Chief Delphi - Flipping Rule

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Flipping Rule (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146022)

Re: Flipping Rule

Quote:

Originally Posted by sastoller (Post 1575030)

Has anyone seen the refs check the tipped robot's bumper height after a tipping incident, before giving a yellow or red card to the tipping robot?

It seems to me that if the tipped robot had bumpers that were above the 12" height limit, the tipping robot should not be penalized. I realize that all robots are inspected prior to playing in qualification matches, but I have seen several cases where bumper brackets become bent during a match from repeated collisions and are no longer within the 12" height limit by the end of the match. This just seems like something the ref's should be sure of when making a decision to give a yellow or red card. This is something that teams with already high bumpers should keep a close eye on as well.

Unfortunately, this is yet another case where the rules call on the refs to judge the intent of a robot/driver. It's a bad deal all around, but I don't know a better way to assess a penalty for tipping in a physical game like Stronghold. It's a shame that there seems to be a lack of consistency between the Head Refs at different events on these "intent rules", and as a result, this has significantly changed the outcome of several events.

Part of the bumper problem is when you robot has a center wheel drop and the robot changes direction, the bumper height will change causing it to get wedged under/over another robot. No rules on the bumpers are violated (correct me if I'm wrong) since it will still pass bumper height requirements when standing normally on the floor. For our robot we realized this and put the bumpers in the middle of the bumper zone so it would still stay in the bumper zone regardless of which 4 wheels are touching the ground.

Maybe this is something FIRST should address next year?

Re: Flipping Rule

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1574918)

I am a firm believer in Vex's rule that (paraphrased) gives the offensive teams the benefit of the doubt in any interaction. Face it, we get the game play we encourage - if we don't penalize teams playing extremely aggressive defense more teams will realize it's a good way to shut down scoring robots and, frankly, games will get BORING. (see 2003)

Like in 2015, when there was only offense? I'm not sure what we do with tippy robots being tipped, and/or aggressive plowing, but I know for sure that we shouldn't discourage defense with such a rule. There's nothing interesting or strategic about watching six teams do six things with no interaction. On the other hand, games like 2014 has me filling out new play sheets all the way through champs. This year's game already restricts defense more than necessary IMHO

Re: Flipping Rule

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd (Post 1575198)

There's a world of difference between no interaction (2015) and discouraging teams who ONLY ram into other robots. In fact, you can avoid the latter with rules aimed at making scoring easier because it gives them a way to positively contribute. I want to see a rule about erring on the side of offensive robots because it means that crap like a defender breaking their intake on us doesn't give us a penalty (2014 NEDCMP)This rule absolutely needs to come attached to incentivizing the sort of zone defense that makes for more interesting matches.

And lest you think I'm all for no defense - 125 played defense on 1519's alliance last weekend but we didn't touch them (until they came over and tipped us). There's more ways to play defense than to ram into the opponent.

Re: Flipping Rule

Consider the case of a low bar robot with a large intake/shooter that can be raised high so it can shoot over a defensive robot. When the shooter is low, the robot has a low CG and when it is up, the robot has a high CG and is susceptible to being tipped. A defensive robot tries to bump it to alter the shot in the hopes of making it miss. If the defensive robot continues to push the shooter, it is possible that the shooting robot may tip.

If the shooting robot is about to tip, why is it not incumbent upon that robot to LOWER its shooter to prevent the tip?

Re: Flipping Rule

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfitz0807 (Post 1584317)

For 90% of robots with a raisable shooter, the defender's drivetrain (including any driver reaction time) is a heck of a lot faster than their shooter's raising mechanism. For the other 10%, their reaction time plus transmission time evens it out to about equal. So maybe they're TRYING, but the defender doesn't give them the chance before they go over. You bet that they're not going to be happy that the defender didn't back off! (Read as: "I thought it was incumbent on the defender to back off!")

If it's actually an accident, you probably just hit them once. But a sustained push-through is a lot harder to class as an accident (and easier to class as intentional, thus, strategy)--and those accounted for almost all if not all of the tipping cards I was on a ref crew for!