Rules that I think should be changed.
 

I want everyone's opinion on two rules that I think are too harsh. The two rules I am referring to are:

<G34> FINALE PERIOD ROBOT Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in contact with their TOWER or in contact with an ELEVATED ALLIANCE partner may not be contacted by an opponent. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

<G35> FINALE PERIOD TOWER Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in may not contact the OPPONENT’S TOWER. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

There are two real problems with these rules that I can think of. First, as a part of playing good defense it is a good idea to block the tower without touching it, but it is very hard from my experience to see when you are close to the tower and if you are actually touching it. Second, the second half of the rules talks about obvious intentional contact. This is up to interpretation and I believe that it is a lot of pressure to put on an official, and it is difficult to really tell what someone's intentions are.

I would like to recommend that the rule is kept, but changed slightly with a less severe penalty such as a loss of points or a yellow card. I think a RED CARD should only be used for something that really has changed the game in a way that mischievous.

Let me know what you think.:)

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

The GDC clearly wanted the finale period for robots to attempt to hang unobstructed, once in contact with their tower. These rules make sure that occurs.

I wouldn't change either.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

Maybe these rules are to be taken as a sign that defending the tower is supposed to be a difficult task and has definite risks? Perhaps you should consider the GDC wanted teams to hang and allowing tower defense to be that much easier would make it next to impossible to accomplish (along with the obvious safety concerns).


.02

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

Games where it is significantly easier to prevent scoring than it is to score yourself are some of the most boring in FRC. Most notably 2003, but 2009 and 2007 had elements that sometimes approached this level.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

If you go to a go-kart track, and they have a "no bumping" policy, you can bet that the employees can tell an intentional bump versus a non-intentional bump. Ditto with FRC refs.

I'm almost wondering if your head ref was on Curie in 2007; that might explain a few things.

My advice is, let it go and focus on your next competition.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

If you saw the Florida Regional in 2004 when hanging was a bonus and defense was permitted you would see why this isn't allowed any more. Robots would be driven onto and swung around when it came time -- add in a ramp (bump) and things could really get out of hand.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

I have to agree with your assessment ...Captain...
In the finals matches in Oregon... a defensive robot hit the tower (no one was even trying to hang or anything at this point..) and this, of course, red-carded the team and they lost the match...The referees were asked about it and they indicated it was intentional... so they had no choice...

The 2nd match was played and there was no contact so that team won...
In the 3rd and final match... this same team was lured towards the tower by a robot that could go underneath... it came within 2 inches of touching it again...which would have cost them the championship.

I really feel that this rule is there to protect the tower from being interfered with during the Finale... when a robot simply touches it... it seems an extreme penalty to disqualify that entire team during the finals.

The rule should indicate that the tower is not to be interfered with ...so that robots can hang... a simple touch of the tower is not interference ...especially when no robot is even trying to hang...

I believe that some of these yellow/red card rules are WAY out of proportion to the severity of the penalties....

2010 the year of the YELLOW/RED card... more than ever....

It certainly does not enhance play or even correct some "advantage" given to the team that gets one for the most part.

In real soccer... yellow and red cards are used only in situations of egregious violations of the rules...especially where those violations could or DID result in injury to another player... or for repeated and egregious violations of other rules....

In FIRST the use of these cards (without sufficient discretion given to the referee for their use...) is counterproductive to the game...

By the way... my team was not even IN the Finals in Oregon...

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

As you found out in Philly, blocking the tower is a very high risk/high reward tactic.

These rules were put in place to encourage teams to try to achieve difficult tasks and allow them the rewards of completing those tasks. They are there, and have always been there, for everyone. Choosing the risky tactic of blocking access to the tower has it's merits, as well as it's pitfalls. Being held accountable to the rules is no reason to have the rules changed.

Yes, determining the intent of a person is a difficult thing to do, but it is not uncommon in sports. Just watch one NFL game and tell me if you don't see a few judgment calls being made. Those calls can be challenged, but that has not always been the case. The RED flag being thrown in by a team is a fairly new development. Once the challenge is addressed the game continues. That being said, not once has a rule been changed during a season. Once the game is over, it's over. And remember, FIRST does not have a challenge provision. The decisions of the Referees are final.

I commend you for your honest attempt to gain opinions without pointing fingers. But I must also say the rules need to stand as they are. It's time to move on.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

As others have pointed out, the GDC made it very clear that you're not supposed to be interfering with robots trying to hang, just as you are not supposed to interfere with opposing robots during autonomous, or going back in time, how you were not allowed to interfere with robots trying to climb on top of another robot in 2007.

The difference between the first (hanging) and the other two (autonomous and robot climbing in '07) is that, in the first case, you're taking a gamble, as you can try to block and maybe get penalized (and even then, there are two levels of risk), whereas in the two other cases the penalty assessment is a lot more black-and-white; cross the line and you're done.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

I see this as a safety rule, it would be very bad if a robot that is hanging gets knocked off and damaged.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

Hanging is dangerous for robots. If knocked there's the risk of a sizable drop damaging robots, possibly irreparably. I am all for these rules staying.

During qualification matches our driver in an attempt to get out of the way drove through the opposition's tunnel. We weren't penalized but while shaking the driver and coach I told them not to give the referees the chance to give us a red card. They got the message.

These are the rules and I would suggest developing game strategy to play by them.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

I don't see any need to change the rules. Notice that these rules specify that they're "Protection" rules. That strongly implies that the intent of the rule is to protect robots attempting to elevate or suspend. While <G35> doesn't specify an exception for an unattended opponent's tower, a reasonable referee should not red-card a robot for such an infraction.

Further, referees can make reasonable judgements as to what's considered "obviously intentional" contact. The rules in FLL clearly state (or used to) that robots will be given the benefit of the doubt. To me, that's well with the FIRST spirit. (For what it's worth, for example, I saw many cases which could be interpreted (at least loosely) to violate <G36> - especially tipping over other robots - and yet I'm not aware of any penalties being handed out for that rule, at our regional.)

Of course, it's well within referees' rights to call the rules by the book. (And it's NOT within teams' rights to question those calls.) But the intent of the rules also needs to be considered. Any referee who red-cards a robot for something minor will have some 'splainin' to do. Referees don't live in a vacuum. They spend a lot of time interacting and discussing such situations, in an attempt to present a less subjective refereeing experience. But they're still human.

Finally, whatever the rules are, goes. Nobody said life is fair. FRC is about giving kids a taste of what the "real world" is like. Sometimes it seems harsh - depending on your perspective.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

If I am pushing you away from the tower and your pushing me towards it. My backside touches the tower. Was it intentional? I'd say not. My intentions were clearly to keep both of us away from the tower. Besides, wouldn't this fall into the whole "can't cause a penalty for your opponent" situation? I guess I just don't see how the rules are in any way condemning this strategy. I think this would be a definite GDC scenario to look into though I think I know their answer.

Note that I'm only referring to rules I know off the top of my head. There's a decent chance I'm missing something. If so, please go easy on my ignorance.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

If you push an opponent into your own tower (or prevent them from getting away from your own tower), I hope that would be a penalty for you, even a red card. But these things can often be very hard to determine...

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

If my memory serves me right, rules like this stem from the 2003 game. In that game you could build stacks of boxes for big scores. The problem was that it was really difficult to build the stacks, but really easy to knock them down. The result was that only a couple teams even bothered to build a robot that could make stacks.

A lot of feedback came in to say that the game would have been played more like the GDC intended if the game had a rule that limited defense by making it a penalty to knock down already built stacks. Since that year, the GDC has almost always put in some rules limiting where or when defense could be played.

With all of that in mind, the rule should stay as is. Many teams designed their robots with the rules in mind. In 2003 a lot more teams probably would have designed stack-building robots but with the rules at hand they decided not to. I'm sure a lot of teams this year decided to build hanging mechanisms in part due to the protection afforded by the rules. It would be wrong to change the rules now as a lot of teams would of made different decisions.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

I see both of these as safety rules. Not because robots might get damaged but because the field might. In Ann Arbor 2337 had 2619 hang off them on the practice field (Something we never got to do in competition :( ). Given the number of people we had to have stand on the other side of the tower to keep it from flipping I would NOT want robots hanging being hit and swinging around as it would cause further stresses on the tower and its anchoring.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

During qualification match 38 in which 63, 128 and 2641 were allied against 1114, 128 and 2641 did successfully block 1114 from the tower without contacting the tower. So tower defense CAN be done!!! You did it!! The result was a 6-6 tie, the only blemish on 1114's record.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

I don't mean to be emotional here, but this stems from several events that happened at a recent competition we were in. There is a very, VERY good reason that robots ARE NOT ALLOWED to beat on robots that are trying to lift.

Have you ever seen a 150 pound robot fall 4 feet to the ground? It really doesn't matter how strong you make your bot - all that weight is guaranteed to destroy things. Two bots at the competition decided to blatently ignore the rules about contact while lifting, and took a run at us. One smashed into us over and over as we lifted, causing considerable damage (and no small amount of ill will because it appeared that they were actively trying to damage us).

We just spent 2 months of our life devoting every waking minute to building a robot that works well. Allowing another bot to dismantle it by knocking folks off the tower would be... well... just plain silly. Plus, there's absolutely NO way to make a bot that isn't going to be damaged by a fall from 4, 6, or even 8 feet.

Hanging's hard enough already, isn't it?

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

I think what is in greatest need of clarification here is "obviously intentional contact." Based on the redcard offense, one would think "malicious" would be a better suited term. I can easily see a justifyable redcard for teams who intentionally try to ram hanging robots off the tower.

I suppose what really is at stake here: Is the rule a measure of safety or strategical limitation? That is, is the rule in place solely to discourage hanging defence, or is it more the issue of robot + gravity = bad? Perhaps Q&A will have an answer...

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

"The rule should indicate that the tower is not to be interfered with ...so that robots can hang... a simple touch of the tower is not interference ...especially when no robot is even trying to hang..."

But where do you distinguish between a tap and a push? An accidental tap, for some teams' hanging mechanisms can cause disaster. The rules are for the safety of all robots, and are extremely needed. Hanging is already hard enough to do, so why would you add this extra obstacle? Some team could tap the tower "accidently" and say, "It was just a tap, we didn't mean it..." but it still could result in serious damage. Staying away from the tower is a good idea in my opinion.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

It's quite clearly both.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

The bottom line of this one is simple, either you stay the heck away from the tower starting at ~25 seconds or you are playing with fire.

$10 says that 1114 thought of the fact that it would be much more difficult to defend their hang (in addition to other benefits) if they hung from their near zone and factored that into their design decisions. I know it was a factor in my mind when we designed our hanger.

Defending a hang in the far zone is an extremely risky proposition, without camera input I would liken it to Russian Roulette.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

The best way to deal with an opponent who is going to hang is to go and hang yourself.

Er... maybe that sounded a bit odd... but it is clear that, from time to time, the GDC will add rules to promote offense.

That is because defense is simply easier to do. Defense, for the most part, increases entropy... offense has to reduce it.

Thermodynamics says that offense is harder than defense.

Jason

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

I by no means would ever want to see this rule changed so robots could knock other robots off the tower. Instead I would like this rule changed so if you go to block a robot from getting to the tower and you accidently bump it you don't get thrown out of the competion. To me the read card seems extremly harsh.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

Many have already answered the question originally posted in this forum. It appears that the intent of the GDC is clear. I would strongly suggest that you accept the rules as they are and move on. There are always rules we don't agree with, just like in life.

Our character is defined by how we respond.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

If this were legal, I would have designed a hanger that could reach over a defender.

I think that's what it comes down to, really. This rule should have impacted everyone's design so randomly changing it because you want to stop Hanger XYZ is going to hurt teams with foresight.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

I just wanted a couple of opinions. Thanks for your input.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

Shooting fish in a barrel isn't hard, either. This argument is soooo much like the all student vs. all engineer built robot arguments, where no one ever agrees to meet in the middle. The game is at its best (such as the hot topic semifinals in Pittsburgh, or the 63 vs. 1114 qualifying tie) when there is a BALANCE of tough defense and offensive scoring THROUGH the defense; not when everyone gets out of each other's way and "fake" scores into empty nets.

I believe the rules regarding tower contact should be preserved as written; however, I hope referees take a sensible approach to applying them under certain situations, especially if a defensive robot is pushed into the tower by a would-be hanger. People absolutely love to cite that "devil made me do it" rule to protect offenders; last I checked, that protection is built into the rules for ALL robots, regardless of what strategies they are employing at the time.

Sure, it would be great for robots to be able to hang to counteract the opponent's hanging; however, many robots were simply not designed to hang from the start, or they decided to abandon hanging later in the season, and I see no problem with that. I don't see 63 or 3138 or 217 hanging around anywhere, and they are doing just fine. Many teams made a conscious effort not to hang because they didn't see the reward - 2 points - worth the risk and application of weight/time/resources/higher CG relative to their drivetrain and kicking mechanisms, which are far more critical to affecting the net score of the match. You hang for show; kick for dough.

Apparently, this type of tower defense is quite the challenge - not easy at all, otherwise, teams wouldn't be asking for rule changes to make it easier. Sounds like quite the marketable skill for an elimination round alliance for those who can master the practice. It is agreed by many that both hanging and defense are more valuable in the eliminations; being able to block hanging while applying effective defense without penalty requires true practice and skill, just like any other offensive endeavor. I say go for it, but be ready to accept the consequences if your execution lags behind your passion for the strategy.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

The reasons for the harsh penalties in these two rules are plain and simple to me:

1. Being under defense while hanging increases incidental contact while hanging
2. Incidental contact while hanging 3 feet in the air increases the risk of damaging one or more robots
3. Let's face it, some teams will literally try to pull another robot down off the tower, regardless of intent of any "defense is allowed" rule
4. Damaging one or more robots ruins many individuals' day
5. Damaging one or more robot while in contact with the tower may also damage the tower, ruining everyone's day due to the delay caused by repairing the tower

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

That reply is all anyone needs to read after reading the first post.

Some people just do not learn when to stop and deal with it.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

No they didn't. There is no change to TOWER PROTECTION.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

TU#17 changed absolutely nothing. If one of your team members told you that, then you may wish to begin plotting a graciously professional counter-prank.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

In the gaming world, we would use the phrase: "You got pwned"

:)

You might want to read the updates as they come out. Even if someone summarizes them for you, it should be the responsibility of everyone to read the document for themselves.

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

Just to throw a quick word out there about playing defense on a tower hanging in the far zone; it is dangerous. Your robot is about 45 feet away, with (two) towers in the way, and all the chaos that exists on a Breakaway field. Unless you are very confident of your position on the field, it's best to simply back away when you hear the 20 second "bell." About midway through the Peachtree regional, we "intentionally" hit another team that was against the tower, deploying a ramp. I was driving, and I've continually replayed what happened; I still don't remember even touching them, but it just goes to show, it's best to be careful!

Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
 

Indeed. It might do you good to break down the maneuver into simple steps.

1. Get to the tower before they do, presumably just before finale period begins, but perhaps later if the hanging robot persists in chasing and scoring balls in their near zone. Unless they've got an ungodly amount of balls to score in their home zone (what, you didn't clear their zone of balls prior to the finale? :)), you probably want to stay between them and the tower and keep it that way through the end of the match. To defend any last-second ball scoring, use corner pushing and bumping and scattering of ammo to try and botch up their shots at this point - this keeps you in better defensive position when they attempt the hang.
2. Setup your defense at least a foot away from the tower.
3. Park perpendicular to their approach path. Make it obvious to the referees that the only way you can contact the tower is by an opponent pushing you into it. Learning how to drive in a defensive arc would be a good thing to know how to do.
4. Keep your movement to a minimum once in position. This is your territory. You own it. You're the Spartans at Thermopylae (at the beginning, not the end :D ). Stand your ground.
5. Only attempt a tower block if it is strategically important to do so; e.g. it's a close elimination round match and their hanging will likely dictate the outcome, and your robot has no realistic way to counterract those 2 points by contributing to offense with 20 seconds left on the clock.

This will work better against the majority of hangers which take a longer time to hang - know your opponent's capabilities - if you know it takes them a full 20 seconds to hang, delay them for at least 5 seconds - you may then elect to leave the area to minimize penalty risk, and go do something else. Your primary goal is to make it physically impossible for their robot to hang in the time left you've given them. Your secondary goal is to maximize the pressure you put on their drive team to execute the hanging maneuver.

If you're up against a vertical pole gripping bot who can hang in 3-5 seconds, probably the worst case robot to defend, you're going to have to have more skill and persistence to keep them away. If you've blocked them on one side of the tower, they will likely try to cross the bump to try and hang from the other side. Be ready. If they break free and attempt this, use your drivetrain to cut them off, forcing them toward the edges of the field in order to cross the bump. Waste their time as much as possible. You might even enlist the help of a middle zone robot to seal them off from all angles of their tower. If you use two robots to block the tower (seriously, there aren't any balls around you two to score at all? ;) ), one in each zone, neither of you would have to move much, if at all.

Again, I stress that you shouldn't pursue this strategy if the field sets up for you to do something else that cancels out their hang - scoring 2 for the good guys is the same as denying 2 for the opposition, and the risk of major penalty is removed. Just be sure your alliance is capable of executing such coordinated offensive maneuvers in a compressed amount of time. If you doubt your capability, then the tower block strategy becomes more worth the risk.

Good luck to all who try it.