Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

Just to throw a little wrinkle into this discussion, people should take the limited field visibility into account when intuiting driver intent based on robot actions. We played a match where one of our alliance partners (with a high CG) was tipped, and lost the match because of this. We review match video immediately after all our matches to critique our performance. The video showed what appeared to be an egregious instance of a defender purposefully tipping our partner. But, looking more closely, the tip happened when the defenders robot was in their drive team's blind spot. Rather than intentionally tipping, it's much more likely they were just trying to get their robot back into their view, and the high CG robot got in the way. The tippers probably were just as surprised as anyone when they found themselves on the receiving end of a yellow card.

In the first of the videos MBimrose16 posted, it appears that the view of the collision that resulted in the tip is blocked by the sally port door from both sides of the field. This theory is further supported by the fact that robots from both alliances then proceeded to ram into their tipped robot throughout the rest of the match. I can't believe this is intentional. It appears that the drivers simply can't see that spot in the field.

Again, in the second video, it looks like an egregious tip, but if the drivers of the red robot are in drivers station 1, their view of the robot-robot interaction is blocked by the tower. They might not have been able to see that they were tipping the blue bot. (They we not in station 1, as you can see when the ref gives the yellow card, and deserved the penalty.) Props, BTW, to the team who tried to get the flipped robot into the batter. It almost worked.

This visibility issue is the root cause for a lot of the seeming crazy "mistakes" you see drivers making this year. It's one reason why no one on any drive team wants to play this game with the drawbridges on the field.

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

Agreed. If there is no consistency, there is no clear message being sent to students. Seeing one team "get away" with something your team was DQ'd for leads to a lot of discontent that we as mentors get the pleasure of diffusing at a time when we are likely feeling the same way.

It is an issue that needs to be addressed but isn't any more difficult than expecting a group of 15 year olds to design and build a robot to climb a tower or cross a portcullis. FIRST is more than capable of coming up with a solution that does not involve barriers between competing robots (no more Recycle Rush please). It takes time, and it takes will and it takes communication none of which is difficult.

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

If a strategy is employed in which the objective is to prevent a team from scoring, and to a reasonably astute observer, the execution of that strategy entails a risk of performing one of the prohibited actions of G24, then G24 may come into play.

In the specific case of this match, the previous interaction between the two teams at ~87s match time is further evidence that the drive team of the defending robot knew and understood the risks of playing defense in the manner that they played it. They rolled the dice twice, and lost the second time. The first roll was just the indication to an astute observer that they understood the implications of the risks associated with that particular action to begin with.


In the Waterloo case, the offensive robot was playing the game with the strategy to score in their tower, while the defensive robot was playing with the strategy to stop the offensive robot. Even after a previous engagement that almost ended disastrously for one or both teams, the defensive robot continued to engage in the same fashion, and wound up getting flipped. Had the offensive robot in this same scenario been flipped instead, I would have expected the defensive robot to receive a Red card. However, because the offensive robot's strategy didn't involve interaction with the defensive robot, and therefore couldn't have been aimed at flipping the defensive robot, no Red was awarded. It would seem that the interpretation of the rule in this case, was in fact, consistent.

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

[quote=interpretTHIS;1574819In the Waterloo case, the offensive robot was playing the game with the strategy to score in their tower, while the defensive robot was playing with the strategy to stop the offensive robot. Even after a previous engagement that almost ended disastrously for one or both teams, the defensive robot continued to engage in the same fashion, and wound up getting flipped. Had the offensive robot in this same scenario been flipped instead, I would have expected the defensive robot to receive a Red card. However, because the offensive robot's strategy didn't involve interaction with the defensive robot, and therefore couldn't have been aimed at flipping the defensive robot, no Red was awarded. It would seem that the interpretation of the rule in this case, was in fact, consistent.[/QUOTE]

Yet in North Bay, we were the offensive robot and the defensive robot was flipped after repeated hits on us and we received a red card whilst trying to drive across the court to cross the defences back to the neutral zone. Therefore, inconsistent.

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

This is not good at all. Sorry to hear about the red card.

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

This isn't what the words of the rule say - this is an asinine interpretation of them. The rule is black and white - strategies aimed at the... inhibition... by tipping - the strategy has to be to cause a tip. That's what the word "by" is for in the rule. It is not "if tipping occurs when the strategy is defense" - the strategy has to be the illegal action. It's plainly clear from the wording of the rule, that the entire sentence is one clause and not two, that it is not "if you execute strategy, and then this happens, it's a red card".

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

Without understanding the specifics of that match and solely based on your description, I might agree that this particular instance is, in fact, inconsistent.

However, in your description, you describe the defensive robot as "repeatedly hitting" the offensive robot while the offensive robot was trying to go from the courtyard over the defenses. This would lead me to believe that perhaps either

a) G43 should have been called on the defensive robot if the contact was in the Outer Works
or
b) The defensive robot flipped themselves by engaging in a hit on the offensive robot, which certainly should not have invoked G24.

If a robot has a Boulder and is moving toward their opponent's Tower, their objective and strategy is clear. If a robot does not have a boulder, the intention become muddier, and a referee needs to decide who the "offensive" robot is in a particular scenario, as your position on the field doesn't solely dictate what your intended strategy is. Many factors need to be combined to help a referee determine if the team's strategy wound up in the incapacitation of another robot. Which leads me to my final point:

It's difficult to decipher consistency without match reference, video, and frame of mindset of the referees.


First, let's make sure we cite the rule correctly:
(Emphasis mine, contrasting the word "by" in your statement)

By your interpretation of the rule, only teams that make their strategy of "tipping" known should be penalized under G24.

The penalty isn't for having a strategy of "tipping someone's robot over", the penalty is for having a strategy that inhibits robots, via one of the listed methods. The intention of the drivers may NOT have been to tip the robot, but the intention WAS to inhibit the robot (definition of playing defense), which was employed in such a way that resulted in tipping, which then becomes the potential violation point of G24. This is where the referee needs to make a determination about the strategy, for example:

• Was the tipping itself intentional?
• Was there a shoving match in which one of the robots became unstable and the defender didn't back down?
• Did the offending team have understanding of the potential consequences of their actions (a previous similar-type hit resulted in instability of the offense robot)

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

Actually in this case the first engagement had not stopped. While it was true that during the engagement both bots tipped up from one another (creating an "A" shape with the "noses" touching), the "second" engagement you speak of was the offensive robot landing on the ground and the defensive robot landing on top of them (one side of the "A" fell before the other side did). In this case if offense were to back up then no flip would occur. However they drove forward (possibly due to being unable to see? Too many factors as to why)

Either way as I said, its about consistency. If you see the interpretation of the rule in this case to be correct then that's fine. However, you used the word consistent, which it is not. The calls on flipping have been all over the map. This is why there are so many threads about the subject.

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

And this is how it's called. Teams that push other robots "up high" with arms, teams that "follow through" and push on the underside of the robot to "complete" the tip, teams that hit a robot while it is toppling, these demonstrate a strategy to inhibit via tipping. Teams that happen to tip when someone is playing defense do not necessarily do so.

Under your interpretation of the rules, an offensive robot could have a deliberately high CG, and anyone defending them could be red carded for merely attempting to defend them. It's literally a chokehold strategy to build this robot, if that interpretation stands.

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

Ya don't wanna go there.

There used to be this particularly annoying penalty, the disable+DQ. (This was before red cards.) The effect was the same as a red card, but the robot in question was disabled for the rest of the match. An ACCIDENTAL tipping could put you in a disable+DQ situation. 'Nuff said.

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

In my opinion the rule should be expanded to include something that that makes it clear that bumper to bumper contact (resulting in a tip) will never result in a penalty. That would clear up a lot of situations. If a robot can be tipped just by being pushed in its bumper zone that is just a design / driving choice the team decided to make.

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

I think this is the answer to this debate.

In order for a yellow or red card to be issued the offending robot must have keep pushing to the point that their bumper/robot is contacting something other than the bumper of the opposing robot (frame, drivetrain, etc). If it tips from bumper contact then that is a design problem.

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

I would also like to add "If it apparent the opposing bot is tipping, than the defending bot must back away as fast as possible". I say this, because I've seen matches where only the bumpers of two bots will touch, but one bot is so powerful, it will be able to completely lift an opposing bot to a point where gravity will finish the tipping motion, by only continuously pushing on it.

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

I very much agree with this. It seems to me that the only time bumper-bumper contact should result in fouls or cards is if it is a case of egregious high-speed ramming or something of that ilk. A separate rule should exist for flipping (must involve non-bumper contact to come into effect) and for damage within the frame perimeter.

Judging intent is always unreasonable... and it hurts both sides if a call is made incorrectly. Honestly, what bothered me more about the referee's assigning a red card was less the result (automatic loss), but more that apparently the referees thought our drivers and team were the type to strategically flip an opposing robot. That is what hurts the most. Our team couldn't have intended to NOT flip 125 any more than we did (and do). We were just trying to play ordinary, quality defense by keeping them out of their scoring position. :-/ Unfortunately, we went from pushing them to flipping them in the blink of an eye!

Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
 

My suggestion would be to completely get rid of the tipping rule. Put it on the teams to build untippable or rightable robots if they want to be successful instead of putting it on refs to judge 'intent'. There are way too many examples of tipping being called inconsistently this year.

In order to prevent teams from just building wedges and going around tipping/lifting other robots, put a rule in the says any tipping as a result of non-bumper to bumper contact is a red card. It is a whole lot easier for a ref to judge if a robot as an appendage outside their bumpers than if they intended to tip another robot.