Intentionally tipping and disabling your own robot FTW...

[Mr. Lim]

Team Update #2 had an excellent resolution to some questions posed in the Q & A. This change made me wonder about an interesting strategy:

Originally Posted by Team Update #2

Rule <G36>
Disabled ROBOTS and PENALTIES – If a ROBOT becomes incapacitated (e.g. the
ROBOT overturns and can not be righted, the battery falls out, etc.), it may be
completely disabled by pressing the E-Stop Button in the corresponding Player
Station. ROBOTS that are disabled in this manner can not incur further
PENALTIES (e.g. can not receive a PENALTY for IMPEDING). Disabled ROBOTS
may be pushed out of the path of travel without PENALTY.

DISCLAIMER: I in no way support this strategy. Please don't misinterpret this post as intent to use this strategy myself or for my team. This question is asked as a result of investigating "game-breaking" strategies, which is something we do as part of our game analysis.

Suppose you built a robot that extended upwards, that if tipped, would block an entire lane of traffic, such that no other robot could pass. Attempting to push this robot out of the way would also be futile.

If at any time during the match, your alliance gained a lead (i.e. maybe 12 to 8 after hybrid mode), if your robot were to tip and be e-stopped, effectively blocking all traffic, would that not prevent scoring for the remainder of the match, thus securing the win?

[Jon Stratis]

I would hope the judges would treat such a blatant disregard for gracious professionalism rather severely. The arena is 27 feet wide, which means each lane is 13 feet wide (i'm allowing for a foot for the divider)... The only possible reason a team would want a robot 13 feet tall would be for such a strategy - there's no point in getting that tall to score.

So while there is no specific rule against it, such an action is against the spirit of first, and as such could be dealt with by the judges.

[Libby K]

Emphasis mine...

Originally Posted by eagle33199

I would hope the judges would treat such a blatant disregard for gracious professionalism rather severely.

Originally Posted by keen101

The judges have a little panel that tells them everything. It also has disable buttons for them to use.

Last year, the judges claimed our robot's power momentarily spiked, so they disabled it. We were out an entire match. We never did figure out what went wrong. Our robot worked fine after too.

Originally Posted by Glooper

Wait, the Judges can tell how much power is going through your robot? 0.0

I know this is a really unrelated side note, but reading this thread, I've noticed so many people saying "Judges". Please remember the difference between a Judge and a Referee.

Many judges (blue shirts) don't actually SEE matches until all their decisions are done. They're on the field for opening ceremonies each day, may watch a few matches, and then retreat back to the Judges' room to debate who gets which award.

The referees (zebras) are the ones on the field, watching every match and every team to make sure gameplay is fair and the spirit of FIRST competition is maintained.

It's a minute note, but it does make a difference. However, if teams do something really, really against the spirit of FIRST and Gracious Professionalism, rest assured that the judges DO find out about it and consider it in their decisions.

Sorry for the tangent, but that's about it.

$0.02 -- given.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by SlimBoJones

Suppose you built a robot that extended upwards, that if tipped, would block an entire lane of traffic, such that no other robot could pass. Attempting to push this robot out of the way would also be futile.

This I would like to see.....have you modeled it in Inventor yet?

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by squirrel

This I would like to see.....have you modeled it in Inventor yet?

Jim,

The irony is that in 2005 she had the propensity to tip extremely well... unintentionally of course .

[MrForbes]

As long as we had 842 on our alliance, we could bend it in half.....

[vivek16]

Originally Posted by squirrel

As long as we had 842 on our alliance, we could bend it in half.....

Gasp... haha... that is very un GP of you but funny at the same time...

-vivek

I think that robots will be built much more robust this year.

[MrForbes]

seriously, I really doubt you could block a whole lane with a robot....and I apologize for the un GP reply, but it seemed appropriate to the hypothetical un GP scenario, and funny too, especially if you know 842's robots!

[vivek16]

well, it is very possible to block almost all of the lane. say the forklift is designed to reach over 6.5 ft. and on your "claw" you have a perpendicular piece that is a couple of feet long (say 3). and on top of that, you have a clamp that would go on top that's another 2.5 ' long.

that is about 12 feet right there... I suppose it could be swiveled our of the way but I have a feeling that this might be happening accidentally a lot.

-vivek

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by eagle33199

So while there is no specific rule against it, such an action is against the spirit of first, and as such could be dealt with by the judges [referees?].

Originally Posted by squirrel

As long as we had 842 on our alliance, we could bend it in half.....

Which leads to another interesting dilemma. The tipped, disabled robot can incur no more penalties of ANY kind, based on the way the rule is written. This essentially grants the team "immunity" from the moment the e-stop is hit.

1) A referee would be handcuffed in trying to penalize the team for breaking the spirit of FIRST. Even if it was the right thing to do.

2) If you really wanted to cover your bases, you would hit the e-stop as your robot was in the process of tipping, before it tipped to the point of penetrating the 80" diameter cylinder. I don't think robots that tip over, and as a result, extend beyond the 80" diameter cylinder, will be penalized however.

3) Getting through the blocking, tipped, disabled robot would probably mean pushing it hard enough to bend or break something, especially if it was designed specifically for the purpose of blocking. That also poses a very high risk for penalties for the opposing alliance trying to push through, especially if the bumper zone vs non-bumper zone contact penalties are still in effect for the disabled, tipped robot.

Effectively you've created a situation where your alliance is winning, scoring is frozen, you cannot incur penalties, and you've created a very strong incentive for your opponent to take a penalty.

Strategists drool. Gracious professionals cringe.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by SlimBoJones

3) Getting through the blocking, tipped, disabled robot would probably mean pushing it hard enough to bend or break something, especially if it was designed specifically for the purpose of blocking. That also poses a very high risk for penalties for the opposing alliance trying to push through, especially if the bumper zone vs non-bumper zone contact penalties are still in effect for the disabled, tipped robot.

Luckily the GDC saw this potential situation coming, and threw that last sentence onto the rule:

Originally Posted by Rule <G36>

Disabled ROBOTS may be pushed out of the path of travel without PENALTY.

So anyone bold enough to try this move, you'd better have battle-bot quality plating on there!

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by Donut

Luckily the GDC saw this potential situation coming, and threw that last sentence onto the rule:

True, but I suppose there are a few questions:

1) "Pushing" and "ramming" have traditionally been defined seperately from each other, but I don't think they are this year. "Ramming" generally implied that significant, intentional damage would be done to the recipient robot from the collision, which is the situation I'm suggesting here. If a robot needs to be "rammed" in order to clear a path, is that different from "pushing," thus penalizable? From what I understand this year, no. Meaning, you're right, this hypothetical blocker bot could be legally "rammed" into submission.

but does that mean,

2) Is a "legitimately" tipped over bot that happens to block a lane of traffic fair game to be smashed into smithereens? I've seen helpless robots intentionally wrenched, and essentially snapped in two - effectively ending a very good robot's chance at winning champs... trust me, I don't think I could go through that happening ever again.

[MrForbes]

Interesting discussion, but I still think that a team capable of designing a robot that can actually block the whole 13.5' wide lane, without being able to be bent out of the way by a few 140+ lb robots intent on getting by, would be MUCH better off putting their commendable engineering talent to use making a high speed lapper/shooter/ball knocker offer.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by SlimBoJones

Which leads to another interesting dilemma. The tipped, disabled robot can incur no more penalties of ANY kind, based on the way the rule is written. This essentially grants the team "immunity" from the moment the e-stop is hit.

1) A referee would be handcuffed in trying to penalize the team for breaking the spirit of FIRST. Even if it was the right thing to do.

2) If you really wanted to cover your bases, you would hit the e-stop as your robot was in the process of tipping, before it tipped to the point of penetrating the 80" diameter cylinder. I don't think robots that tip over, and as a result, extend beyond the 80" diameter cylinder, will be penalized however.

3) Getting through the blocking, tipped, disabled robot would probably mean pushing it hard enough to bend or break something, especially if it was designed specifically for the purpose of blocking. That also poses a very high risk for penalties for the opposing alliance trying to push through, especially if the bumper zone vs non-bumper zone contact penalties are still in effect for the disabled, tipped robot.

Effectively you've created a situation where your alliance is winning, scoring is frozen, you cannot incur penalties, and you've created a very strong incentive for your opponent to take a penalty.

Strategists drool. Gracious professionals cringe.

Any drooling strategists might not have yet fully thought through things. It seems possible that someone might have foreseen this potential little dilemma and already have a solution in mind should any team attempt to use this as a strategy.

Notice that the (revised) rule indicates that a disabled Robot will not receive any additional PENALTIES. It does not say anything about being immune from receiving a RED CARD (note that in the formal definitions, they are not the same thing).

-dave

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Notice that the (revised) rule indicates that a disabled Robot will not receive any additional PENALTIES. It does not say anything about being immune from receiving a RED CARD (note that in the formal definitions, they are not the same thing).

There's a practical problem with that, though: you can't directly get a red card for egregious behaviour, only a yellow card (according to <T05>), unless the red card results from two yellow cards in two separate matches (due to <T07>). Also, <T09> tells us that red cards can be recieved directly, for disqualifications that don't result from yellow cards—but then the grounds for disqualification need to be something else. That brings us back to the subject of the thread: there doesn't seem to be a sanction with immediate punitive results, unless the behaviour is repeated in more than one match (in which case another yellow card will quickly deal with the offender).

While the referees will obviously hand out a yellow card every time this happens, that does give a team a theoretical opportunity to use this strategy once in the qualifying rounds and once in the elimination rounds, without being disqualified.