Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoover
"not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed"
That is the part that makes me think they've gone soft. Is the spirit of FRC that we just play an offensive game and show what the robot can do? This is mostly what we did during qualifying matches.
I think you are right about the strategy thing. But doesn't it seem like a strategy could be to put one robot out of commission in the first of a 3 match final event? Or is that a red card? But some teams might say so what.
|
"GONE soft"???? That particular rule has been on the books in one form or another since 1994 or so. (Scary thought: Some of the students in the competition might not have been born when the rule was first enacted!)
Guess what, some of the games since then have been extremely rough on robots. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2000 as I recall, 1999 maybe... I saw an arm torn off in 2007; multiple flipped robots due to field elements in 2006 and 2010 and some partner robots in 2007.
I'll address the strategy question first before I go into why defense tends to get penalties. There's an interesting story there.
If you can put one robot out of commission in the first of 3 matches, and you strategize to do so, yes, it's a red card. More than that, you WILL be facing 3 robots in either the next match or the third one, though they might not be the same--and chances are, you will have a yellow card against you as well. You really don't want that.
Anyways, back to the defense. Up until about 2005, all contact was metal on metal (except for a few teams who used bumpers). But in 2005, an event occurred that won't happen again (due to elimination tiebreaks): a 0-0 tie. In eliminations. Due to DQs (this is before red cards). Seems two teams with wedge-shaped robots managed to each tip one opponent in the same match. Both were DQed, taking their alliance with them to the red card. During the offseason, there was strong support for the wedges from the "offense-oriented" teams, as many of them had them primarily for defense against defenders who would otherwise harry them, even in their loading zone (that year, a 30-point penalty nicknamed the "Kiss of Death" for its ability to win--err, lose--matches). Essentially, the argument was "If we don't have protection, we will simply play the game these guys are playing. We will build a box on wheels with no apparent purpose other than to beat on other robots. Then the competition will REALLY stink." (This to counteract defense arguments that "We can't hit these guys without falling over, this competition stinks!"
But, FIRST apparently did not want the wedges to stay as defense, partly due to the double DQ, I think. For 2006, they rolled out a standard bumper design, but made it optional. No wedges were allowed. Ditto for 2007. Bumpers were made mandatory in 2008; from 2006-2010 there were no protected zones (besides a home zone with time in 2007 and "odd-man" offense areas/times in 2006 and 2010, as well as 2010's tower protection).
Somewhere along between 2010 and 2011, someone seems to have decided that offense is good and should be protected more than it was. So, we get the lanes in 2011, the key and alley in 2012, and of course this year's areas, along with various contact restrictions, some of which have always been there.
I think part of the restrictions is that it emphasizes the difficult parts of the game, or the areas where if you don't play smart defense, safety of either the robot or the nearby humans will be compromised. Imagine a robot falling from Level 3... and landing on YOUR robot! (Wait. Don't. I don't want you to be completely frightened.) Or imagine getting hit in the key last year... and shooting straight at the head ref's face at relatively close range. (Or how about the frisbees this year, from the feeder zone? I bet some GDC members figured out how many Ultimate Frisbee players were likely to try to go long...)