Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

This is a very interesting subject. If FIRST does go down this path (I hope it doesn't...see later in my post), then I suggest looking at professional sports like otheres here have mentioned.

Rules in these sports cover all aspects of what seems to be bothering people here. But you have to pick and choose rules from which sports for what. For example, picks (where your teammate blocks your opponent from following you) are allowed in basketball, but not in football. You could have the charging rule from hockey. Maybe impliment the 3 second rule from basketball where an offensive robot is only allowed in certain areas for 3 seconds. No holding...that's a pretty standard rule in all sports. Tripping? That's kind've like flipping in the robot world. Maybe FIRST can supply shock sensors (like those used in airbags on cars) and we place these on our robot and if another robot hits us and it causes the shock sensor to go off, a big light goes on or something and the attacking robot is assessed an "aggressive play" penalty.

But, I thought FIRST didn't want to be like professional sports.

What I would really like is for the FIRST community to work on this ourselves and not need all these rules stating every little thing. This is a rough game. When you are trying to score through another robot, you better expect they are going to fight back. And if you want to stop another team from scoring, expect the same. If your robot can't handle it, then you better figure out another way to score. That was the beauty of this game. The stationary goal being blocked all the time? Work on a strategy to get the mobile goal into play. Or go hang...

I know most of this is starting from the agressive play from 469 and 494...both great teams which I admire greatly. Both had awesome robots, but really the only way I could see 469 get defeated was by playing very strong defence. So, that is what 494 had to do...and they did a great job. There was nothing wrong. They played 469 EXTREMELY hard and aggressive and guess what...469's robot didn't break. It was robust. Very robust.

Our robot this year worked fairly well, but it broke very easily upon contact with others. And I know if we went to hang and another robot wanted to stop us, they could easily move us... So, we are using the experience and observations from the Championship to try and design and build something that won't have those issues next year. Some strong, easily repairable, and robust. Will it look as pretty as ours did this year...probably not. Will it have all the fancy gadgets and stuff to do whatever we need to do...probably...but they will be basic, robust things.

So, I think these gaming rules shouldn't be changed at all because it will always come down to the refs judgement, which differs from ref to ref, Regional to Regional, and at the Championship. And that's not really fair to any of us. It's not their fault and they do a great job, but it comes down to peoples perceptions of things and that is very hard to qualify. I do like the idea of a video or something on the FIRST site explaining where each rule comes from so we all understand what they are trying to accomplish with each particular rule.

Besides, there are other material rules that should be reworked instead.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

The only time aggresive behavior should be stopped and penalized is when that behavior goes from defense to destruction. If a team can get in your way to prevent you from scoring thats great.

Aggressive robot behavior has to do with 2 things: the drivers and the robot. The driver makes a concious decision to do the things they do. The robot can only follow commands. But sometimes a sharp edge or other dangerous device passes inspection and gets to be on the field. The robots need to be inspected by experienced people to deem a device destructive or not. I don't know what can be done but a warning like that explained above (cards) is cool.

When defense takes away from the game for everyone, we all lose and that offending team or alliance should be warned.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

Take a look at the video of Quarter-Final 4.3 on Archimedes. Coincidentally, the play happened right in front of Aidan :D

With 23 seconds left in the match 56 drove into 45. The result was 45 flipped. With your reasoning 56 should have been assesed a penaly. Correct?

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

I thought I did cover that situation - if you are already on the steps then you are in a defensive postions and any tipping that results is fair play

for other comments on ramming... I stated a bot is only disqualified if the other bot is damaged or toppled - If you think you can run across the field at 5mph and bump another bot, and no damage results, and they are not knocked to the ground, then that is your judgement call - no harm, no foul

but if you can clearly see that your opponents is a wobbly goblen, or they have a 2X ball 9 feet up in the air and out to one side, and your drive into in while it is not in a defensive postion, and it goes over - that was your decision to take that risk - if you dont think you can push it away without knocking it over, then havent you really made a conscience decision to push it over ? think about this for a while - Ive seen so many bots get knocked over while trying to place 2X balls this year, did the driver REALLY think they could push that bot away from the goal - sideways - without knocking it over?

also as I defined the suggested rules, you cant run into someone else and fall over yourself and cry foul - there must be agressive action on the other teams part against you

and if you deliberately build a top heavy bot then it will be useless in the legitament defensive/offensive situations I defined, in which toppling is not cause for a DQ

also (preemptive answer) if you build your bot out of glass, and someone hits you within the bumber zone (2 to 8" high) and your bot shatters - too bad for you, the other team can push you around

if detroit can build effective 5mph bumpers on 3000 pound cars, FIRST teams can build them on 130 pound robots.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

To remove defence or offence from the game will kill the game. Intent to injure is another matter. If you watch this game on Friday of any regional you fell asleep. If I hadn't known that things might change on Saturday then I would have gone home and not come back, BORING!!! As the offence and defence built during Saturday the games became better and more exciting. More pushing and shoving is good. Violence and distructive behavior is not. I am not into touchy feely type of robotics. Build it strong and efficient. I don't want Battlebots but competition is good. Yes there is a fine line that gets crossed. It doesn't matter what you do you will always have someone who crosses the line. To win you must ride the line without going over. It tweeks interest and hones the senses. Keep the game lively but stop the intentional attempt to damage. It is easy to see and totally unnecesary to have a good game.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

since we are expanding or maybe even altering the rules in this thread, I think is dangerous to pull up examples of play from matches this year and say they should or should not have been penalized

but for clarificaiton of what we are discussing, from what I could see in that clip 56 was not between 45 and its goal, so it was not already in a 'defensive postion' when it shoved 45 over - it shoved it from the side

so as i have redefined these, what shall we call them, new rules? that would be a DQ.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

Who is to decide what is robust enough?
Are referees going to get a sheet that says, "if the following robots become broken, it's their own fault for not making a robust enough robot, do not give the other team a penalty."

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

To be playing defence does not mean that you can only approach from a certain side. Don't forget that the best defence is a good offence. By harrassing a robot and not letting it get to a goal is easier than letting it get to the goal and bashing it to pieces as you try to defend.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

Ive tried to define the rules so you can push and shove, and even bump into other bots within limits

as long as contact is restricted to the pre-defined bumper zone on the bot

so if a bot breaks while those rules are being followed, it was not tough enough for the game

but if someone backs up 20 feet, puts there angle iron arm up at 2 feet, flys across the field at 15mph and puts its arm through the side of your bot, they are DQ'd

Steve: we are attempting to suggest ways the offensive and defensive play CAN remain in the game, so that teams can design machines that are able to slug it out, as long as their opponent follows the same rules

it might be fun watching your bot fly across the field and send another bot dashing to the floor in pieces, but its not fun from the other side of the field.

a lot of that happened this year, and so far no one has been able to recall a SINGLE TEAM getting penalties or getting DQ'd for it at ANY event anywhere this season - the refs most often said they didnt call it because there is no way to determine the drivers 'intent' as called out in the rules. Thats why we are trying to see if we can come up with clearer rules - so the judges will have a clear guideline for when someone has gone too far.

can you do that in other sports? can you run into a basketball player from behind and knock them to the ground to keep them from taking a 3 point shot?

hockey? soccer?

can you punch a boxer in the back of the head? in the spine? can you kick them in the knees?

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

Good topic as our team suffered at the both regionals and nationals due to "aggresive behavior". Don't need a new rule or definition, if a team plays too aggressive then warn them and if they continue DQ them. The aggressive behavior will stop. Just like every basketball game is different because of different refs so can this - but for each set of refs the interaction would be similar, correlate the out front fouls vs under the bucket mugging.
Maybe we need better ref training like the videossomeone else suggested.
FIRST has now become Battlebots in my opinion unless they curtail this aggressiveness. There is little advantage to building a well engineered bot versus one that is just a tough rolling box that quick and powerful that plays only defense.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

Yeah, I agree with those that say you really can't write rules for these kinds of things, aside from what's already in the current rules, so I'll just say some thoughts.

I wonder if one of Aidan's intentions was to show us how hard it is to write and interpret the rules. Whether it was or not, I think this thread has shown it.

For tipping, I would say you can't really make a fair DQ for someone that tips a robot playing defense. The only easy way to fairly DQ them is if they have a scoop or lift that intentionally picks up a robot and flips it. If a robot is top heavy, you should probably expect that you could end up flipping. But I would hope that any team in FIRST would not consciously decide that they will aim for them at their most unstable condition and take that opportunity to flip them. They could have most likely just pushed and shoved to keep them at bay rather than flipping them. I have seen robots become just a little unstable and the opp seemingly comes in under them for the kill and finishes them off. Intentional? Don't know. Who's not to say it was an accidental wrong joystick movement? Or maybe they couldn't see you were slightly unstable and thought they were just pushing you around.

For agressive play, there is one match that stands out in my mind as overly aggressive moves. Keep in mind, my intention is not to single out or bash teams, but providing and example of my opinion of overly aggressive play.
Q111 in archimedes, 494 was against 111. Wildstang was on the mid-platform and hooked. 494 came flying at relatively high speed from the floor, across the mid-platform, "rammed" into Wildstang and went flying off the other side of the platform, taking Wildstang with them. Now 111 was off the platform and a corner of them was on top of 494 due to how they landed. So 494 reversed and went flying back onto the platform, across, and off the other side taking 111 with them the whole time, and in the process breaking their hook I believe.
Now, 111 went on to win that match I think by capping and other things, but I feel that it was unnecessary to make a couple high speed passes "bashing" into the side of them, seemingly dragging them along like a ragdoll. But that's just my opinion. Now how do you write that into a rule? I don't have any idea. I guess you can show a video of it, as suggested before. I wouldn't say either that 494s intention was to break 111's hook. So aggressive play calls comes down into the hands of the refs and their interpretation of the rule. You can only write a rule that satisfies so many people. But maybe they can become more and more satisfying to more and more people in the future and hopefully this kind of collaboration helps that effort.

I don't necessarily think that we need to have "no contact" zones on a field to prevent this type of play, but there could be an aspect where it fit. That takes some fun out of robot interaction, especially if the scoring object is in that zone. I feel one of the main objectives in this game is, besides scoring your own points, is to keep your opponent from scoring more than you. I would hate to see the rules become so restricted that it limits robot interaction.

I don't think this should be true either. If team 45 or 71 are in front of their stny goal trying to cap, you better believe someone's gonna try to push us out of the way, and they have. I know that 71 had been pushed a lot from the side in order to keep them from capping and it worked. But they didn't tip, and there was no ramming involved. Now you're saying that if 71 was tipped, the opp should be penalized? So they're supposed to sit there and watch as 71 doubles their points? No. There's some robots you don't know which is the front/back/sides. So how do you call that now? We could cap the stny goal with any of our sides facing the goal. So now a team has to be able to physically see my robot and determine which side I'm facing in order to play defense.
Teams also don't necessarily know that if they push from a certain side that the other robot will tip. If someone pushed 45 from the side while a 2x in their arm was 6 feet off to the side, we might flip, but we could have had our arm in a different position to keep from flipping. So, it's not necessarily the opponent's fault. It's the nature of the game - to keep someone from scoring.

Entanglement - Unless a team does it habitually against another team (as with any of the ramming/tipping actions), you can't call entanglement intentions. You can disable due to safety hazards, but I think there are many entanglements that can be freed. With arms and grippers like in this game, that's one tool that can be used to keep someone from scoring a 2x, by holding their arm down. If our arm becomes entangled somehow, we should be allowed some time to free the entanglement or remain entangled for defensive purposes as long as nothing's on fire.

I just keep coming back to common sense. There are so many ways to play offense/defense aside from ramming/tipping/etc. I think the rules are ok as they stand, but I'm sure there can be improvements. The judges do a pretty good job on these types of calls, whether we think so or not at times. If you see a trend of mean-spirited driving habits (there should be none in this organization), then warnings and flags should be flying. The idea of handing out warnings, yellow, red, etc, I think is a good one, but should apply for all their matches (vs bring the yellow ones to your next two matches only). Tangible warnings would at least let the team know their actions are questionable and on the verge of DQ.

That's my xx cents.
And I just realized how long this post is.. Sorry.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

I keep coming back to how hard it is for a ref to call a DQ. There needs to be a lesser penalty that sticks with the team. That is why I offered a card system kind of like soccer where the yellow card is a warning and two add up to a red and dismissal from the game. I've lifeguarded for 3 years now so I get to see how kids work. When you give someone a warning for say dunking another kid and then wait until they do it again to make them sit out they will go to another area of the pool and do it or wait until you rotate stands and rely that the new lifeguard hasn't gave them a warning yet. So that is where making a warning carry over for at least one match, maybe two comes in. Then they can't just take their one warning every match and stay out of trouble. Teams would play less aggressively if they were on the verge of a DQ. Like a basketball player with 4 fouls. So that is where I stand. I think the rules are adequate. I agree a video of bad behavior would be good to be made so ref would no behavior that should get a warning or yellow card. And I more visible system of penalizing where the consequence can follow you to the next round and ref have an easier job of making the tough call should be implemented.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

I still think that comparing "aggressive behavior" defence styles we have seen to battle bots is like comparing karate competition to the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship).

Battle bots have one objective...destroy the other robots by whatever means necessary. They have devices made specifically made to destroy another robot. Period.

You can really, honestly say that you think any FIRST team this year designed and built that? Come on.

I'm sorry, but I for one think a pushing match that ends up with a robot tipping is expected. Or, another robot waiting for a robot to start to climb the step to go to hang before they push them because they will be unbalanced is a good strategy. We never did either, because we didn't want to tip over ourselves so we avoided contact as much as possible.

I think teams that build large, top heavy, robots have to accept the concequences that they will be tipped over instead of trying to get the rules changed to make it so they can't get tipped. And it you build a great offensive robot that can only be defeated by a rough defensive strategy, be ready. Every design has it's strengths and weaknesses. That's the name of the game...find the opponent's weaknesses and exploit it to win the game.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

I like the idea of yellow and red cards being handed out at a head-refs discretion. But maybe, that is just because I trust the current referees 100% and would abide by their definition of "overly aggressive".

It is no secret that I enjoy the defensive element present in FIRST. However, I would also be more than willing to have a line drawn by Aidan, or Benge (or whoever the head ref at the time is) in the form of a yellow card.

I feel the referees have made great strides forward in terms of consistency from event to event, and accuracy in calling the rules as interpreted by FIRST. I know they are working to better train vounteers at all levels, especially field officials.

I also believe that the refs have made a strong effort to communicate to teams how things will be called, both through the driver meetings, and through verbal warnings. They tell us how they're going to call it, so how can we complain when they do?

So basically the way I see it is:
I like the current "refs interpretation" system. I think any attempt to quantify it would get a little crazy. I only wish the referees had a more solid way of warning a team than a verbal smack on the wrist. The yellow cards would be a good way of doing this.

I don't think we'll be able to get a completely quantitative system in place. I like defensive play, but agree there needs to be a line drawn for "too aggresive". I'd like to see the current system refined, not replaced.

I <3 Aidan & Benge. ;)

John

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

I actually agree with you, John. Personally, I really enjoy watching good defense and aggressive play (as long as it doesn't get too crazy). So, just so that everyone knows, I'm not exactly advocating the things I suggested. I just threw them out there so that if there is a big cry for a big change, that is an idea. However, I really didn't see much of a problem this year.