Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

Which is it...it's illegal from your new rules resulting a DQ, or it isn't?

I agree with Jon...you can't say that. Just because a few people on this board are complaining about it...even if it were a 100, that's a very small percentage of the thousands of people in FIRST. I have talked with many people and a lot of people have described how exciting it is to watch and loved that way the games were played this year.

Personally, I'm beginning to think there are two groups of people...people with common sense that understand what FIRST is trying to do with the rules, and people who don't. I wonder if some people at the beginning of the season read "no aggressive behavior" and thought, "Cool...robot contact is going to be at a minimum..."

If you design a robot that can be tipped over just by someone ramming into you...that's your fault. You seem to view this through rose colored glasses and I'm having real trouble grasping what kind of competition you are going for.

Sure...why not be on ESPN? What better way to spread the interest of FIRST that to get on national television and show the kids not interested in boring robotics how exciting it can be... And who is saying FIRST is encouraging it? Just because it isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's promoted.

They aren't being called, because people aren't doing it. There are no chain saws cutting up robots. I never once saw a robot bash another robot over and over again just to do it. What is good sportsmanship to you? Stand back and see how well you can get scored on? Or putting up a good fight? I would much rather win over a tough opponent doing everything they can to stop me than one standing back letting me do whatever I want. Try to push me over. Try to stop me from scoring. Bring it. And when you can't stop me, the win will feel even better. And if you do, I'll be back...

Again with the exaggerations... How you can compare Battlebots to FIRST is beyond me. I almost wonder if you ever saw it. But, maybe you are just bitter about something...

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

I'm saying overly harsh based on current rules. This is what we are discussing right? It is hard to judge intent. You can't quantify it that tipping or damaged robot wasn't built poorly so that it was partial at fault.
I'm only suggestion to leave it subjective but give the refs better tools to work with.

The yellow cards would allow for teams to not do the same thing in consecutive matches. You might get away with tipping or overly aggressive actions in one match of final but now you could do it all two or three. And you only get 2 dq before you get dqed from the game. And don't forget finals rule, a dq for a team in elims is a dq for that alliance. I think the cards would suffice.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

Just some clarification and examples:

Example: In one of the Archimdedes semi-finals, Team 571 (Paragon)'s big ball grabber was broken. So, if it was caused by abuse by another robot, then that robot would be shut off and disqualified, because 571's pincer was inoperable. If Paragon broke it themselves, well, then sucks to be them. :D

Example: In our last semi-final match (Archimedes), one of our cooling fans was destroyed (unintentionally) by 494. The fan littered the field. So this would represent (most likely) a yellow card for 494.

However, this brings up the point of teams purposely building shoddy robots just to get their opponents dq'ed. This would be up to the inspectors to notice and prevent. (Prevent from competing until the robot is more robust)

Example: In our first quarter-final match (oh, that was an intense match :D), our hook was quite badly twisted. This happened because our robot, who was hanging, was pushed by another robot attempting to mount the platform. This is not card worthy, because our hook still functioned. (We were still hanging)

MrToast

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

I like the idea of a card system.

I also like the CONCEPT of a Penalty Box, where a machine is disabled for a FEW seconds as a penalty for a Yellow Card warning. However, I feel a 7-10 second penalty would be more than enough to "warn" and punish them, vs a 15 second penalty.

BTW, in any case IMHO the arena control system should have a Disabled Light at each player station, at the shelf level. Maybe have a big yellow bulb attached off of the back of the mini Kill Button Box, or a countdown display there, showing the operators how many seconds remain in your Penalty. No one thinks to notice that the light above their heads is out while they're furious shaking their controls wondering what's wrong with their robot. It needs to be between eye and waist level.

- Keith

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

I really like the yellow/red card idea. The big problem with these kinds of aggressiveness calls is that in a lot of cases it almost impossible for the refs to tell the actual intent of the drivers. If a robot tips another, did they actually mean to tip them or were they just trying to move them out of the way? With a defensive move a robot is broken, was it the intent to break the other or was that just a bad design? Refs can't be deciding whether or not damage was the fault of another team or whether or not it was a design issue. Refs already have so much that they have to be keeping track of on the field, we do have to keep in mind that they are only human.

With the yellow/red card idea, this gives the refs a chance to warn teams that a certain action will not be accepted by a team. That also gives the team a chance to change what they are doing. As a coach, I know how intense it can get up on stage and yeh sometimes we may make a bad call without really realizing it. Having a warning system in place that tells the team to not try that again or you will be DQ'ed I think is the way to go.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

I like like the combination yellow red card approach. I also like the time based penalty a little better. (not just because it was my idea)

For instance, in the match that started this whole mess 93 vs 469, I think it would have been adventagous to issue a 10 second penalty to 469.

My problem with the yellow card: in order for the yellow card to come out a questionable act has already occured.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

I tried to explain that Im not questioning the results of the match in the video (not saying the results should be reversed)

Im saying that match results would be different with the rules I proposed on page one

the match was NOT illegal as it was played and called according to the official rules because the driver was only thinking good thoughts when he drove across the field at full speed and rammed the bot knocking it over

if he had been thinking bad thoughts, "Im gonna drive across the field at full speed and knock that bot over" then he would have been DQ's - and somehow the refs could tell the difference

?!

Im getting zinged with negative rep points for my opinions in this thread, thats why I tried to explain the difference between the way the game was played/called this year, and the way I would LIKE to have seen it played/called

I guess my opinion is unacceptable?

I must be one of those people you referred to with no common sense, because I thought teams would play rough up to the point where bots start getting knocked over, or disabled by damage, and the refs would call a few DQs to discourage it at that level.

guess not

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

Yet somehow your system is preemptive?

I'm missing your point.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

the yellow card will look cool next to the agressive teams champion trophy, thats the point

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

My comments are nothing personal to you, but it just seems to me that you are striving for a system that is calling for very strict interaction guidlines. Not only do I think this would be very hard to enforce, but would lead to a lot of second guessing of refs by the field teams and arguements about whether opposing robots should have been dq'd/not dq'd. Both of these things would take a lot out of the excitment and fun factor we had this year.

Can you give me examples where robots went past the point where robots get knocked over? Most of tipping situations I saw as soon as the robot started tipping, the other backed off, but the robot tipped anyway.

I just think a lot of what has been discussed and expressed in this thread is unrealistic, exaggerated, and if some of the rules are implimented, will take a lot of the fun out of the game. I mean, how much fun will it be if:

a) the kids are afraid to push another robot because if they tip, they are dq'd.
b) they push other robots, causing them to tip, getting them dq'd. We'll have dq's all over the place.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

That's what the yellow cards would be for. Either those or a few seconds shut down.

MrToast, once again enjoying the [COLOR] tag WAY too much :D

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

go look at this poll thread - 25% so far are people who watched matches where they thought things got out of hand and penalties should have been called, and they werent

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...7&page=1&pp=15

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

You know what? I'm going to design a really great new autonomous passenger aircraft. I've also found a way to reduce weight and increase passenger capacity by removing redundant structural elements. Due to fuel savings, increased passenger capacity, and reduced personnel requirements, air travel costs will be drastically reduced!

But ...
Clouds, flocks of birds, solar flares, and weather related electrical disturbances will cause the plane to crash, and certain atmospheric density variations or wind effects will critically compromise the air frame.

So ...
I'm writing up a proposal to disallow the environmental phenomena listed above.





Doesn't work in engineering, and it shouldn't work in FIRST.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

That's not right at all!

Robot problems that might result in a dq result from other robots, not the carpeting of the arena.

Good try, though.

Re: You write <G34> and <G35>
 

I think these are extremely valid points. At the beginning of this game introduction, I thought people would be afraid to try and cap opponents goals for fear of goaltending... Annnnnd we didn't really see very much capping of the opponent goal because all they had to do was throw a ball at the obstacle (while in your grip) to get a goaltending call - plus it was more effective to play a good offense anyways.

What about automode? What happens if they run into each other and one flips over or gets rammed? How do you penalize or DQ someone for that? Or maybe we'll just add another rule that says... if tipped during automode, no penalties incur...Or maybe make up some crazy detailed rule for it.. Or maybe we get rid of automode, or maybe we say... robot can only move 1ft/s during automode....

Now, if we create a rule that says "if you're totally legal pushing action results in tipping your opponent", then why do we have any incentive to play any kind of defense, or even build a good offensive robot? We've already determined that obvious ramming and "intentional" damage is illegal. But we start putting these detailed guidelines on "what is legal defense", we might as well put a big black wall in the center of the field so that there will be no robot interaction. There will be no need for a competition. These drivers will be so worried about going anywhere near another robot. Like said before, if your robot cannot withstand some pushing and shoving in any way, you've probably got some things to look at and re-design. Otherwise, we better start building robots that can hold hands and hum together. ;)