The Dark Side of the 2013 game

[iVanDuzer]

Wait, what?

Originally Posted by Hoover

While putting a robot out for a match might be considered strategic, if they couldn't play the rest of the N-final, as EricH says, that doesn't do any good anyway. ... In fact he thought the 'incident' to be strategic and wondered why it was a foul.

Trying to "put out a robot" for any length is NOT ok and should be penalized. Actually, the fact that your driver thought that tipping was strategic is a direct violation of [G28], which directly calls out "strategies aimed at .. tipping."

That is why I was perplexed that before we got our replacement wheel back on for the last match of our semi-final, that the official came and told us if we were not back on the field in time we would be 'disqualified', their words. I would have disagreed, but we got our replacement wheel back on with help from another team, so we never got to test this out.

You called a time-out, I assume. The rules say that you have to be ON the field by the time the time-out ends. The refs do enforce this: in 2009 it cost 188-610-1305 the Greater Toronto Regional. Besides, even if you DO disagree with the ref, the Head Ref's word is final.

This ruling might have changed though: in Montreal, there was a team in the finals that was off the field after their time-out ended. They were allowed on the field, but had to be disabled due to [G07]. So, even if you HAD been let on the field, you probably wouldn't have been able to move your robot anyways.

If they are as quick to call tipping a 30 point foul, I am wondering if anyone has ever tried a 'play dead' strategy. Could a robot be built and programmed to tip itself, perhaps using a throttle burst, if a large enough jolt occurred. There would be some finesse involved to make this look real. It seems like if a game was close and they are so quick to call it, it might be a good 30 point play. I mean look how hard people worked to make a 30 point climber, the auto-tip seems a bit easier.

Especially if you also had an up-righting mechanism

Again, the manual kind of ruins this idea. [G26] says "ROBOTS may not intentionally fall down or tip over to block the FIELD." So that's one big minus against you. Then you've got the whole [G18-1] thing, which is all about not drawing penalties (like you would be if you made it look like people were tipping you). So, no, nobody has ever thought of building a flipping robot, because to do so would almost certainly mean losing every single match you ever play.

So yeah, literally EVERYTHING that you suggested in this post is against at least one rule in the FRC-Manual. I'd suggest giving it another read or two.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

You called a time-out, I assume. The rules say that you have to be ON the field by the time the time-out ends. The refs do enforce this: in 2009 it cost 188-610-1305 the Greater Toronto Regional. Besides, even if you DO disagree with the ref, the Head Ref's word is final.

This is true, they will run the match without you, but it is not and has never been an automatic disqualification. Teams have run matches 3v2 for years, and if the Head Ref says you are disqualified unless three robots are on the field, that is a problem.

I think there was definitely less accessible available motor power in 2006. Your main option for an FP based shooter was a DeWalt transmission, which not everyone could modify. Otherwise, you had to use an extremely heavy motor up high (minibike) or you had to get rid of one of your 4 CIMs.

All of that aside, teams have access to more than 16 >200W motors this year. (6 CIM, 4 Mini-CIM, 4 550, 4? AM)

[Jeff Waegelin]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

So, no, nobody has ever thought of building a flipping robot, because to do so would almost certainly mean losing every single match you ever play.

While certainly true this year, there was a robot specifically designed for flipping robots if you dig deep enough into FIRST History. The Rhode Warriors (121) built a robot with a flipping mechanism in 1997 (I think...) that spawned a lot of stories. And then intentional flipping was promptly made illegal the next year, and has been ever since.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

So, no, nobody has ever thought of building a flipping robot, because to do so would almost certainly mean losing every single match you ever play.

Well 86 built a robot that flipped itself every match when it went over the burms in 2010; they didnt lose every match.

[Hoover]

From what I've gleaned robot tipping cannot be done as a strategy, so then the alternative is that it can be done as a knucklehead. But then this would be not in the spirit. So has anyone seen a case in 2013 when a robot was tipped by another and no technical foul was called? Stories?

Side note. I've noticed that the technical fouls seem to be 30 points, is this a modification from 20 in the glossary of the original publication?

I noted in one of my earlier posts that in another match a robot hit another robot, but since the second robot was top heavy... but it wasn't only that. The four wheels were almost to the frame perimeter. This plus the top heaviness and the robot slammed right over, boom. This happened right in front of us (on the stands) and I wasn't the only one who raised one brow. So to all of those who say you can't build a robot that will purposely tip, it can be done at least passively. There currently is no inspection test for some kind of minimum bumper hit.

OZ 341, I am in 225's district but I wasn't at Chestnut. I didn't hear any such calls at our last event but it is hard to hear on the floor (maybe the loud music is good shield!). This is my first year as mentor, driver couch, semi-finals where defense is escalated. I am trying to learn as much as I can in a short time span. What I can tell you is that I think the latter is becoming what might be described as 'hard ball', a real sport. There is a lot of pressure and I think thick skin in needed. It might be that once the audience sees all this bumping around that they get fired up. I doubt all of them know the rules, but would they have been asking their favored team to take a 30 point hit just because they can possibly counter it in offensive play?

How does this jive with the idea of 5.4.4 (about ties) "the ALLIANCE that played the cleaner MATCH", implying that fouling is, how should I say it politely, not clean? In basketball, is fouling part of the dark side of that game, or just strategy?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Hoover

From what I've gleaned robot tipping cannot be done as a strategy, so then the alternative is that it can be done as a knucklehead. But then this would be not in the spirit. So has anyone seen a case in 2013 when a robot was tipped by another and no technical foul was called? Stories?

We have tipped robots three times this year. At no time did we ever intend to - we simply pushed the robots and they went over. We were never called on it. If you build a tippy robot, the rules do not offer you protection against simple defense. Only clearly intentional tips (e.g. hitting a robot up high outside its bumper zone, driving hard into a partially tipped robot to "finish the job", etc) are called for technical fouls, as they should be.

Side note. I've noticed that the technical fouls seem to be 30 points, is this a modification from 20 in the glossary of the original publication?

They are 20 points. If the technical foul interfered with a hang, the alliance is given 30 hanging points.

I noted in one of my earlier posts that in another match a robot hit another robot, but since the second robot was top heavy... but it wasn't only that. The four wheels were almost to the frame perimeter. This plus the top heaviness and the robot slammed right over, boom. This happened right in front of us (on the stands) and I wasn't the only one who raised one brow. So to all of those who say you can't build a robot that will purposely tip, it can be done at least passively. There currently is no inspection test for some kind of minimum bumper hit.

All other things equal, wouldn't wheels farther to the edges of the frame perimeter result in a less tippy robot?

How does this jive with the idea of 5.4.4 (about ties) "the ALLIANCE that played the cleaner MATCH", implying that fouling is, how should I say it politely, not clean? In basketball, is fouling part of the dark side of that game, or just strategy?

This is an ongoing debate in the FRC world. In the past, intentional fouls have been worth it in niche situations, but in this game a "strategic foul" gets you a potential yellow card, according to the rules and Q&A.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

We have tipped robots three times this year. At no time did we ever intend to - we simply pushed the robots and they went over. We were never called on it. If you build a tippy robot, the rules do not offer you protection against simple defense. Only clearly intentional tips (e.g. hitting a robot up high outside its bumper zone, driving hard into a partially tipped robot to "finish the job", etc) are called for technical fouls, as they should be.

This is a good clarification. After the driver tipped the robot, when he turned he hit within their frame perimeter. This was due to clumsiness and no way intentional and it wasn't a hard hit. After the event was over I heard one opinion that the latter is what the foul was for. I never addressed a ref on it and I could cleared this whole thing up then and there.

They are 20 points. If the technical foul interfered with a hang, the alliance is given 30 hanging points.

Oh never mind on this as I realize this was total total fouls since that is all that is displayed.

All other things equal, wouldn't wheels farther to the edges of the frame perimeter result in a less tippy robot?

Yes. Now I am thinking this is what made it even more out of context about the hit. It could just be the top heaviness of the robot did all the work. I'd still like to have seen the force that took to do it in a test.

This is an ongoing debate in the FRC world. In the past, intentional fouls have been worth it in niche situations, but in this game a "strategic foul" gets you a potential yellow card, according to the rules and Q&A.

I well know; when we play an alliance that has an offense that is much higher order than us, it is a balancing act on how much defense we can apply. Could it be that FRC wants the winning robots to win on the merits of how good the robots are built and not how much they can be denied performance? I think that is an obvious yes.

[OZ_341]

I am only answering because it is the original poster.
My issue was not with the onfield play or the officiating.
As I mentioned, a rough game is just fine with me and we build for it.

My issue is with the lack of sportsmanship in the crowd.
My problem is with those audience members and teams that were openly calling for a fellow competitor (225) to be tipped. Those same people actually cheered and high-fived when it happened. This is just so far from what FIRST is about.

[coalhot]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

My issue is with the lack of sportsmanship in the crowd.
My problem is with those audience members and teams that were openly calling for a fellow competitor (225) to be tipped. Those same people actually cheered and high-fived when it happened. This is just so far from what FIRST is about.

This. Also, I should point out the times where there have been chants mocking an alliance when the set goes to a third match, because the underdog won. I heard this at CH, and at Mt Olive. Very, very, very un-GP; and the first time I've seen/heard it in this area. Personally, I think it's because too many teams in the area are focused on winning matches. I'd like to think that any team that I was on would not stoop this low.

EDIT: I was sitting right behind the section that was cheering when 225 was tipped. It's quite rude to hear this. The teams in the area are better then this. I'd also like to think that the refs had warned the alliance that tipped 225, and that they would have red carded the alliance if it happened again. Tipping the robot one can be an accident, but once it happens multiple times, it becomes a strategy. Also, I'm glad that 225 was able to garner a strategy to prevent themselves from being tipped.

[Lil' Lavery]

FWIW, while the competitors certainly looked to up the ante when playing agaisnt 225 at Lenape-Seneca (including a number of blocking devices), there wasn't really any unsportsmanlike behavior centered around them that I was aware of. I remember a gasp the one time they fell over, but no rampant cheering. I also know there was at least one other team who constantly cheered for and chanted 225's name/number during qualifications. Nor do I recall any particularly egregious crowd behavior at Hatboro-Horsham, though I was hardly around the audience at that event.

It's a real shame to hear it went different at SCH and MO.

[Ben Martin]

Originally Posted by coalhot

EDIT: I was sitting right behind the section that was cheering when 225 was tipped. It's quite rude to hear this. The teams in the area are better then this. I'd also like to think that the refs had warned the alliance that tipped 225, and that they would have red carded the alliance if it happened again. Tipping the robot one can be an accident, but once it happens multiple times, it becomes a strategy. Also, I'm glad that 225 was able to garner a strategy to prevent themselves from being tipped.

For what it's worth, of the three times we tipped (from videos I have watched) only the time in Chestnut Hill SF2-1 could be considered the fault of the opposing alliance.

Regardless of how the crowd reacted at Chestnut Hill, the event staff, volunteers, and the drive teams I worked with were extremely gracious at both events.