YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

OK so we are all aware that there is going to be lots of interaction this year and pushing, bumping, etc.. is to be expected and you should have had your robot designed to be able to take a good amount of abuse.

Now the question: at what point does playing defense go past what was intended by the game creators and at what point level should it be penalized. After watching the webcasts for the past 2 weeks I have seen many times where a robot goes out and defends the opposite side of the field while the partners score on the opposite end of the field. Works pretty well I must say, definitely a valid strategy.

But what about teams that go out and back up and hit a robot then back up and hit a robot at high speed even continuing after getting repeated penalties for excessive ramming, a tactic that must be intended to do damage to the other robots. What should be the rule if they do it every match and continue to get similar penalties.

I would think at some point FIRST should give them a final warning then if the condition persists disqualify the team. Remember, this is different from interaction with other robots, this is backing up and ramming repeatedly.

Say your the head ref, you make the call.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

Rule <G25> spells out examples of violations that are both within, and beyond, the spirit of the game. The rule also clearly gives referees the authority to remove a team from the enitre competition event if a team repeatedly violates the rule. If a team displays repeated agressive play, and continues after warnings from the referees, they can and should be removed from the competition.

-dave

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

Using a sports analogies: During a basketball game, an opposite player (RED) is comes down the court with the ball (tetra). He (RED robot) attempts to score a 3-pointer. You (BLUE robot) intersects him and smashes him on the side of the head (hitting high), he (RED) continues to aim his shoot; you smash him again, and again and again.
Sounds like a DQ?

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

If some team keeps breaking rule <G25> in the same match, I would assume that the refs would disable that robot for the remander of the match. The refs are good about calling these rules so I don't think you need to worry about getting too damaged.

GO 1403!!!

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

apperently, the head ref at ypsi didnt like wedges.....

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

My reasoning for the question is that the rulings at different regionals has been very different.

I spoke with teams at Great Lakes and they were warned immediately that any sort of high speed ramming would not be allowed and the repeat offenders would be DQ'd possibly for the entire event if it continued. At other regionals such as Pittsburgh it was allowed to continue over and over with penalties to the offending teams but nothing any higher than that resulting in significant damage to many robots.

I would ask FIRST to talk about it next ref meeting so that the regionals are scored and ruled the same. Also I would ask teams (Coaches and Mentors) that are using a defensive strategy to also consider the damage that high speed ramming causes and not use it as a strategy. Again 'rubbins racing' but if this is now battlebots, we didn't bring the right robot this year, I fully expected the refs to call some of the matches I watched yet they let the ramming go on.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

The way it SHOULD be would be the way defensive fouls are called in basketball. If the defender is moving and interferes with the offensive player, there is a foul called (dq). However, if the defender is planted (feet staying still, player not moving) there is no foul called on the defender in an "incidental" confrontation. I haven't looked a whole lot at the actual rules, but in the spirit of gracious professionalism, this is the way it should probably be...

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

Portland was wonderful. There was very little intentional high-speed ramming and penalties rarely seemed to change the outcome of matches (even though we lost a match 26-1 when a partner racked up 40 points in penalties but I'm not bitter really I'm not I understand these things happen even though we scored 22 of our team's 41 points and capped once in our opponent's end row breaking up a row and deserved to win and we never drew a single penalty in the whole tournament but I'm better now that the doctors have given me these nice pink pills to take and they were chosen for a finals alliance and we weren't).

Seriously. Except for some problems with the field system, the whole experience was a dream, with the referees warning some drivers (including ours) about excessive ramming early on Friday. Despite my ranting above, the referees and judges made sure that the rules were applied fairly, firmly, reasonably and consistently.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

There's definetely a difference between repeated ramming with the intent to deal damage and backing up then moving forward again to avoid the ten second pinning penalty. I would think it would come down to the ref's opinion on what the intent is, whether to destroy or to pin for a few seconds.
Another thing, FIRST is not basketball. Contact is perfectly legal, and using your robot's superior torque to push another robot away from a goal is also perfectly legal. There are some bots who do this well, and there are other bots who are high speed, low torque and all they can do is hope to ram into a bot enough to keep it from scoring. The first type is perfectly valid, the second has no place in Gracious Profesionallism.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

Defense can be played as affectively using placement rather than pushing or ramming. The rules clearly define pinning so everyone knows that you must back off 3 ft - it isn't intended to provide enough space to repeatedly smash into the opponents.
Interaction is expected when remote control mechanism are confined to a closed area and the objective is both offensive (scoring) and defensive (not allowing them to score) depending on the situation, the strategy, and the robots capabilities.
Defense as a strategy is fine and necessary to make a good game. How the defensive strategy is executed is what is in question. Avoid ambiguous terms in definitions, like "intent" - the obvious is obvious, but the less than obvious is left to human judgement. When leaving the interpretation to people, expect differences based on opinions and experiences. What is high speed ramming to one person may not be High speed ramming to another. Rules with measurable boundaries far exceed those without. Out of bounds includes touching the line, Straddling the line means one wheel on either side, 120 lbs can be measured.
I would suggest, during the driver meeting the folks clearly define the acceptable behavior when playing defense, not the resultant action for being penalized.
Make it clear, use examples with the drivers so they can related to it - make sure everyone understands and is provide the opportunity to ask questions for clarification without being embarassed. Each team should be required to send the coach and driver to a seperate quiet room on Thursday to discuss these issues and make sure they understand the rules.
This year more than ever, the alliance partners impact more than the outcome of a single match - they also can impact the seeding of their partners. I would hope that everyone cared enough not to either wreck another teams robot nor mess up their alliance partners of seeding - just because they were trying to show off their ability to defend in hopes of being selected later by a team looking for an enforcer (defense by brute)

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

see i have to disagree with you on this. i think teams should be able to stop an offensive robot. i think the ramming rule a little harsh because teams should be building their robot for a little abuse, but a full power ram should not be able to fly. i do not agree with the tipping rule. the head ref at ypsi told us if we picked a robot up even an inch, we would be penalized. i understand that tipping is against gracious professionalism, which is why when a robot started to tip, we backed off...but it makes me wonder why the rules are so strict this year

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

I think that we all need to consider very carefully before asking the refs to call more penaltys. Please don't get me wrong. I absolutely do not want to damage another team's robot. I will do everything I can to ensure that none of my teammates intentionally damage another team's robot. However, my number one priority is the sucess of the FIRST mission. I feel that the only way to make the kind of impact on society that we all want to make is to increase the depth of the FIRST Robotics Competition audience. Robots to robot interaction while fighting to score is very exciting to watch. FIRST needs this.

Team Phoenix - 703 will abide by whatever rules on defensive play that the refs decide on, but my vote is "let um fight it out" Let's get this show on ESPN.

Matt B.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

I agree. We certainly don't want to damage anyone's robot (at least nothing serious) but the more rules and penalties there are, the less creative teams can be. If we all end up doing the same things because of limits on strategies caused by fear of penalties, the game will be boring and predictable.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

Having a robot that got three wheels broken off at Sacramento, two
in rapid succession with a multiple attempts at the third as we could still
"offensively" move to score, I would like to suggest that if high speed
ramming is allowed, that we also be allowed to build and field the
perfect energy absorbing bumper.

It goes as follows:
Have a metal plate outside the wheels, but within the legal footprint.
The plate is mounted on shafts that go through bushings in the frame.
The shaft contacts the handle end of a 10 pound sledge hammer on a pivot
so that when the plate is struck at high speed, the kinetic energy of the
impact is converted to kinetic energy in the hammer that slams down
vertically on the robot that struck at high speed. The plate is on the
side where it could not be employed offensively, and where it would
protect the wheels. Any robot that tries to get themselves a wheel,
or two, had better be well amored from above. A simple push does not
impart any energy to the hammer that is otherwise kept in place with bungies...

This really looks like battle bots, but any rational person would say
that a robot that is slamming to produce damage is getting their due.
Legal? You get really unhappy when a team slams a high speed only
for the purpose of breaking wheels off. It has no place in FIRST robotics.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

Some teams are very good at defense. Our robot was built to cap the goals and we can do 3 to 4 caps per match but we found out that defense is our strength. Our main driver is very good about not ramming robots. He goes slow until he is touching them and then pushes them. You cannot discourage defense because then it would be too simple of a game. If we see you trying to cap a goal that we don't want you to cap, we're going to go over to you and push you. I think if there is repeated contact then it is maliscious. If there is 1 time where contact occurs and then it continues, that's just good defense. Our strength is defense any we might be able to defend any robot in the competition so my opinion is probably weighted. But when it comes down to it, ramming is wrong, pushing is good...

...and kinda fun :D .

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

Dr. Brooks
Do you really believe that the other team was trying to break your robot?

If they indeed were this is a very sad time in FIRST robotics.

I admit that I am perenially nieve, but I truly believe that most of these situations are young people who get a little excited about trying to keep an opposing robot away from scoring position. If they cannot push you steady state the natural (and wrong) reaction is to use an impact. It is our job as coaches to be on gaurd against that.

I don't want to believe that any team in FIRST would intentionally break another robot to win a match.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

The only problem with that analogy is that in basketball you can steal the ball (tetra) as which you cannot do here. Also, in basketball you are stopped if you do not make the ball available to the opposing player by dribbling. I like a better analogy of soccer. Stay between the goal and the ball (tetra). Nudging and side contact are to be had but nothing to trip the other player up. And if you are blocking a tetra then you should be contacting it. For example, at the Arizona regional team 555 has a low robot with an arm that has a ball on the end that they use to keep a tetra from being capped. At the Arizona Regionals I will be happy to report that through gracious professionalism I didn't see any intentional robot knock overs even though the possibility existed many times with a cappers arm connected to the top of the goal. There were a couple accidental knock overs, however. The few defensive robots made the matches exciting at our regional. It was a good break from the "I can cap faster than you..." game not to mention that they were seeded well. I predict the nat. champ alliance will have at least one defender.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

I am not saying turn FIRST into battlebots. I think teams need to take defense into concideration when building a robot. They need to be well protected, the electronics well protected, and have no loose hoses/wires of any type. Also, alot of top heavy robots this year with these monsterous arms. I was amazed to see how high some of the teams actualy got. The rules state "No pushing high", but if you push low they tip. I feel bad when other robots get tipped over or destroyed because i know how hard teams work to build, but sports are not about offense. How many football teams do you see walk on the field and not play defense(besides the detroit lions :D )???

Teams need to play defense and push other robots around. Intentional destruction should not be accepted. Alot of the parents and on-lookers do not want to see a bunch of robots scoring, they want to see some contact. It makes the game fun.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

You are incorrect in this point. I manipulate for our team and I stole a tetra from another robot when they were about to cap. You just have to be careful that you do no tip them or descore the tetra. Oh man taking that tetra was by far the best maneuver I've made with our arms the past 2 years. And the most fun.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

It seems that we sometimes use the word “defense” as a code word for “ramming”. I would like to offer a number of other potential defensive tactics where pushing is not required:

1) Removing a tetra from an opponent’s arm before they can cap.
2) Blocking your opponent from reaching their human or auto loading zone
3) Capping a goal(s) in your opponents’ home row
4) Pretending to cap in your opponents’ home row to draw them out
5) Extending your arm over the goal to keep it from being capped

Would these actions be viewed as non-GP, or just good strategic moves?


Jay

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

I think that you can only look at the data and reach your own conclusions.

The robot does not really attempt to push. It backs up and impacts a
wheel at high speed. The left rear wheel pops off. The first broken
wheel is easily interpreted as an unintended consequence.
Our robot still moves, carefully, towards capping a goal. The robot
backs up again and rams the middle wheel at high speed, breaking it off.
This action was taken with knowledge of what had happened with the
first high speed impact, itself being against the rules.

Amazingly, our robot could still inch its way towards capping a goal.
Equally amazingly, the robot that had broken two wheels off then
impacts our robot several times again, in the location of the
remaining wheel on that side.

The driver came by after the match to see the damage done. He did
not apologize for the action and its consequences. He was asked why
he kept ramming us after breaking off two wheels. His answer was
that he did it because we were still moving.

This is what happened, YMTC.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

Justin,
You wrote, the rules state "No pushing high", but if you push low they tip. I feel bad when other robots get tipped over or destroyed because i know how hard teams work to build, but sports are not about offense.

Teams need to play defense and push other robots around. Intentional destruction should not be accepted. Alot of the parents and on-lookers do not want to see a bunch of robots scoring, they want to see some contact. It makes the game fun.[/quote]



FIRST is a competition, but I won't catagorize it as a sport.
I am concerned about your comment that teams "need to play defense and push other robots around" - why do you need to push other robots? Defense doesn't just include pushing around other robots. Often forces from pushing (even low) can destroy robustly built mechanisms, like bending drive trains and wheel axles and frames. The forces are very large and it only gets worse when ramming (dynamic impacts) are allowed.
I for one did not enjoy the FIRST games that turned into pushing matches - I thought that was boring. Give me a high scoring offensive game and I'm happy. Defense for strategy sake is fine - but not when teams robots get broken in the process. Yes, I know that each team should have built the robot more robustly, even FIRST acknowledges that "Triple Play is a highly interactive contact game. They give examples of what is acceptable and what is not

What is missing is something about "applying continuous excessive force", with some of these drive systems pushing perpendicular to many robots drive wheels will destroy them. How robust do you have to build, in order to withstand those kinds of forces?

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

The rules about tipping are so strict this year because you have 6 human players running around the border of the field and then you have 2 first volunteers reloading the autoload stations. What if your team tipped over a robot and it almost fell onto one of these people? Don't you think the safety of yours and other team members is worth the strict rules?

It might be just me though. At the Great Lakes regional our team was the target of many "defensive strategies". I know of atleast 2 or 3 matches where our robot was double teamed by robots and pinned and pushed around. Now luckily we were usually faster and able to outmanuever these teams so not much damage could be done, but it got old really fast when we had hoped that most teams would stick to offense. Heck, we were even getting pushed around and blocked during the practice matches on thursday.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

Two Words: SOFT DEFENSE
Any robot can be an effective defensive partner if they play defense smart. There are a lot of teams that don't realize that you don't have to be the strongest bot or be the bully who rams, or has a wedge to be a defensive robot. Give me any robot and I will get them to play effective defense by getting in the way or pushing in the right spots. Good example is 1708, when we put them in using the kit bot they did nothing different then what we would have done had 395 been running and did an incredible job against MOE. (MOE I say this with all due respect as you had an outstanding robot and was the most threatening to us as a capper). Positional defense is more important than taking out one paticular robot. When robots become bullies they lose sight of what else is going on on the field and wind up wasting their time tangling with one robot. And as others have said, it's not in the SPIRIT of FIRST; everyone has worked very hard to get their robots here to compete so you should be mindful of what they put so much time and effort into. You do not have to hit hard to play defense, nor should you in my opinion. Also, set boundaries to avoid taking penalties and to provide best coverage. Make soft defense clear on your alliance during strategy meetings for your opponents sake and for your alliance.
-wayne

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

EXCELLENT WORDS TO LIVE BY!
:)

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

I think this thread is not aimed at pushing or being bothered by two teams parired up from the other alliance. The problem is when teams walk to very fine line all the time, then play dumb when something bad happens.

Talking about the no tipping rule....

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

I am not saying FIRST should be battlebots. I am saying defense is part of every game. Teams should build their robots to take abuse.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

Right. In the St. Louis regional last week, there were robots that tipped over easily. It wasn't unfair to take advantage of that, as the goal of the game is to win. And I think everyone knows that there's a fine line between defensive maneuvers and just ramming the heck out of another robot. There are rules against, for example, intentionally ripping out somebody's battery. Defense is just part of the game, but people should remember to be civil.

Re: YMTC: Defensive Strategies
 

Justin, as the thread starter I totally agree with you that defense is a valid strategy, what I don't like (and why I started the thread) are the certain teams that are playing essentially an 'offensive' defense of going around and ramming the other robots. Blocking is OK, pushing is OK, tipping is NOT OK and ramming shouldn't be OK. If you are literally backing up and going forward and backing up and going forward into another robot you should be penalized, if it continues I argue that you should be DQ'd. My real beef is that at certain regionals you would be and at others you might/might not be penalized and definitely not DQ'd. The rules should be consistent.

If ramming is the name of the game, then heck, we can take the lift off our robot and armour up the sides and play all day long with who ever wants to play, but that isn't the point of this competition IMHO. As stated earlier, you can build a very robust robot, but it stands little chance over time of not being affected by a 130lb hammer nailing it over and over, and over. Eventually it will break.