Re: Flipping Rule
 

I like to think I play hockey with the same GP I bring to the robot field, but from time to time my hockey stick has ended up in places where I never really meant for it to end up... the point is that I'm responsible for it whether I know what I'm doing with it or not. It completely eliminates the "but I didn't MEAN to do that" defense and saves the refs from having to determine intent, which, in lieu of a Vulcan mind-meld, is somewhat challenging.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that robots that wish to engage in pushing battles should be designed to engage in pushing battles. I specifically advised a rookie team this year to keep their bumpers as low as possible in order to gain advantage should they end up in a pushing battle... and in 2010 we added hockey sticks as "roll bars" to the top our robot. It was self-righting in any position except flat on its back... we made sure that it couldn't end up flat on its back. (Yes! We were responsible for those hockey sticks, too... and the ones we had on our 2008 robot!)

The point I wanted to make was that I appreciated the uniformity and clarity of the refs decisions. In the overall context of the game, delivering the message "don't tip robots" is much better than leaving it vague, or variable. Like you, I'd be fine if the decision consistently went the other way, too... but I think that might encourage teams to look at ways that their non-bumper mechanisms might 'accidentally' catch an opposing robot's bumper. A clear and consistent message of "don't tip" has been delivered and it is now up to teams (and other head refs) to see that it is followed.

Jason

(Besides, I always appreciate a 'no tipping' policy...)

Re: Flipping Rule
 

G24 states that a red card is given "If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy"

"harm or incapacitation" could be a matter of interpretation because does incapacitation mean that the robot was broken such that it could not be fixed, or just unable to compete in the current match. The refs were seen discussing the match for several minutes before the red card was announced, so it must not be so automatic.

The rules are not the same every year.

Several years ago in my first year (2013), my first tournament, I was asked to coach a team so I was the rookie. In our first quarter final match we got into a pushing match with another robot. It started to tip so I specifically told the driver to tip it over. In that year, that was a violation of rule G28 which was a technical foul and a yellow card. Therefore we only lost points.

The response from the crowd was mostly negative and I felt rather bad about it for a few days. Bringing it up on the forum I was surprised the response was mostly that the robot game had become wimpy compared to the old days.

But there was also a response that this foul is more Un-GP than most other fouls. I found this dichotomy interesting. What is the psychology of this?

In other sports, fouls are an expected part of the game. In basketball we see strategic fouls even to the point of a foul out. In soccer we see yellow cards and sometimes its for egregious behavior. But we don't see everyone crying about that.

Re: Flipping Rule
 

Yes. DISABLED, e-stopped, or otherwise immobile ROBOTS are not exempt from penalties.

Re: Flipping Rule
 

http://youtu.be/eAsyaGff80g. At time 3:40.

Centerline flipping robot. No penalty, no card.

The robot playing defense got flipped.

Re: Flipping Rule
 

G24:

Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping ,entanglements, or deliberately putting a BOULDER on an opponent’s ROBOT are not allowed.

Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD

Initiating deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT
on or inside the vertical extension of its FRAME PERIMETER is not
allowed.

Re: Flipping Rule
 

I think it did not meet the "strategies aimed at " definition looked like a cleared into courtyard contact that happened to be perfect to flip it and not necessarily a predetermined outcome.

Re: Flipping Rule
 

Probably because of the "follow through to flip" I see.

Re: Flipping Rule
 

This is how I was taught tipping was called when I was on drive team as a student. It depends on whether you back off or keep driving into your opponent after they start to tip up. If they start to tip up, you back away, and they keep going and flip over, no foul. If you keep driving into them after they start to tip up, that's when the foul is called.

Re: Flipping Rule
 

Yeah I wish it was this simple.

We had a different occasion than the one I described above, same year, no intent, not our stratagy; a top heavy robot tipped because we pushed on it. It rolled away and flipped. Same outcome, yellow card, penalty... protested, no change. Completely two different sides of the spectrum, no difference.

From what I am seeing in these videos, getting one of these calls is a crap shoot. I don't see in G24 where it says this excludes the defender. If the robot on the offense pushes back then this isn't a "Strategy aimed at". Give me a break. If not everything a driving team is doing isn't strategy they shouldn't be out there. If it is based on intent or forethought, the refs can't know what that is so how do they decide?

In reality, most of the rules are worded in a way which makes them elastic. G24 isn't immune. When I see these videos, hands down some teams were robbed when G24 wasn't enforced. Likewise they'll be times when it was enforced and shouldn't have been. So what else is new?

Re: Flipping Rule
 

Below video at the 1 min mark is one of our partners accidentally flipping an opponent that we were red carded for. Since it was quarters, we were DQ'd for that match. It was a frustrating call because it does not appear to be excessive force - just a top heavy robot that went over very very quickly. They had their high shooting arm opposite the contact point and it just brought it over with what appears to be a mild push. We were hit and hit others much much harder then that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGs0...rRujQ&index=12

We did have a great time, it's a great event, and we accomplished our goals while adhering to FIRST principals. In that respect, we win every year!!

Re: Flipping Rule
 

Yes exactly, and the announcer stated such at the 5:00 min mark of the same video: https://youtu.be/l-T_Vg--H8o?t=296

Also, during the follow through there was contact within the frame perimeter (bottom) that finished the flip. Contrast that with this non-call from PNW Wilsonville finals match 2 where there is bumper-to-bumper contact that results in a flip but no contact within frame perimeter:

https://youtu.be/DcdKqWhxtNI?t=70

I thought the red card in our match was a good call and the non-call against 4488 in the other match was also the right call. Obviously my team was disappointed at the red card but if we had been on the receiving end we would have been disappointed if a red card was not given.

Re: Flipping Rule
 

How was the 2056 flip at Waterloo first match of the quarter finals different than the 2013 flip at Toronto East? Looked like the head ref had a long discussion. Tough position to be in.

I'm confused.

Re: Flipping Rule
 

I am a little confused by that call as well. I feel like 2056 could have avoided tipping the other team.

Re: Flipping Rule
 

I'm from the team that got flipped. I have not seen the team 2013 north bay event. But I'm also confused by the call. They drove us from the secret passage to the center of field.

It's an unfortunate call. From the driver station it looked easy to call. But from the refs point of view, who knows.

Re: Flipping Rule
 

Any video of the call?