enough into FIRST History. The Rhode Warriors (121) built a robot with a flipping mechanism in 1997 (I think...) that spawned a lot of stories. And then intentional flipping was promptly made illegal the next year, and has been ever since.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Well 86 built a robot that flipped itself every match when it went over the burms in 2010; they didnt lose every match. :D

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

From what I've gleaned robot tipping cannot be done as a strategy, so then the alternative is that it can be done as a knucklehead. But then this would be not in the spirit. So has anyone seen a case in 2013 when a robot was tipped by another and no technical foul was called? Stories?

Side note. I've noticed that the technical fouls seem to be 30 points, is this a modification from 20 in the glossary of the original publication?

I noted in one of my earlier posts that in another match a robot hit another robot, but since the second robot was top heavy... but it wasn't only that. The four wheels were almost to the frame perimeter. This plus the top heaviness and the robot slammed right over, boom. This happened right in front of us (on the stands) and I wasn't the only one who raised one brow. So to all of those who say you can't build a robot that will purposely tip, it can be done at least passively. There currently is no inspection test for some kind of minimum bumper hit.

OZ 341, I am in 225's district but I wasn't at Chestnut. I didn't hear any such calls at our last event but it is hard to hear on the floor (maybe the loud music is good shield!). This is my first year as mentor, driver couch, semi-finals where defense is escalated. I am trying to learn as much as I can in a short time span. What I can tell you is that I think the latter is becoming what might be described as 'hard ball', a real sport. There is a lot of pressure and I think thick skin in needed. It might be that once the audience sees all this bumping around that they get fired up. I doubt all of them know the rules, but would they have been asking their favored team to take a 30 point hit just because they can possibly counter it in offensive play?

How does this jive with the idea of 5.4.4 (about ties) "the ALLIANCE that played the cleaner MATCH", implying that fouling is, how should I say it politely, not clean? In basketball, is fouling part of the dark side of that game, or just strategy?

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

We have tipped robots three times this year. At no time did we ever intend to - we simply pushed the robots and they went over. We were never called on it. If you build a tippy robot, the rules do not offer you protection against simple defense. Only clearly intentional tips (e.g. hitting a robot up high outside its bumper zone, driving hard into a partially tipped robot to "finish the job", etc) are called for technical fouls, as they should be.

They are 20 points. If the technical foul interfered with a hang, the alliance is given 30 hanging points.

All other things equal, wouldn't wheels farther to the edges of the frame perimeter result in a less tippy robot?

This is an ongoing debate in the FRC world. In the past, intentional fouls have been worth it in niche situations, but in this game a "strategic foul" gets you a potential yellow card, according to the rules and Q&A.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I am only answering because it is the original poster.
My issue was not with the onfield play or the officiating.
As I mentioned, a rough game is just fine with me and we build for it.

My issue is with the lack of sportsmanship in the crowd.
My problem is with those audience members and teams that were openly calling for a fellow competitor (225) to be tipped. Those same people actually cheered and high-fived when it happened. This is just so far from what FIRST is about.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

This. Also, I should point out the times where there have been chants mocking an alliance when the set goes to a third match, because the underdog won. I heard this at CH, and at Mt Olive. Very, very, very un-GP; and the first time I've seen/heard it in this area. Personally, I think it's because too many teams in the area are focused on winning matches. I'd like to think that any team that I was on would not stoop this low.

EDIT: I was sitting right behind the section that was cheering when 225 was tipped. It's quite rude to hear this. The teams in the area are better then this. I'd also like to think that the refs had warned the alliance that tipped 225, and that they would have red carded the alliance if it happened again. Tipping the robot one can be an accident, but once it happens multiple times, it becomes a strategy. Also, I'm glad that 225 was able to garner a strategy to prevent themselves from being tipped.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

FWIW, while the competitors certainly looked to up the ante when playing agaisnt 225 at Lenape-Seneca (including a number of blocking devices), there wasn't really any unsportsmanlike behavior centered around them that I was aware of. I remember a gasp the one time they fell over, but no rampant cheering. I also know there was at least one other team who constantly cheered for and chanted 225's name/number during qualifications. Nor do I recall any particularly egregious crowd behavior at Hatboro-Horsham, though I was hardly around the audience at that event.

It's a real shame to hear it went different at SCH and MO. :(

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

For what it's worth, of the three times we tipped (from videos I have watched) only the time in Chestnut Hill SF2-1 could be considered the fault of the opposing alliance.

Regardless of how the crowd reacted at Chestnut Hill, the event staff, volunteers, and the drive teams I worked with were extremely gracious at both events.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

This is a good clarification. After the driver tipped the robot, when he turned he hit within their frame perimeter. This was due to clumsiness and no way intentional and it wasn't a hard hit. After the event was over I heard one opinion that the latter is what the foul was for. I never addressed a ref on it and I could cleared this whole thing up then and there.

Oh never mind on this as I realize this was total total fouls since that is all that is displayed.

Yes. Now I am thinking this is what made it even more out of context about the hit. It could just be the top heaviness of the robot did all the work. I'd still like to have seen the force that took to do it in a test.

I well know; when we play an alliance that has an offense that is much higher order than us, it is a balancing act on how much defense we can apply. Could it be that FRC wants the winning robots to win on the merits of how good the robots are built and not how much they can be denied performance? I think that is an obvious yes.