Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Tipping opponents robots (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79861)

Homsar66 10-01-2010 16:55

Tipping opponents robots
 
Im wondering if a robot would be penalized for hitting an opponent's robot going over a bump, and flipping it, would be cause for a penalty. G36 says that strategies aimed at flipping over robots is a cause for a yellow, but then g37 states that high speed collisions and bumper to bumper interaction is legal. If a robot flipped another while it was vulnerable on the bump, would a ref call a penalty even if it was a bumper to bumper hit?

Alex Dinsmoor 10-01-2010 16:59

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
That actually came up in one of our strategizing sessions yesterday, so I'm glad you asked this.

What we decided (which may be wrong) is that if you accidentally flip another robot over while making legal contact between the two robots, then it is completely legal.

Although if this is your strategy, or you contact them above or below the bumpers, then it is illegal.

gorrilla 10-01-2010 17:01

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Homsar66 (Post 895878)
Im wondering if a robot would be penalized for hitting an opponent's robot going over a bump, and flipping it, would be cause for a penalty. G36 says that strategies aimed at flipping over robots is a cause for a yellow, but then g37 states that high speed collisions and bumper to bumper interaction is legal. If a robot flipped another while it was vulnerable on the bump, would a ref call a penalty even if it was a bumper to bumper hit?

I interpreted G36 as it being intended to remove robot mechanisms or stratagies designed to flip other robots...

I't would really be up to the Ref' to decide if you intentionally "gave a flipper to the throat" (sorry, I had to put this in here, my football coach always says this to the defensive line) LOL:D

dtengineering 10-01-2010 17:04

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
Seek clarification on the Q&A, but in the "Aim High" game, there was a 30 degree ramp leading up to a platform, and there was a LOT of "vigorous interaction" between robots on and around the platform. If you made legal contact with another robot on or around the platform... and they tipped over... that was their problem.

Not that you would tip them intentionally, or cheer when it happened, but you didn't have to worry about being called for tipping.

"Previous year's rules do not apply to this game, etc. etc."

Jason

Homsar66 10-01-2010 17:05

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Dinsmoor (Post 895882)
That actually came up in one of our strategizing sessions yesterday, so I'm glad you asked this.

What we decided (which may be wrong) is that if you accidentally flip another robot over while making legal contact between the two robots, then it is completely legal.

Although if this is your strategy, or you contact them above or below the bumpers, then it is illegal.

That's what I thought, but then how is a ref going to tell the difference between a hit designed to flip a robot and a hit designed to stop a robot? I wouldn't think they would leave such an arbitrary decision to a ref. And g37 also says interaction outside the bumpers is legal on the ramps.

*sighs* Well they at least they're going to accomplish their goal of making it similar to mainstream sports. I think this year will leave more than a few teams unhappy with referee decisions.


EDIT: Thanks jason, that's what Im hoping they'll do this year. Obviously a flipping spatula is not legal, but I didn't want to either not block for fear of penalties, or have a game changing penalty for blocking, and flipping another.

eugenebrooks 10-01-2010 19:42

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
There is no rule that says that a defending robot must clear
a path for an offensive robot to use in crossing a barrier.
It is a precarious crossing, crossing on top of another robot
would be done at your own risk.

A defending robot that "hits" a robot that is crossing,
causing it to be up-ended, will be something that is left
to the referees. In Aim High, the precarious spot was
the high value scoring position, and it was a real war
there for good reasons. I don't think that you have
that justification with the barrier crossings in this game.

Eugene

Mr. Van 09-02-2010 17:29

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
So, with the photos of robots with 6, 8 (or 10 or 12 or ...) wheels "down" being posted more and more, I got to thinking about this issue again.

These "low clearance" robots hang out a considerable distance as they traverse the bump. This brings up several questions:

1. If a "low clearance" bot goes over the bump and comes down on top of another bot on the other side of the bump, is there a penalty? <G38>

2. If a "low clearance" bot is extended (hanging out over the edge) of the bump and another bot comes up underneath it moving in the opposite direction, it is likely that the "low clearance" bot will be flipped. Is this a penalty? <G36>

3. Does the answer to either question change based on "intention"? (How will a ref know?)

4. Is the bump a true "anything goes" zone?

From what I understand - a "low clearance" robot runs a substantial risk of driving on top of another robot, which violates <G38b> - so they've got to be real careful going over a "defended" bump.
On the other hand, they run the risk of being flipped by an aggressive defender, possibly making a defender guilty of violating <G36> which would suggest that blocking a "low clearance" bot is a very dangerous strategy.

Humm...

-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Ken Leung 09-02-2010 17:54

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
I would be very interested in seeing any clarification about this. For any robots designed to deny a particular zone from opponents, specifically, from opponents who cannot travel through the tunnel, this could be a really tricky situation to be in.

When an 8 wheel drive come over the bump trying to get into the zone you are defending, do you:

1. Get to the top of the bump first and deny them that position,
2. climb the bump at the same time as your opponents and hope to make bumper and bumper contact only,
3. push them while half their base is sticking out at the top of the bump,
4. Sit on the incline on the your side of the bump such that when their robot cross over, they will land on your robot,
5. wait until their robot stabilize on top of the bump before climbing and pushing,
6. or wait for your opponent to cross the peak and begin climbing down on your side before you start pushing.

I can see option 3 is being closed to violating G36, but option 4 might be acceptable to people.

Bear in mind all of these will happen within a split second, making it hard to tell what actually happened. What's the difference between climbing up your side of the bump, getting your front 2 wheels at the top, sit there, versus climbing up your side of the bump, get your front 2 wheels at the top, and begin pushing when the other robot gets there?

Vikesrock 09-02-2010 18:50

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Leung (Post 916591)
I would be very interested in seeing any clarification about this. For any robots designed to deny a particular zone from opponents, specifically, from opponents who cannot travel through the tunnel, this could be a really tricky situation to be in.

When an 8 wheel drive come over the bump trying to get into the zone you are defending, do you:

1. Get to the top of the bump first and deny them that position,

This option may be very likely to get you flipped over on your back or sitting up on top of the robot you were trying to defend.

Even if all the contact remains bumper-to-bumper, the climbing robot will bu pushing up at a considerable angle on the robot sitting up on top of the bump.

Raul 09-02-2010 20:13

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
Did anyone ever submit a question to have this clarified on the Q&A system?

Daniel_LaFleur 09-02-2010 20:24

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Van (Post 916568)
So, with the photos of robots with 6, 8 (or 10 or 12 or ...) wheels "down" being posted more and more, I got to thinking about this issue again.

These "low clearance" robots hang out a considerable distance as they traverse the bump. This brings up several questions:

1. If a "low clearance" bot goes over the bump and comes down on top of another bot on the other side of the bump, is there a penalty? <G38>

2. If a "low clearance" bot is extended (hanging out over the edge) of the bump and another bot comes up underneath it moving in the opposite direction, it is likely that the "low clearance" bot will be flipped. Is this a penalty? <G36>

3. Does the answer to either question change based on "intention"? (How will a ref know?)

4. Is the bump a true "anything goes" zone?

From what I understand - a "low clearance" robot runs a substantial risk of driving on top of another robot, which violates <G38b> - so they've got to be real careful going over a "defended" bump.
On the other hand, they run the risk of being flipped by an aggressive defender, possibly making a defender guilty of violating <G36> which would suggest that blocking a "low clearance" bot is a very dangerous strategy.

Humm...

-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

The following is my opinion and not that of a FIRST referee:

1> Maybe
2> Maybe
3> Not so much intention, but how flagrent it is
4> Most likely it will be the wild west. Expect contact, expect contact outside the bumperzone, and expect to get rolled if you are not careful about where and when you cross.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Leung (Post 916591)
I would be very interested in seeing any clarification about this. For any robots designed to deny a particular zone from opponents, specifically, from opponents who cannot travel through the tunnel, this could be a really tricky situation to be in.

When an 8 wheel drive come over the bump trying to get into the zone you are defending, do you:

1. Get to the top of the bump first and deny them that position,
2. climb the bump at the same time as your opponents and hope to make bumper and bumper contact only,
3. push them while half their base is sticking out at the top of the bump,
4. Sit on the incline on the your side of the bump such that when their robot cross over, they will land on your robot,
5. wait until their robot stabilize on top of the bump before climbing and pushing,
6. or wait for your opponent to cross the peak and begin climbing down on your side before you start pushing.

I can see option 3 is being closed to violating G36, but option 4 might be acceptable to people.

Bear in mind all of these will happen within a split second, making it hard to tell what actually happened. What's the difference between climbing up your side of the bump, getting your front 2 wheels at the top, sit there, versus climbing up your side of the bump, get your front 2 wheels at the top, and begin pushing when the other robot gets there?

Again my opinions here:
1> will get the defending bot rolled
2> Best scenario, and the least likely to happen in the heat of competition
3> Most likely defense and most likely to roll the crossing robot
4> Least likely to happen because it'll be the most likely to damage the defending bot
5> Won't happen
6> Give up the advantage? won't happen.

Considering the options, anyone building to cross the bumps should be prepared to have to right themselves or figure out how to cross and avoid defense.

I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but I suggest you design for 'vigorous interaction' with other robots.

Al Skierkiewicz 09-02-2010 21:43

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Homsar66 (Post 895889)
That's what I thought, but then how is a ref going to tell the difference between a hit designed to flip a robot and a hit designed to stop a robot? I wouldn't think they would leave such an arbitrary decision to a ref.

Refs, FTAs and LRIs are the most highly trained volunteers in the competition. After seeing a few matches they will most certainly know.

I bet your answer contains the words "that would not be in the spirit of the FRC".

Stephen Kowski 09-02-2010 22:07

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz (Post 916747)
I bet your answer contains the words "that would not be in the spirit of the FRC".

Maybe, but it could also contain words that deal with a high center of gravity or not having a righting mechanism. Really depends on who pushes, when they pushed and how it appears to the referees. As I found out while reffing, it is very difficult to judge intent.

O'Sancheski 09-02-2010 22:18

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
yeah... if it is done by accident and no more than once, then it is ok... but if it seems intentional and you have been warned than you will get a red card...

oh one thing i forgot to mention... you will only get a red card if it is the contact damaged the other robot

jamie_1930 09-02-2010 22:37

Re: Tipping opponents robots
 
This is illegal under rule <G36>

Quote:

<G36> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: YELLOW CARD


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:37.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi