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

Dear CD,

During match 164 of MSC while playing effective defense on two highly rated Michigan teams we tipped over team 107 when it was playing in a high CG position receiving a red card . Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IDr...ature=youtu.be at 64 seconds.

During regular FiM District play we focused primarily on offense capturing the #3 captain spot at Southfield, MI and was selected by 3604 to be part of the winning alliance. At Livonia, we were captains of an alliance until we became the first pick of a higher alliance.

At MSC we found ourselves switching between a primarily offensive role to one of defense depending on our alliance partners and opponents.

There are a number of significant concerns with the red card. One concern is it appears that has FRC given a "free pass" on defense being played on high CG robots.

If you watch the video, and I was six feet from the robot as the field coach, the robot tipped over before our driver had any means to respond. As a result, in the future the only advise I can provide to my driver and all FRC drivers is to not play any defense on high CG robots because the threat of a red card is too great).

The red card dropped us significantly in the rankings and most likely impacted our possible pick as an alliance member on one of the 16 alliances at MSC (another thread). As a corporate sponsored team qualifying for the World Championship at MSC can result in our registration fee being fully paid by our sponsor. If we had lost another game at MSC, the red card would have effectively cost FRC3548 $5000. Should red cards received by playing defense on high CG robots in this game have that much impact to any one team on any one call by one referee!

Is this a good time to introduce video replay on teams receiving red cards?

Is this a good time to let referees know the potential cost of a red card to a team?

One possible solution is receive an automatic yellow card with replay to determine if it is appropriate to receive a red card (more than one referee gets to make the $5000 call).

Your thoughts on this thorny issue? Will this be discussed on RoboZone soon?

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

I'm going to go on record as saying a few things.

1) Search for "tipping". This topic has come up already this season. I'll save you the trouble and post a few links.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hlight=tipping
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hlight=tipping
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hlight=tipping
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hlight=tipping

2) You may notice that one of the threads involves replay. Please, please, please, do NOT ignite that discussion again this quickly--it can get rather heated, and is being worked on for offseasons. (You can start the 2Champs discussion in about 2 weeks, though.)

3) Assuming that the refs don't know the cost of a red card is not a good assumption to make. Trust me. A LOT of refs either are on teams or have been on teams. They know. It's not easy to bring out a red card, unless you do something that's a yellow and you already have one.

A red card can be assigned to strategies aimed at tipping, if it incapacitates a robot. That's in general a yellow card, though.




And there is one other thing I need to say:

5 weeks ago, in one of those linked threads, the discussion was NOT on whether the high CG robots were getting a free pass. It was whether the robots that tip them--on legal hits--were getting a free pass! With the combined discussion, I'm starting to wonder why we had so many refs sign up this year (that's sarcasm: we had to "aggressively recruit" a fair number of 'em out my way).

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

We had a very similar thing happen to us in the Colorado quarterfinals. Our alliance earned 2 yellow cards by tipping over a high CG robot. I don't want this to get heated, so if you want to see more about it I'd recommend the thread regarding tipping.

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

Its a tough question this year because some robots are very prone to tipping over. This year, twice we've been in elimination matches where our opponents tipped. On one hand, I know if we took the same contact they did, our robot wouldn't tip. And I have no doubt we will receive aggressive t-bones and other types of hits every chance the defender can lay them on us. On the other hand, an action on our alliance's part may have knocked our opponent out of the match completely and you don't want to win that way. Ultimately it is a judgement call by the referee and its probably the hardest call they have to make this year. I wouldn't want to be in the ref's shoes.

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

I try not to judge these things from a distance, but a couple of observations. The head ref was intently watching the interaction virtually the whole time you were in your courtyard. It happened right in front of your driver station. The head ref had his mind made up by the end of the match. He didn't feel the need to consult anybody before making his decision.

It was bumper to bumper contact and more of a push than a ram. Not something that I would think that would normally be a red card. The head ref clearly thinks differently, He saw the whole interaction. He obviously was there and I wasn't. He has the black and yellow shirt. The best course action would have been for one of the drivers graciously to ask for his reasons. I don't think a video replay would have helped your case.

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

Videos like this upset me a bit, especially when I think back to a robot I saw in 2013 that was like 16" wide x 44" long x 50" tall (or something silly like that) that would tip over CONSTANTLY with even the slightest nudge.
Back then, no one ever called fouls on robots that tipped it (and half the time they tipped themselves anyways) because it was obvious that it was the fault of the team for building a tip-prone robot. I wonder had that robot been built this year how many teams defending (or just brushing by it in passing) would have been red or yellow carded.

IMO, FIRST aught to make teams bear some responsibility for making sure their robots can withstand the rigors of NORMAL match play, including being defended via normal bumper-to-bumper contact. Like it or not, it's part of the game.

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

What about tall robots that look too heavy but aren't? What about a robot who's CG is 10" off the ground but is full height?

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

Ah. You would be talking about my robot in 2013 (326). I'm not going do defend our design choices, because we good reason why we did this. I will say though that the robot you are speaking of was only tipped 3 times in 50+ matches. I believe only once was there a foul called as the intent was to flip.

Now in 2010 we had built a robot with a high CG with 3 wheels that was tipped much more often via normal bumper-to-bumper contact, and 9/10 times no foul was charged.

It's a ref call as much as anything in sports.

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

I think that this is just part of the potential consequences you have to face when playing defense. If you choose to play defense you have to understand that the foul system is against you, and that playing good, legal defense especially this year is really difficult and risky.

And being a team on the other side the of the being tipped scenario. I can tell you that being tipped is one of the most annoying things that can happen to you in a match. While no harm is usually done to your robot, there isn't any easy fix. Unlike a broken manipulator bit, if your opponents tip you, you basically have to wait out the rest of the match, and can't do anything about the problem, later, which is infuriating.

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

Okay so i've kind of avoided these discussions about tipping, but like there is something that everyone who is talking about this is missing, and I feel like I have to bring this up.

Like this to me is the same as people complaining about tech fouls in 2014. Tipping fouls are super necessary in this game. In 2014 there needed to be a aggressively penalizing ball possession since the opponents literally couldn't score if you did that. Yet people whined and complained about the fouls and "wanted the foul penalty to be reduced" without spending two seconds to think about the problem in its entirety.

Also tipping fouls have nothing to do with who is playing defense on who.

This year it's really hard to win with only 2 robots mobile at the end of the match (you lose at least a 30 point swing). Refs need to be calling these tips aggressively, since it can completely ruin an alliances chances for winning. Lets be honest no robot is "designed to be tippy" and it's not like these tips are common so robots are "purposefully" trying to be tipped to win the match.

Anyone who is complaining about tipping cards as too agressive this year to me is just looking at this whole issue from a hugely biased perspective. These people are just blatantly ignorant of the inherent game design challenges that just need to be addressed by referees.

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

I wonder how GDC would go about coming up with more definite rules for tipping. Right now it is obvious just by looking at the different of calls being made at events that the sketchy "Strategys aimed at" definition really does not fit the bill for calls that make or break event success for many teams.

I like the suggestion that robots have to pass some sort of tipping test where the robot has to be able to be tipped to a certain angle and doesn't fall over. This would at least make any call clear where the tip resulted from a t-bone.

Currently we are having the referees judge intent. There has to be a better way.

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

I think you are oversimplifying. FIRST specifically addresses strategies aimed at damaging a robot. Nothing in the rule book indicates what should happen when two robots engaged in offensive/defensive interactions result in one robot accidentally tipping. What do you do when a defensive robot drives up onto another robots bumpers behind a sally door or drawbridge and ends up tipped?

Seems to me penalizing the offensive robot for tipping seems harsh. Especially considering the call essentially ends their season and the thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars that team invested. FIRST has specifically said they designed this game to impair visibility. To what end? To penalize teams for accidents? Expecting a driver to prevent tipping an aggressive defender from 40 feet away behind two sets of defences borders on the ridiculous.

In 2014 the foul points were harsh. When an alliance essentially can rack up over 200 points because of a stupid human player is ridiculous when the average match scores without penalties were roughly half that. Penalties should be aimed to teach and direct students behaviour to correct it, not to disqualify teams for accidents or errors.

The other issue is fairness in applying the rules. If tipping is penalized with a red card, then every tip should be penalized the same.

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

I don't think this is a fair comparison to 2014 ball possession penalties.

In 2014, just like in every year, there were enforcement problems of ambiguous rules. Of course there were people who were upset with this or that call, but individual calls were not the real problem in many people's minds. The larger problem in 2014 was that a single tech foul was worth more points than the average robot was contributing in the whole match, and the ambiguous wording of some rules made it far too easy to get these ridiculously large fouls. There were solutions to some of these problems that could have been addressed by the GDC, but the GDC chose not to implement them.

This year, the tipping rule as it is written is nearly perfect in my opinion, and most people don't seem to be advocating rewriting this rule. Some people just seem to have issues with inconsistent enforcement, just like in every other year.

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

Speaking about design, what if a robot that was designed to flip itself back over gets tipped over by another robot? do they still get the red card? or is that team who made that design choice penalized because they can't be incapacitated? What if they decide to stay upside down, is that a G11 because they want the other alliance to get that red card?

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

Which a "strategy" is pretty ambiguous sure. But I think the referees have to call it that way to preserve the season of the other side of the glass which you currently are ignoring. No alliance is "entitled" to a win.

You seem to be specifically sighting the case where your specific team was given a red card, I won't comment on that. A tip is a tip. A tip with no call is virtually a lost match. It doesn't matter how you got tipped. Defender? Scorer? Breacher? You are still equally screwed when the time comes to capture and you are instantly down 30 points. You are blindsighted to the other side of the argument completely.

This is just an inherent game design flaw. No rule change can fix this. There was only one ball, thus these rules had to exist at these point values. Just like tipping robots has to be called aggressively to not screw over teams.

Again not every tip is the same, nor is every call perfect.

I don't think anyone purposefully decides to design their robot to fall over and then flip themselves upright. It's a pretty non-existent scenario

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

Not at all, I can fully understand how a tipped robot would feel to lose by being tipped. My point is that the rules need refining. There are better ways to resolve the issue of a tipped robot than just issuing a red card.

The reality beyond the red card is that mentors now have to deal with the fallout - from upset students, to mentors simply walking away from the program, to sponsors wondering what happened.

It isn't about the win or loss it is about the fairness of the issue.

But if a tip is a tip how is every tip NOT the same. I don't understand. You can't have it both ways. Either every tip results in a red card, or there are subtleties that need to be clarified for referees when calling red cards.

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

Then suggest a viable refinement?

Are mentors and students really walking away from the program because of one "bad" ref call?? :confused:

I could probably write out a 10+ page document on all different types of tips and how they occur and how I would theoretically call them and why. There are too many scenarios to write out, and thus it is left up to the refs. Also I never said a tip is a tip, I said a tip impacts the alliance regardless of how it was executed, and referees thus should be less more critical of their calls on said tips.

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

As the driver of a high CG robot, I have a couple feelings on this issue.
We were tipped twice last weekend at the AZ West Regional, both cases resulted in a penalty. In the first case, we were playing a qualification match and a robot t-boned us in the neutral zone going full speed completely knocking us on our side in what seemed like an intentional tip due to the prolonged contact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa-AHEtXedw&t=76m27s
This along with collisions with our robot that resulted in damage to our electronics system resulted in a red card for the team that flipped us.

In the second case, we were having defense played on us in an elimination match and were flipped over after 3 successive collisions in which we were obviously about to tip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa-AHEtXedw&t=340m35s
This resulted in a yellow card.

Overall, my team was at partial fault for building a high CG robot. We were pretty upset, especially in the qualification match where damage was actually done to our robot. We talked to all the teams involved and they were all gracious so no hard feelings or witch hunting please. I still am adamant any play that is aimed at disabling a robot, or unintentional damage done from colliding into a robot after a tip while trying to complete objectives like breaching the defenses should carry a penalty. What kind of penalty should be awarded is something that needs to be refined in the rules. I think a yellow card is too lenient. But as a driver, I am not in favor of ending a team's regional with a red card due to the split second decision of one team member at the controls.

I wasn't at Michigan, but from the video of OP's tip, and seeing first hand what an intentional tip would look like, I would have called that a clean hit. The refs this year have a difficult job and sometimes make questionable calls, but hopefully, by champs they will have seen enough matches and examples like this thread to make fair calls.

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

Not to be argumentative but...
And that one "bad" ref call triggered the reason mentors are walking away namely the response we received when we tried to question the call.

Don't get me wrong. I think FIRST is a good program. That is why I haven't walked away. But FIRST could be a GREAT program if open discussion about things like this weren't immediately shut down. Our response from the referee was that he wouldn't review the call, our response from FIRST was that they wouldn't micromanage their referees. Not exactly satisfying to teams that invest the money and time to participate.

Knowing how much effort and money it takes to run teams in this program, how do you maintain the morale of a team and its community when you are essentially turfed from a competition because of an accident? I honestly can't blame them when you consider they invest hundreds of hours (some of our mentors volunteer nearly 1000 hours a year).

As for viable alternatives - replay the match, make use of video replay, actually take the time to review what happened. 4334 was nearly red-carded in Western Canada because 5015 ran into them and disabled themselves. Neither team wanted the red-card called. The ref there actually took the time to make the decision not to red card basing it on evidence, not supposition. Yes, it delayed things 10 minutes, but considering the consequences and how uncommon flipping is in any event (maybe 2 or 3 times), I think it is prudent to take the time to actually be sure of what you are giving the red card for. I give a lot of credit to the officials at Western Canada for doing that and for actually listening to students.

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

Here in the PNW we've seen a few tipped robot calls and they've gone both ways and have had major impact. Up until our Semi-Final match tie-breaker at the District championship, the instances I had seen here had been instant red cards. team 3663 had tipped a robot in the semi final tie breaker at Mt Vernon district, causing them to get the red card and get knocked out. Our semi-final tiebreaker at the district championship seemed to have the red card called on 1425 for tipping our alliance partner 2522, and then after the match the call was reversed. Without the third robot, we couldn't capture, and we lost the match based on points, and got knocked out. Consistency is the only thing I would ask for, so we know how to play, what to look out for, and what to expect the outcome to be.

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

And you missed the second half of that statement that gave to context to that. Apologies for the lack of clarity in my position.


That's unfortunate that the team is taking it that hard. I can imagine that it would be similar to losing because a team tipped a robot on your alliance. You can't value one over the other. And yes! We should have a discussion about it. With the referees, with the community. But at some point we need to take action. Stick with what we have or make a change.

You could literally make the exact same argument to a team that was eliminated because of a tip not redcarded.

Pretty sure Refs are pretty good about taking the time to make sure that their cards are assessed correctly. You even gave an example of that being the case :P

As for the replay. I haven't thought about it much and it's pretty late, so I can't create any coherent thought on that xD

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

This part of the game will always be controversial, I don't think there's a way to write the rules so that tipping incidents are handled in a clear-cut way. When you have thousands of teams with engineering minded members trying to maximize their winning potential, it's inevitable. The tipper will always be redcarded? OK, here I come with my high CG offensive design to draw some penalties! Incidental tipping should be expected as part of gameplay and not punished by the rules? OK, my defensive robot has a short wheel base and happens to kick up a lot when pushing other robots, but it's not intentional!

I like that it's up to the head ref to make decisions based on how individual matches play out, since added lawyering in the rulebook just makes life more difficult. I don't like the red card = 0 points ruling in eliminations though, it's always frustrating to see it determine matches.

Which ever team is tipped on Einstein this year should lead to some fun discussion.

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

I agree wholeheartedly. Consistency would go a long way toward managing expectations.

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

I don't agree at all if the consistent ruling would be to always protect the builder of a high CG robot from any kind of normal defense. From the number of reports coming in, I have to agree with the OP that it appears FIRST is doing just that.

This game had such potential - there has been unanimous praise for it from far and wide. But now that FIRST seems to be promoting the interpretation of Rule G24 to be that a single ref is allowed to assume that the intent of a team playing what most would call normal defense was to actually tip an already unstable robot? And then to allow that decision to potentially end a team's season? I think that breaks the game, and I am sad.

They tell us to expect "robust" interaction, and to build our robots "robustly". I guess "stable" is no longer a part of that directive.

I'm not about to quit FIRST, but this turn of events is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth, and my team hasn't even been affected by these rulings one way or another. However, I have personally witnessed it - at the last two events we attended, the same notoriously tippy robot benefited greatly from questionable red card calls in eliminations. It's starting to remind me of 2014 when teams had ball collectors extended beyond the frame perimeter and were just trying to play the game as it was designed, and then they drew a 50 point penalty when another robot would drive kamakazi-like into them and self-inflict damage inside their own frame perimeter. Just sad.

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

If I'm trying to play offense and a defensive robot gets in my way, pushing me, blocking me, etc. ..... I see no scenario whatsoever where a red card is warranted, if I push you out of the way or tip you while trying to get free, with the intent of trying to score a boulder.
Intent means I'm in your courtyard with a boulder in my robot. Thats all the evidence that is needed to show a referee.

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

Some of these situations could be mitigated by giving the refs some way to signal to a team causing another robot to nearly tip that from this point forward them causing a tip WILL be a red card for sure.

For example, say team 251 is on the red alliance, and team 1117 is on the blue alliance. Team 251 is playing defense on 1117, and pushes 1117 in such a way that it causes team 1117's robot to at least appear to almost tip. The referee points with a red flag at 251 and makes some kind of clear gesture signaling that it should be obvious that pushing harder will cause 1117 to flip, and that if 251 causes 1117 to flip, they will receive a red card. 251 is still allowed to play tough defense, however if 1117 ends up wrong-way up due to contact engaged by 251, 251 will receive a red card.

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

The problem is that these red cards are being handed out for flips which happen almost instantaneously the first time contact is made (see the various videos being posted).

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

What you are asking for is the responsibility of a coach, not a referee.
That is not what I saw in MICMP Q164, the match referenced by the OP. In that match, the head referee walked toward the courtyard where defense was being played, making it very clear that the situation was being watched closely by two referees.

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

Two head referees, on top of that, as the referee who waves the flag for a foul is another FiM head ref.

(This is not to say that all head referees are perfect, just an attempt to add more context to the situation)

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

I'm going to have to err on the side of every referee, regardless of their call. The rule G24 talks about intent - as soon as any rule introduces something regarding the intent of any team, the referee cannot be held responsible for misinterpreting the intent of the team. Expect different calls from different referees. In my opinion, the way it should be is that if you flip a team, regardless if they are tall, short, etc, it should be a red card on the first offense, because the fact of the matter is that tipping other robots knocks them out for the entire match. It is not gracious or professional and drive teams should practice to avoid tipping - regardless of intent.

This issue is not that different from the infamous "Your tall opaque robot is now illegal" thread. Rules that talk about team intent are, in my opinion, highly ambiguous and I stand by the call of every referee regardless of what the call is.

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

Marc,
So we are all on the same page here, can you tell us exactly what rule for which the red card was given to your team?

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

Being one of the drive coaches for a defensive robot, I think the OP is somewhat justified. In the regional we went to, thank goodness we didn't deal with tipsy robots, but I can imagine the case where playing normal defense results in a tip.

Just like a lot of people on Chief Delphi have said, just because you have a robot that tends to fall over doesn't mean I suddenly have to avoid you. Similarily, just because your robot has the tendency to collapse upon contact doesn't mean it's my responsibility to not touch you.

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

As someone who not only has driver experience playing defense but has actually flipped a few robots that were playing defense on me in a quite aggressive manner, I find it crazy I never got a red card called on me based on the rules this year. I have straight up run into defensive bots twice to my recent knowledge at full speed (once in 2013 and once in 2014) and caused them to tip because they were in my way.

I do think that this game is penalizing playing defense on High CG robots, however when the point potential that an alliance loses because of a tipped robot is SO high (30 points as mentioned before) I honestly don't know what else can be done.

If I were reffing however based on this video alone, I absolutely wouldn't have given that a red. Maybe a yellow, but that's a pretty weak nudge on your part.

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

Here are a couple of ideas:

1. A robot that tips another robot is given a card that is in between a yellow and a red card. An orange card, maybe. That card disqualifies the team for their next match, but not for the rest of quals or elims. (Yes, this doesn't cover matches at the end of quals and elims, that would need to be clarified)

2. The offending robot is disabled, making it so that the alliance that the robot is a part of cannot get a capture either, negating the effect of the opposing alliance only having two mobile robots and thus losing the potential 30 pts from a capture.

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

Clearly this is a very delicate road to navigate, but perhaps there is a "fair" solution. What if instead of a red card, the ref e-stops the offending robot (possibly plus a yellow card). This way the 30pnt swing is negated and a clear message is sent that this is not gracious behavior.

I do think even this penalty needs to be reserved for clear intended tipping. High CG robots are clearly a bad team decision for this game and the team needs to own that. If contact is bumper to bumper, I would assume the intent was to block, not to tip - a "prolonged push" is a gray topic.

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

Disqualification, by the Game Manual rules, means that the team scores 0 RP in that match (or if in elims, the entire alliance gets 0 points and automatically loses). It does not affect other matches outside of the yellow card that is also given to that team/alliance.

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

I completely agree. The rule book also does not address what happens if you accidentally flip a teammate with a high CG over (which I have seen occur). I would hope no team attempted to intentionally flip over another robot, but it is not something that can be completed avoided.

Yes, being tipped almost prevents your alliance from winning (especially in eliminations). However, is it not a strategic decision to play defense? Shouldn't a team understand that they have the potential of losing a match by being tipped because they played defense?

I'm not stating that the rule is perfect how it is either. I'm stating the game manual, which should be used to consider strategic options, such as defense.

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

In my example, disqualified would have a slightly different meaning. There may be a better word for it. The example would have the robot unable to play in their next match (the specific FRC definition says that disqualified is a status, not specifically saying when they are dq'd, other than implying that it is for the current match). In elims, it would probably be changed to something similar to the robot being bypassed, thus not hurting the whole alliance as harshly.

I personally think that the second idea probably would work better.

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

It bothers me that nobody has posted or attempted to dissect the actual rule:

In this particular case, the actions of one robot led to another robot being tipped. The head referee determined that those actions were part of the strategy that the offending team was playing (presumably defense.) Whether or not this determination was correct is a different matter (head referees are humans and need to make decisions,) but by the letter of the rule, the head referee is certainly in their realm to make this determination.

As a side note, other reasonably astute observers made the same determination as the head referee. In the seconds leading up to the tip in this case, the GA said "But 3548 is just really playing the hardest D," which gives clear indication of the strategy that that observer believed the team was playing. The resulting action of that strategy, "the tipping", is what resulted in an invocation of G24. Now we follow the sentencing through: FOUL and Yellow, but incapacitation occurred, so Red.

Interpreting this makes the call seem feasible.

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

I am curious about how to define "harm or incapitation". When would a yellow card ever be called because of a flip when a flip always results in incapitation?

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

"Defense" does not meet the definition of the quote above - it does not inhibit a robot through any of those methods, normally. It is only a "strategy" if the tipping is an intentional part of the defense. Under your logic, literally any time a robot tips over when someone is playing defense on that robot would result in a Red Card. Lots of teams would build robots very differently if that was the case!

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

Sounds like an excellent chokehold strategy.

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

I personally am more upset at the inconsistency of these calls.

I mean waterloo qf1-1 we were in a pushing match that resulted in our opponent getting underneath our bumpers and then driving us from the secret passage to the front of the tower (defense 3) before we finally flipped (we are 13" high and have been almost vertical on the field wall without flipping) and that was not given any card at all.

I'm fine with that decision on its own, but its upsetting to compare that decision to the one shown in the OP video. That was a clear bump and retreat defense on a tall, tippy robot, in a tall, tippy position.

The comparison between the two calls is the thing that is the most frustrating. Either call on there own is fine.

As long as its called consistently then there is no problem. The issue is that it is not being called like that.

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

Al,

I am not sure what rule was called against FRC3548. I was busy picking up the laptop and joysticks when I saw the red card in front of the driver station. I will ask the driver tonight whether or not he remembers what call was given. I do assume G24.

Originally Posted by 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

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

Regarding tipping....

Intent has to be there... if a robot starts to tip another bot but backs off then no harm or foul. If instead they tip and "follow through" to actually tip then a foul will be called most likely.

As for "incapacitate or harm" if a bot gets tipped and rights itself then neither of these have been met... first they were not incapacitated "action of righting self" nor "harmed".... now if the intent "on purpose" tip occurs and the bot could not right itself (effectively taking that bot out) then I can see the "incapacitate" coming into play. Harm if something broke may come into play as well.

As for High CoG...that is a design choice and has no bearing on the calling of a foul its crazy to think FRC would have a High CG rule..that is tin hat stuff. They would never institute that as refs would not follow it if not in game rules.

As for bots playing Defense...yes the fouls are stacked against your favor. By design. No one told you to play defense in the first place. Your risk/reward decision.

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.

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

+1

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

+2

Refs do a great job at making very difficult decisions... it is nearly impossible for them to judge intent with the current rule. This suggested change provides much improved context for that judgement call.

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

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

There is a reason why that rule came into existence...

You can't make an untippable robot vs a ramp robot.

Kinda concerning people think this a good idea.

Instead of giving them hard calls, make tipping common place with robot damage!

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

How would one make a ramp robot without extending outside the frame perimeter? (I'm assuming bumper rules will be the same).

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

Any robot is flippable from bumper to bumper contact

https://youtu.be/Gbdb3ZiHdq8?t=1m58s

I know the poofs got flipped earlier that year too from bumper to bumper contact. If there is enough traction between the robots and contact is made a couple inches above the ground someones going to tip.

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

Robots are allowed to extend outside of the frame perimeter...

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

I believe my suggestion prevents teams from putting a ramp (or fork lift) outside their frame perimeter to tip teams. If a robot is outside their frame perimeter and contacts another team who tips, then it's a red card. Any other situations (such as pure bumper to bumper contact) would be no penalty.

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

For anyone not understanding, what Mr. XaulZan11 is saying is that any tipping occurred by ONLY bumper contact should be legal. Building ramps or arms that are designed for tipping WILL NOT be legal, because they ARE NOT part of the BUMPER. And since you can't shape the BUMPER to be like a ramp, than all teams will be in the same situation.

It is up to the teams to design bots to have a low center of gravity. It is part of the designing challenge just as much as being able to go under the low bar is.

While I agree Mr. XaulZan11 on most of this, I still believe that if one team has consistently tipped more than a couple of bots at a regional, than they should be talked to, and excessive tipping should result on penalties.

In my opinion first time tippers, or even second time tippers that only used bumper contact while tipping should not be penalized.

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

Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with bots designed to tip such as ramp bots. If you called what happened in that video "intentional design of the bot to tip other bots", than you might as well just ban going faster than 1 ft/sec.... and even than bots might still tip.

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

Ah right you are, I totally misread that other part of your original post.

It still would have not worked really for 2016. Pneumatic wheels make any robot easy to tip. I actually don't mind it for other years however.

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

Just curious, are you saying that bots with pneumatic wheels are easy to tip? Or are you saying that bots with pneumatic wheels can easily tip others?

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

It does have nothing to do with bots that are designed to tip:D . I am saying that even elite teams get tipped from bumper to bumper contact. If I am in a match with the Poofs (and I don't care about making my Grandma proud) then I am absolutely going to flip them if there isn't going to be a penalty. And you can flip the Poofs just like you could flip any robot (unless the the robot you are trying to flip has no traction underneath, like if they have mecanums or regolith).

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

Ahh, I get what your saying. But you also have to understand, most teams in first do exercise gracious professionalism. If you started doing that, you certainly will be getting hate from other teams, and might even end up on the DNP (do not pick) list for teams.

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

Robots with pneumatic wheels are significantly easier to tip.

Why? It would be "legal" as per the rules.

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

True..... but all I can say is, good luck trying to tip ours. While I know low clearance bots were hard or impossible to do in aerial assist, in most games it is possible to design a bot to have a really really really hard time to tip even with pneumatic wheels.

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

Guys, there are a lot of other factors in the possibility for tipping. A robot with bumpers at the lowest position coming in contact with a robot bumper in the high position may very well hit in such a manner that the action of the bumper will force a change in attitude. I think that the video at the beginning of this post is a demonstration of this principle. High COG helped it along, but look at the bumper to bumper interaction. Energy is transferred from the bumper contact. (Of course the video is not as close as the ref view would have been.) It is a real task to write the bumper rule so that teams get the protection they need, the design freedom to handle game pieces and the intent to minimize tipping during robot to robot interaction.

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

Given the mindset of First leadership I don't see intentional tipping ever being allowed.

As an aside. Here is a match where we were turtled. Upper left corner. We have a low CG and do not flip easily. We got hit below the bumpers while high centered on a ball. While there was a long discussion after the match, no card was issued. One factor might have been that it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the match. The flipper apologized immediately after the match. I believe it wasn't his intention to flip us.