Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

Agreed, defense is in every other sport that involves a team vs team interaction... so get use to it, it's much like a basetball team calling a foul on purpose to pause the clock, or a pitcher intentionally hitting the other teams best batter (or walking them on purpose)

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

Thank you for the complement. But your right a combination of the depth of talent at GLR, and great scouting by 66 The Flyers & 217 The Thunderchickens . SALUTE

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

I am from a very offensive team. Defense is part of teh strategy and I was very happen to see it being done well. 66 did a fantastic job at keeping the ball away from us and one of our partners 201 really worked over the thunderchikens.
My only gripe with defense was that in the eliminations there were several contact outside the bumper zone calls called on many of the hurdling teams (27, 217, 33, 67, 70, 494......). In one particular match we got 2 (yep -20 points) for a "defensive" bot hitting our arm. Let me clarify this. We were going for the ball and they drove into our arm and we got the penalty. Due to this interpretation of "incidental" contact not being "incidental", we could no longer play the game the way we had at other regionals and for that matter the rest of the weekend. It was very disheartening to go from only having a couple line penalties the first day and 1/2 to 7 (haven't reviewed the tapes yet, but this is about right) contact penalties in 6 matches. I have no problem with well driven tenacious D. I do have a problem with light touch fouls. Since this contact rule is the same as last year, I have a hard time understanding how there are so many penalties this year. Should Arm bots just pack it up?

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

You have a pretty good point here.
We got called for that which was our only penalty called on us in Hawaii during the elim quarter finals round. We have two claws that go for the ball.
Clearly, we were trying to get it as the other team played defense (keep away). If they run into our arm, I have no gripes about it as its defense. However, how can we be called for a penalty when they are going into our arm mechanism as we are going for the ball? The same goes for autonomous. :(
Other than that, the refereeing was consistant and we love Jeff as the head ref! :D

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

I can't say to much here, but from my stand point i feel we played a very clean defense through the elimations. One instance that i feel i hurt another robots chances were when i bumped 47 and they got stuck on the rack..sorry for not saying that ealier i just saw some video.. sorry 47 :).

But as a watcher of the matches it seemed like the robots with arms caused alot of those penetlites and probably didn't deserve them. I know both martin teams had issues and so did the hot team where they got 3 of those penentiles in a match.

Now i feel that defenvise was intended in the game, but you need to have a driver who is smart enough to know when to let up and watch the refs as they start counting down and can just drive smart. I can't say i have been perfect ( i have recieved but 4 penentiles this year) but i can say i have been smart in what kind of denesive i needed to do in order to help take that #7 alliance to the finals.

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

Looking Forward:
I got a little sidetracked and almost forgot the intent of this thread. I would really like to thank the people responsible for the Looking Forward and the Looking Back Predictions/Follow Up. As we go to nationals, I am using this as a highlight real to know who to check out. I am assuming after the divisions are posted there will be a Looking Forward Post for Nationals. Am I correct?

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

Not sure if that was going to happen, but that would be cool! Instead of predicting every regional for the week with analysis, an analysis of each division with predicted winners and the ultimate winner on Einstein.

I would love to see an all arm alliance vs an all shooter alliance where the shooters have a slight lead, only for the arm alliance to try and win by placing balls at the end on one end. While on the other end, a full arsenal of offensive bots vs. decent scorer with excellent defensive bots that shutdown the offensive bots type of match. Ohhhhh, the suspense.

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

Very good post. I agree that many teams are scared to play defense due to some of these rules or don't think robot to robot defensive interaction is allowed/approved.

There are no rules that say you can't push a team (using bumper to bumper interaction), preventing them from going around the track outside of thier zone. This is one aspect that would be very effective at stopping a hurdler. Instead of trying to hit the bouncing ball away from a hurdler, why not push the hurdler (a much more predictable movement and usually slower and larger than the ball and thus an easier target)? Or once they have the ball, push them against the wall for 5 seconds? I think teams are trying to get too cute with defense and comming up clever 'ball defense' instead of playing effective defense from the past two years, pushing the opponents robot.

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

nikeairmancurry,
Hey thanks for opening that wound back up. After the match that we were pushed onto the over pass when you rammed into us, we sent the student out to the ref to ask why there wasn't a penalty assessed. We were told "I didn't see it". Yesterday, while reviewing the video of our last 2 matches at GLR, we were able to confirm that the ref had it right. He was clearly looking into the opposite end of the quadrant when we were hit - apparently, watching the intense goings on between 2 other robots. He couldn't have seen the collision that got us stuck for half the match.

Is it just me, or did the intensity and robot interaction increase significantly during the afternoon on Saturday?

The one thing that bothered me was that it sure seemed like some teams were getting alot of robot to robot interaction penalties. I found that there was alot of inconsistancy from quadrant to quandrant. I truely wish the quadrant refs would rotate around the field, and that stats would be kept for which refs were calling which penalties on which teams.

Here is <G37>
ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. In all cases involving ROBOT-to-ROBOT contact, the TEAM may receive a PENALTY and/or their ROBOT may be disqualified if the interaction is inappropriate or excessive. However, it is noted that FIRST Overdrive is a highly interactive game. Robust construction of ROBOTS will be very important in this high-speed competition. ROBOTS should be designed to withstand the high-speed contact that will occur during the MATCH. Appropriate contact is allowed under the following guidelines:
a. High speed accidental collisions are likely to occur during the MATCH, and are an expected part of the game. However, high-speed intentional ramming is not acceptable and will be penalized.
b. Contact within the BUMPER ZONE is generally acceptable.
c. Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable, and will result in a PENALTY. The offending ROBOT may be disqualified from the MATCH if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT. However, incidental contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE will not be penalized.

I find this to be very subjective and I believe it explains alot about why certain teams were being flagged more than others. What was incidental in one quadrant wasn't deemed the same in others.

The key word being "incidental" - just exactly how is that defined? When does "incidental" start and "intentional" begin??
Isn't that in and of itself, subjective?

Wouldn't it have been clearer to say, if the interaction results in tipping over or entangling the opponent (I wish I knew what egregious means, sadly I must admit that I can't even seem to pronounce it).

So - I guess playing offense also comes with it's own potential problems.

Anyways - this post is long enough now - hopefully, no one takes offense, or should I say "get's defensive".

Mike

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

Hitting batters with the ball is done for a variety of reasons, but not just "defense." The intentional walk is a better analogy.

This approach -- taking a tactical penalty to further a strategic goal -- is one that I've only seen a couple of times so far. In particular, I saw bot commit an intentional <G22> to knock loose an alliance partner that was jammed up under the overpass. It was the right choice. I'd still like to see someone POSSESS an opponent's trackball for 115 seconds and see what the referees do. As the rules are written, it looks like all they could do is give one 10-point penalty. Six Krispy Kremes (or equivalent) to a team that tries it and lets me know what happens.

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

Rick TYler,
Funny you should mention that, because it actually occurred in our 2nd match at GLR.
A robot on the opposing alliance was trying to herd our color ball and the drivers drove into the corner of the field getting stuck in the fence, with one of our balls in their grippers and unable to get themselves free and unable to get rid of our ball.
They were assessed a single 10 point penalty.
Because they had driven into the fence, it was clearly an accident - but there we were, 3 against 2, but - with only one ball to hurdle. Fortunately for us, we won that match, but it could have gone the other way too.
How much do you think the team stuck in the fence should have been penalized? It's a tough call, I'd hate to just keep piling on the penalties - Lord knows, theres already way too many for my liking.

Mike

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

This does run the risk of violating <G38> and <G40>, the IMPEDING rules. This clause alone would make shoving and blocking illegal: "During Teleoperated Period, a ROBOT will be considered to be IMPEDING traffic if it is preventing an opposing ROBOT from proceeding around the TRACK."

One of the nicest examples I saw of legally slowing other robots down is the same one used in auto racing. By taking the inside line and forcing other robots to the outside, the inside 'bot effectively hampers the progress of another robot without IMPEDING it legally.

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

I disagree. Looking at rule <G40>, it is not impeding if there is a clear 'passing lane' around the robot. Secondly, "the (impeding) ROBOT shall have 6 seconds to move out of the way and create a “passing lane” to allow the opposing ROBOT through." Like last year, a team could pin a robot against the wall for 5 seconds, back up and let them move foward and then pin them again.

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

I haven't seen any of the matches, what happened to the beautiful crab drive?

Re: Look Back: Week 5
 

I'm all for Krispy Kremes, but I'm not all for causing the GDC to have to create a new update because someone decided to get cute. :(