Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

I'm fine with this change, provided that the "via actions such as" clause applies to everything (which I think it does).

The enforcement logic goes something like this:

1. There's a judgment call to be made: did one of those actions take place? (And while there is ambiguity, the rule clearly grants sufficient latitude to make nearly any judgment difficult to contest.)
2. Then there's a fairly straightforward visual determination: did damage/destruction/inhibition occur as a result?
3. Then another judgment call: was it strategic?

A team with a purposely-frangible robot has control over item 2, but item 1 is substantially harder to manipulate (without building a terrible robot). So I'm not especially concerned about teams gaming the rule.

Item 3 is purely an assessment of intent, which is difficult in questionable cases. But the option to just call a foul is the easy way out: if the referee is unsure, the offence can still be penalized without having to make an unfounded assumption about motive. (And I think that was the point.)

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

Regardless of what you think the ideal amount of bodychecking is, the fact is that the rules presented to all teams at the beginning of the season permits this. Many teams have realized that a defensive high speed ramming robot is a great idea.

Some teams have realized that an effective offensive robot must withstand this, and have built robots that withstand this defense. I realize that this may be an exaggeration, but a student with me said that it's like if they would have removed full court shooting from last year. It would be removing a perfectly legal strategy from the game and would also negatively affect the robots with full court blockers.

As to JVN's comment of GDC's intention, their stated intention is to reduce violence and defense, in order to, IMO, make the game less like 2003.

Have they succeeded? Probably not.

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

Well, how are you reading it? How are you interpreting each change? I'm curious.

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

You guys all seem to be missing the point.

This update doesn't say "don't hit people". It doesn't say "don't push people". It says, don't leave your intake down and play D with it. Intakes can stick out 20". The outer 4-6" of my robot is built like a tank, because incidental contact is what happens. The inside of my shooter, which is almost centered in my robot, is still solid, but can't take repeated hard hits. The rules didn't say that it had to be designed to take a hard direct impact, and now it is quite clear that that is the case.

If you think this isn't currently a problem, then you haven't watched the quarterfinal matches at the Sacramento regional. Count the number of defensive hits inside the frame perimeter, and then check the score. No penalties were called until a robot was flipped.

You don't need to wind up full court and hit someone to play D. Some of the most effective D keeps a robot turned so they can't aim, or boxed out so they can't get somewhere. The rules in prior years used to say "no high speed ramming", and people used to play D then too.

I'm happy to see this change. I think it was overdue, and will force Referees to call the rule how it was intended to be called, rather than ignore it.

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

How can you possibly dispute that there are now more things to watch for?

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

If this is all that this rule said. Then no one would be complaining.

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage, destruction or inhibition of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment,damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed.

Inhibition is such a broad term:

All references from dictionary.com

inhibition
1. the act of inhibiting.

inhibiting
1. to restrain, hinder, arrest, or check (an action, impulse, etc.).

hinder
1. to cause delay, interruption, or difficulty in; hamper; impede: The storm hindered our progress.
2. to prevent from doing, acting, or happening; stop: to hinder a man from committing a crime.

I think the important part comes in the terms:
high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming

You can play defense, just no use of high speed, or repeated aggressive ramming the way I read it.

Godspeed to the referees!

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

Quoting what appears to be the GDC's literal intent, for reference:

Will they succeed? I think not.

The first large issue has been raised again and again - the amount of things referees have to pay attention to. There are three big items now that I think will cause debate this weekend. The first have been: human player zone violations alongside under G40, and scoring matches: assists, trusses, and goals (alongside the lag issues inherent in the FMS). I fear that the requirement of referees to catalogue and track every robot-to-robot interaction to see if 1) there is damage, destruction, or inhibition, 2)Is it accidental or strategic, is simply just piling something else upon the referees' plate that will not receive the attention it deserves (not to the referees' fault).

The second large issue is the possibility of attempting to draw fouls under this rule, despite the existence of G14 (which I have seen very, very rarely enforced). For instance, I can see the possibility that low-traction drivetrains that can be pushed readily by skid-steer drivetrains with lots of traction (e.g. mecanums, omnis versus tread wheels) could easily stage penalties to show "high-speed or aggressive" ramming, by not fighting pushing from the aforementioned skid-steer robots.

I am confused as to how the GDC expects the example actions in G27, "high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming", to satisfy their intent to discourage damage while encouraging robots to perform to their best. What is to stop robots with "technical prowess and gameplay skills" from running down the field with a ball playing offense, accidentally hitting a poorly designed robot, breaking something, and incurring a foul? Similarily, their additional intent "Additionally, the change to G27 enables Referees to issue penalties for causing opponent ROBOT damage, even if not strategic or intentional," is intended to raise the level of competition, encourage stronger design skills, or be fair (when it comes to discrepancies between robots' build quality), or do anything but encourage penalties like in the situation with the offensive robot mentioned above.

I hope that referees take these rules as invitations to make sensible, subjective, reasonable judgements that fall in line with the GDC's intent (WITHOUT the GDC stating so - that also seems like a major omission).

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

Ok so lets dive into what this really means:

Strategies/ game play resulting in damage, destruction or inhibition: if you physically stop your opponents from doing what they would like.
High-speed or repeated aggressive ramming: hitting them when they are not moving
Tipping: what happens when 2 150lb objects collide.

If it is an accident: 20pt foul.
If you meant it: 50pt foul.

I this as a game changer. If refs are strict on it then we could see a complete ban on defense. If refs are lenient on it then I think we will see every single match score be challenged.

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

This is absolutely correct and is fine however there is still no mention of the foul being based on who initiated contact. A defender can still run into me while I'm sitting still and cause me to lose 50p. Most intakes are not ramming devises. They are designed to pick up balls to play a normal offensive scoring game.

GDC further penalizing offensive teams for having intakes that are rigid.

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

The rule seems to prohibit any kind of "aggressive ramming", regardless if an appendage is used or not. The fact that Sacramento refs were not calling blatant infractions of existing rules does not mean this is a necessary change. What is "aggressive"?

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

Preface: My team haven't competed yet and I have never been a referee.

I think this rule update makes sense.

The update, from my perspective, says this:

High speed collisions, if accidental and damaging/inhibitive, foul.
Repeated, aggressive ramming, or purposeful high speed collisions, technical foul.

I fail to see how this 'kills defense'. Every sport, from hockey to football, draws the line somewhere for how much 'roughness' is allowed. The intent (to address JVN's point) is to reduce the amount of damage on robots. I think we can all get behind that intent.

High speed collisions and repeated, aggressive ramming are not the cornerstones of good defence. Pushing, blocking and pinning are all still legal under this update. Every sport relies on the subjectivity of the referees to decide what constitutes dangerous play or unnecessary roughness and precedents will eventually be set.

I actually think this ruling empowers referees, more than burdens them. As far as I'm aware they already watch out for dangerous robot-robot interactions. This gives them the chance to penalize clumsy/overzealous yet good-intending teams without the huge 50pt swing.

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

Having been in Sacramento, I understand Austin's perspective. That was an unnecessarily aggressive Regional.

I’m glad to see this rule update. FRC is about building strategic robots, not battle bots. Of course the robots need to be able to take some abuse. But being able to dole out abuse shouldn’t be a team’s strategic advantage.

Defense is of course allowed. Push all you want. Ramming is a judgment call, though. Certainly some amount of ramming is unavoidable - even desirable - and must be allowed. But if any referee thinks you’re doing it with the intent of damaging a robot, or even carelessness to the extent that could result in damage, expect to draw a penalty.

Also, a bit of advice, paraphrased from the Game Manual:

When reading these rules, please use common sense rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording.

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

+1.

Hockey is probably the sport with the most in common with this year's game in a number of areas. Professional hockey continues to adjust the types of legal interactions between players; what was acceptable 30 years ago (the Goon) is now frowned upon in most places and at most times, because it was overall bad for the game. GDC is attempting to adjust based on what they saw last week. While for most of CD FRC is highly competitive, GDC doesn't just consider the competitive team's needs and wants. There are far more teams who will field a box on wheels with a weak frame and appendages made from stuff that is easily damaged. Can FRC really tell them that they just should've prepared better when the bot is completely destroyed? Discouraged noncompetitive teams will end FRC within a couple of years. And can you, who build competitive bots and field teams that make it into elims regularly, not figure out a way to play against those teams that doesn't require ramming? I bet you can. ;)

Re: Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014
 

This update is a true game changer. It limits the amount of super physical defense that can be played. The biggest issue with this rule change is that refs will not be able to be consistent. The refs have plenty to do already and it doesn't appear that the GDC is making things easier. This is going to change a lot of the strategy that goes into the game. I am interested to see how FIRST teams will react to this update tomorrow during qualifiers.