Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128066)

Jared Russell 21-03-2014 11:49

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Swan217 (Post 1362196)
You're saying you can't play defense without ramming. That is LITERALLY like saying you can't play defense in hockey without leaving your feet, or boarding. Ramming with bumpers is like helmet-to-helmet contact in football - Yes, the helmets protect your head from damage, but only so much. This is like saying you can't play defense in soccer without bodychecking your opponents. It's completely un-gracious & un-professional.

The concern is that we don't have a precise understanding of what "inhibition", "high-speed", "aggressive", and "ramming" mean in an Aerial Assist context.

This isn't just trying to be pedantic. Many people have already witnessed completely contradictory and inconsistent rulings when it comes to physical contact this year. You have teams intentionally flipping other teams without penalty at one regional, and then you have teams getting called for Tech Fouls because an opponent's intake fell off when they hit the field barrier at another. (Even before this update).

And then you have all of the missed assists because refs are too busy entering scores, watching human players, and trying to get the defensive calls right.

Now you have all of the new gray areas being thrown into the mix. Yes, there are cases where "high-speed aggressive ramming" is clear as day. But there are plenty of other big collisions that occur naturally between teams acting in good faith, and you have normal defensive contact that results in damaged robots due to bad luck or poor construction. How will these be called?

The NHL has had rules against boarding for a long time, and there are still controversial calls and tweaks to the rule from time to time (there was a major one in 2011). But tens of thousands of NHL games called by a fairly small group of professional referees have established precedent for how the foul is generally called. We are halfway through the FRC season and have a much larger pool of volunteer referees...

atucker4072 21-03-2014 11:54

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tungrus (Post 1362201)
So what's next for the overloaded refs? Get a radar gun to check speed? If a robot cannot handle defense it shouldn't be on the field! Six robots running around trying to achieve their goal, crashes are bound to happen!

"Strategies aimed at" if teams are trying to get a ball they are trying to get the ball. If they are playing defense and ram into someone that is different.

Oblarg 21-03-2014 11:56

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by atucker4072 (Post 1362207)
"Strategies aimed at" if teams are trying to get a ball they are trying to get the ball. If they are playing defense and ram into someone that is different.

"Strategies aimed at" was already in the rule. The rule change added "or gameplay resulting in."

E Dawg 21-03-2014 12:02

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tungrus (Post 1362201)
If a robot cannot handle defense it shouldn't be on the field!!

Some teams aren't capable of creating a bot that can handle hits. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to participate?

It seems to me the point of this update is to solve this problem. Many teams aren't capable of making a sturdy bot (as already discussed). I've never had one of my robots be totaled, but I can only imagine how heartbreaking that would be. 6 weeks destroyed by a single hit. With the carnage of this year's game, it seems to me that the GDC is trying to protect weak bots, not shut down the strong ones!

Now of course it would be great if every single robot was an invincible tank, but that isn't the case. From the general attitude in this thread it seems that most of the people in FRC have pretty robust robots, but some teams just don't.

I don't like the update, because it negates a lot of the abilities our robot has. And yet... I kind of agree with it, because I've seen way too much carnage in the past few weeks and it needs to stop.

Oblarg 21-03-2014 12:11

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by E Dawg (Post 1362212)
It seems to me the point of this update is to solve this problem. Many teams aren't capable of making a sturdy bot (as already discussed).

This isn't true. The kitbot this year, if properly assembled (there are instructions), is quite sturdy. It can be trivially made even more sturdy with the addition of a few extra stiffeners (say, a minimum of 30 minutes of work and a $20 investment in some wood).

I've had robots I've spent 6 weeks on fail miserably. I learned from the experience. It was clear this was going to be a rough game; you cannot make it a not-rough game without choking it with penalties and forcing drivers to actively avoid contact, which is a terrible idea.

I will tell you that as a drive coach, it is very possible that this rule will be enforced in a way which will force me to advise our drivers to sit still and try not to touch anyone when they don't have the ball, or else do something completely benign and nearly useless like camping in front of the low goal. It is impossible to play active defense with a strong drive without having the risk of hitting another robot with a considerable amount of force. That is the nature of FRC; these are 150lb machines with north of 2 hp in drive power. If you did not build your machine to be able to withstand contact from another such machine, how is that any different than failing to build a shooter that shoots the ball, or a drive that drives? Perhaps we ought to remove the scoring, because it's unfair to robots that are unable to do it?

Of course, if a team shows up with a non-functional robot, I will do everything in my power to help them get it to a functional state and put it on the field. That is the spirit of gracious professionalism, and the competition demands it. Gracious professionalism should not, however, demand that everyone instead work around the fact that their robot is non-functional. For example, if a team's battery mount is haphazard, the onus on other teams is to help them improve it, not to go out of their way to avoid hitting them in matches because it might fall off.

JohnFogarty 21-03-2014 12:19

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
The matches I've watched at Waterloo have had some mild collisions/defense and no penalties have been called in the matches I've seen.

I've heard (in the Waterloo thread) it did cause one of 2056's alliances to lose with 70 pts of penalties.

Nemo 21-03-2014 12:44

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
I can live with the "high speed or repeated ramming" foul. Effective defenders get in your way as opposed to trying to beat you up, so that part of the update doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me. Obviously, it will be a game-destroying rule if the referees are overeager to call it at the slightest hint of contact.

The "gameplay resulting in damage to opponent robots" foul is pretty problematic. Now it's an advantage if your robot can visibly fall apart after minor contact in order to draw fouls.

Jared Russell 21-03-2014 12:56

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo (Post 1362234)
I can live with the "high speed or repeated ramming" foul. Effective defenders get in your way as opposed to trying to beat you up, so that part of the update doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me.

I don't necessarily agree. Hitting an opponent (in the bumper zone) at the precise moment that they are shooting can be extremely effective. I think this is a reasonable part of the game, and unlikely to cause damage if done correctly (and it certainly doesn't need to be a 20fps collision to work well).

Is this now repeated ramming?

sircedric4 21-03-2014 13:02

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo (Post 1362234)
Now it's an advantage if your robot can visibly fall apart after minor contact in order to draw fouls.

This is an interesting concept. Will this be the year of the Possum bot? (A robot that can play dead)

If they are going to actually enforce this new rule then they need to put a speed limit out and inspect to it. Otherwise it is way too subjective and open to such "gaming" of the system as mentioned above. I really don't want to see the last minute truss shot to win a close game turn into a last minute "possum" play to win a game that is nowhere near close.

Nemo 21-03-2014 13:03

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1362240)
I don't necessarily agree. Hitting an opponent (in the bumper zone) at the precise moment that they are shooting can be extremely effective. I think this is a reasonable part of the game, and unlikely to cause damage if done correctly (and it certainly doesn't need to be a 20fps collision to work well).

Is this now repeated ramming?

Yeah, I also don't like how the rule opens the door for the referees to call a foul if you "ram" an opponent twice at 6 ft/s. To me that is shoving and bumping as opposed to ramming, but it is true that we are in a pretty fuzzy area with this rule. Like I said, it messes up the game if the referees are too eager with this foul.

pfreivald 21-03-2014 14:15

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
I've been streaming pretty much every event today (two prep periods, and then a half day where I get to work on the syllabus for my new AP Physics 1 course--so I've got two computers up and am game-hopping while I work), and if anything I've observed fewer fouls, better games, and still a decent amount of pushing and shoving defense being played.

The sky is still where it is; it has not fallen.

Swan217 21-03-2014 14:20

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1362204)
The concern is that we don't have a precise understanding of what "inhibition", "high-speed", "aggressive", and "ramming" mean in an Aerial Assist context.

This isn't just trying to be pedantic. Many people have already witnessed completely contradictory and inconsistent rulings when it comes to physical contact this year. You have teams intentionally flipping other teams without penalty at one regional, and then you have teams getting called for Tech Fouls because an opponent's intake fell off when they hit the field barrier at another. (Even before this update).

And then you have all of the missed assists because refs are too busy entering scores, watching human players, and trying to get the defensive calls right.

Now you have all of the new gray areas being thrown into the mix. Yes, there are cases where "high-speed aggressive ramming" is clear as day. But there are plenty of other big collisions that occur naturally between teams acting in good faith, and you have normal defensive contact that results in damaged robots due to bad luck or poor construction. How will these be called?

The NHL has had rules against boarding for a long time, and there are still controversial calls and tweaks to the rule from time to time (there was a major one in 2011). But tens of thousands of NHL games called by a fairly small group of professional referees have established precedent for how the foul is generally called. We are halfway through the FRC season and have a much larger pool of volunteer referees...

Understandable, and believe me, I know how overworked the refs are this year. Our field crew in Orlando was about one more replayed match away from a breakdown on Friday. I also know that referee inconsistency has become almost a given in FIRST, but the answer to that is obviously better designed games & better referee training.

But it's not like looking out for Ramming/aggressive play is an ADDITIONAL responsibility to what the referees are already looking out for - they're already looking at G27's. This is a clarification on what constitutes overaggressiveness, and more flexibility to the refs on the penalties handed out for G27.

And this amendment doesn't come out of thin air, it's clearly coming from the Head Ref call this week, with head refs being frustrated at not being able to stop the flow of drivers to their "?" box complaining about overaggressive defense (in addition to the missed assists & incorrect scores). I'm always pleased to see FIRST react to situations in the field & make changes instead of ignoring them. See my whitepaper for some more of my thoughts.

IronicDeadBird 21-03-2014 14:23

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1362240)
I don't necessarily agree. Hitting an opponent (in the bumper zone) at the precise moment that they are shooting can be extremely effective. I think this is a reasonable part of the game, and unlikely to cause damage if done correctly (and it certainly doesn't need to be a 20fps collision to work well).

Is this now repeated ramming?

Isn't it even more effective though to not let them get into shooting range? I mean if you can't win a pushing war then shot disruption is viable but I would say burning time through pushing is better then attempting to disrupt.

Chris is me 21-03-2014 14:25

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird (Post 1362281)
Isn't it even more effective though to not let them get into shooting range? I mean if you can't win a pushing war then shot disruption is viable but I would say burning time through pushing is better then attempting to disrupt.

Pushing is a lot higher of an opportunity cost as it always takes more time away from you than it does the defender. With a well timed, moderate speed ram to spin a robot, you make them miss their shot and spent 10 seconds chasing after a loose ball, while you only needed to invest 2-3 seconds to perform the maneuver. In a dynamic game where switching from offense to defense in crucial, this is a big difference. But is this "aggressive"? Is moving toward a robot at any speed "aggressive"?

sircedric4 21-03-2014 14:31

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pfreivald (Post 1362278)
I've been streaming pretty much every event today (two prep periods, and then a half day where I get to work on the syllabus for my new AP Physics 1 course--so I've got two computers up and am game-hopping while I work), and if anything I've observed fewer fouls, better games, and still a decent amount of pushing and shoving defense being played.

The sky is still where it is; it has not fallen.

I would be interested to see if this is still the case tomorrow come eliminations. First day qualifiers under the "new" rules, it iss possible that there aren't enough good robots on the field at one time to really see the aggressiveness come out.

Everyone knows eliminations is another can of worms, and it is also when the games start to really "count". That is when teams drive their robots like they stole them because it is better to leave it on the field then lose because you didn't play hard enough.

This is also when the refs start to get worn out and the chances of mistakes start to really swing games. Subjective judgement gets foggier as you get burned out.

raptaconehs 21-03-2014 14:39

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1362282)
Pushing is a lot higher of an opportunity cost as it always takes more time away from you than it does the defender. With a well timed, moderate speed ram to spin a robot, you make them miss their shot and spent 10 seconds chasing after a loose ball, while you only needed to invest 2-3 seconds to perform the maneuver. In a dynamic game where switching from offense to defense in crucial, this is a big difference. But is this "aggressive"? Is moving toward a robot at any speed "aggressive"?

This is the biggest question. If you come across the field at full speed and then hit a robot that is about to shoot, will you get penalized for it? Cause if blocking that shot can decide which alliance wins the match I think it will be hard to come at a reasonable speed. This will greatly effect close matches.

IronicDeadBird 21-03-2014 14:51

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1362282)
Pushing is a lot higher of an opportunity cost as it always takes more time away from you than it does the defender. With a well timed, moderate speed ram to spin a robot, you make them miss their shot and spent 10 seconds chasing after a loose ball, while you only needed to invest 2-3 seconds to perform the maneuver. In a dynamic game where switching from offense to defense in crucial, this is a big difference. But is this "aggressive"? Is moving toward a robot at any speed "aggressive"?

I really wanted to be very precise when I used terms in this years game so when I talked to my team a while back I talked about active and reactive defense (I honestly don't think they remember though.) Anyway active defense is the process of defending from advantageous situations like stopping a ball from being brought into play by zonning or forcing a bad decision such as driving an awkward route to score. Reactive defense is when you are reacting to threats like a team about to score or a robot lining up for a truss. In my opinion active defense is always better then reactive. Reactive defense I find is always more aggressive, because more is on the line at that point. Active defense is a major time sink because its mainly about forcing the opponent to have only bad options and hoping they pick the worst one. Reactive is about neutralizing a "threat" as fast as possible in the end it really comes down to preference I suppose.

Conor Ryan 21-03-2014 15:13

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
As of lunchtime at Buckeye G27 has not been called.

George Nishimura 21-03-2014 17:00

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty (Post 1362219)
The matches I've watched at Waterloo have had some mild collisions/defense and no penalties have been called in the matches I've seen.

I've heard (in the Waterloo thread) it did cause one of 2056's alliances to lose with 70 pts of penalties.

I'm not 100% certain of the details, but reportedly the technical foul (50 out of those 70 FP) was revoked retroactively after the "victim", team 781, graciously told the head ref it wasn't called correctly. They had originally won the match by 47pts, so it swung it completely.

Those with better knowledge feel free to correct/amend/fill in the story.

Anthony Galea 21-03-2014 20:37

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
According to the Head Ref at Traverse City, this rule update just allows the referees to call fouls on heavy defense that causes major damage, and doesn't fall into any other foul.

Everyone is overreacting.

Sam390250 21-03-2014 21:32

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
I agree, I think everyone is overreacting. I didn't watch every match at the Wisconsin Regional today, but the game play generally seemed better and I did not see any over abundance of "ramming" calls though there were definitely robot parts on the field. (Our Axis camera got destroyed one match).

tStano 22-03-2014 00:03

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1362139)
They have drivers meetings. If your drivers go to them & listen they will know about the rule changes. This has also gone out on the email blasts. The primary team contact gets them. Rather or not they actually them is the team's problem.

I know that at least at Wisconsin, the driver meeting was before the update came out. There was not another driver meeting after the update. The head ref did walk around and show teams the rule change. However, he was very unclear about how stuff would actually be called.
Thats not his fault, every ref at an event will call stuff differently.

Although, this is not the end of the world. Its not being called unfairly, in fact, its barely being called at all, and I'm fine with that. The update encourages teams to at least be more careful.

orangemoore 22-03-2014 00:11

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tStano (Post 1362421)
I know that at least at Wisconsin, the driver meeting was before the update came out. There was not another driver meeting after the update. The head ref did walk around and show teams the rule change. However, he was very unclear about how stuff would actually be called.
Thats not his fault, every ref at an event will call stuff differently.

Although, this is not the end of the world. Its not being called unfairly, in fact, its barely being called at all, and I'm fine with that. The update encourages teams to at least be more careful.

When was the driver meeting. Because we missed it and I would like to know when it was.

tStano 22-03-2014 00:15

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by orangemoore (Post 1362423)
When was the driver meeting. Because we missed it and I would like to know when it was.

It was Thursday morning; 9am I believe.

jtechau 22-03-2014 00:34

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
I'm not sure which competitions some of you are reviewing. If you're concerned about a bit of high speed defense, you're missing the bigger picture. Last week saw some "defense" that was clearly attempting to overturn or disable an opponent by repeated, aggressive ramming. That's just not right, in the context of FRC, and it seems that the GDC is making a statement to that effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3175student17 (Post 1362381)
According to the Head Ref at Traverse City, this rule update just allows the referees to call fouls on heavy defense that causes major damage, and doesn't fall into any other foul.

Everyone is overreacting.

Thank you.

coalhot 22-03-2014 00:40

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
According to the refs at Lenape, this foul is going to be called as "no harm, no foul". Don't know how that'll work, we'll see tomorrow when we get some actual matches in.

BBray_T1296 22-03-2014 00:43

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Oblarg (Post 1362198)
Everyone who did more than a cursory analysis of the game saw this coming and built their robot accordingly. If other people didn't, tough luck - I don't see anything ungracious or unprofessional about hard defense, so long as there's no intent to damage or disable the other robot. Aggressive driving is good driving - it makes for more impressive games, more interesting strategies, and a much better spectator sport.

This. This right here.

I do not think one single team has gone out for a match with the express intent to break someone else's robot. Of course, robots do get broken--particularly under-engineered ones, or because of accidents (such as intakes inside other robots). Everybody is right. This is not Battlebots, and I am certain nobody pretends it is, but that does not mean it is BEST (with zero robot contact allowed). The bumpers are there for a reason, and that reason is because this is a contact sport.

Also, comparing this game to any other sport (hockey, football, American football, lacrosse, or anything else) cannot be accurately done.

cglrcng 22-03-2014 01:24

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
1 step forward...2 steps back. I would be glad I stayed home this weekend (avoiding showing my displeasure or any non-GP in front of students or anyone else), except the link to my teams Regional event from FIRSThas yet to even work at all today, concerning the standings & schedule.

So looking up where the team is in the standings at any time today, was totally impossible on the web, without bothering my scouting Wife via text or phone, who is super busy as always. And the link to the streaming video didn't even work until game #21 (Thank You theredalliance.com for finding a valid link, much appreciated here.

And, whoever is posting the vids to YouTube though they are also very much appreciated, & much better quality than the actual stream, doesn't stay on long enough to record any of the final scores (or any of those important penalties assessed), on even 1 of the vids, and on the stream of course, commercials always interrupt the stream at just the absolute wrong moment for sure. A tough day all around I'd say. 8th isn't bad for the amount of no shows they were force to not play with. Tons of short handed matches today for sure. And needless to say, I was lost all day...Thank goodness those little current seeding #'s were there next to the team #'s....I could at least somewhat tell something, when those went up or down the next match they played (much later though), whether they won or lost or tied the previous match.

Sure wish I had high blood pressure normally, so at least I'd have some medicine to take right now. Lol.

I don't disagree w/ the actual call of "less battle bots" and more FIRST Robotics update (except another subjective call added in that absolutely...nobody needed one more of those in this game...Especially the ref's).

Penalties overall seemed a bit lower thanks to TUESDAY's changes though, and the Ref. assistants seemed to help quite a bit....Some even hit balls back onto the field personally & repeatedly protecting the fancy pads they were operating...LOL. (You can trash any actual season points rating system if keeping track though, meaningless with all the existing changes now). anyone who is relying on one, is lying only to themselves.

It is the timing (announced while some are on the road traveling to a place w/ no real net access...Surprise! We changed things, let us tell you about it in the driver's meeting), of the actual change that really bothers me (personally, I don't care though...I'm not actually playing the game myself)....As long as they keep changing everything daily, and weekly (whether I personally like or don't like the changes matters very little), like this, it will be a completely different game by the time the Championships get here.

Of course nobody will remember exactly what the rules of the game really are...But, who really does now anyway? (Dead ball card...what is that really, except a 1 minute or so wall decoration, that isn't often seen?) 2 ball Auto...Nobody really cares if you have 2 balls contacting your robot to start....Their minds are no doubt elsewhere, trying to keep those penalties straight.

Are all the (truss crossing), 180 degree "wrong way auto's", I have seen so far, really NOT intentional? (can we allow them a rule change to put "FRONT" or "Point This Way!" on the front bumper please?) And I thought our team was confused when we built a bot that picks up on one end shoots out the other!

And how about all those sadly missed auto balls (But, why don't we truss it anyway just to see what happens), or are they just meaningless practice shots to burn up more time for no gain?

I'm beginning to wonder if it was only the adults who read the rules fully this year. Or are we only the confused ones. Maybe they changed that "Auto ball leftover," earns absolutely no truss points rule too, and they only told the students. Guess I'll go read the rules again...Nahhhhh. Not happening.

Good Luck Teams!

s_forbes 22-03-2014 01:42

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
I haven't seen any rampant robot destruction or resulting penalties at AZ, but I haven't had a chance to see all of the matches. Our "damage prone" grabby mechanism is safely intact after a day of qualifications! We'll see how elimination matches play out tomorrow...

Quote:

Originally Posted by cglrcng (Post 1362439)
2 ball Auto...Nobody really cares if you have 2 balls contacting your robot to start....Their minds are no doubt elsewhere, trying to keep those penalties straight.

In case you are referring to our 2 ball autos, all of them have been 100% within the rules (the second ball is away from the bumper by about an inch). Ian was watching us pretty closely during our practice day antics to keep us in check. :)

AdamHeard 22-03-2014 11:52

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
We got the ONLY G27 call all of Friday at la while playing offense under double defense.

It's a bit ridiculous.

Max Boord 22-03-2014 15:58

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1362517)
We got the ONLY G27 call all of Friday at la while playing offense under double defense.

It's a bit ridiculous.

Specifics?

sebas 23-03-2014 11:27

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
I agree that the rule may be subject to abusive calling, like many others in this game, however imagine this:

A robot is performing its part in a cycle when suddenly it is rammed by an opposing robot from a high velocity. That robot, for whatever reason, loses communication. All of the sudden you have a dead ball and one less alliance partner for some time during the match.

For us, it was a matter of electronics rather than metal. Something completely out of our control even though we built a fairly tough robot and secured electronics well.

So while, no, I'd rather not encourage the rising foul points awarded, there is merit to preventing overly aggressive gameplay. Defense is integral to Aerial Assist, but not damage.

bobl 15-04-2014 14:12

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Abhishek R (Post 1361844)
Yeah, I see this causing a bit more harm than good. I can see fouls being called for light defensive play now.

Also, isn't one of the primary ways to defend shots (and distinguish between the best scorers and the good scorers) to ram them right before they take the shot?

The post does say bumping is reasonable, but there's some gray area between that and when it becomes "aggressive ramming."

Yes, I agree that it could the rule could use clarification. Perhaps something like the old 2 line pass in hockey rule.

Defense is part of every game ever played. Having said that, I have watched as robots travel from the Red zone, through the White, into the Blue to ram an opponent in the process of making a shot into the high goal. No attempt to slow down or minimize the impact ever made, sometimes completely disabling the opponent, and no foul was called. This situation, in my opinion, was why the rule was adjusted.

FIRST made adjustments to the possession of an opponents ball inconsequential vs consequential) that were necessary to the flow of the game. I saw this being called correctly at many venues. I don't understand why ramming with the intent to damage is not called more often.

E Dawg 15-04-2014 15:37

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bobl (Post 1374163)
I don't understand why ramming with the intent to damage is not called more often.

Because if someone is trying to damage a robot (which they are hopefully not), how is the ref supposed to tell that between trying to stop the robot from scoring?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:28.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi