Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014

[jtechau]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

This team update essentially makes any team that is able to execute a defensive strategy the target of massive penalties. If you are playing defense effectively, you're going to have some high speed collisions. And I highly suspect that this is only going to be called against teams playing effective defense, whether or not there are other teams hitting harder.

You were at SAC; you witnessed a number of matches where robots played a defensive strategy of aggressively, repeatedly ramming their opponents. As you suggest, that's not a good strategy, nor is it very nice - especially when it reaches the point of tipping or disabling opponents.

I see a big difference between an effective defensive strategy and aggressive, repeated ramming. I don't expect the occasional high speed collision to be called. On the other hand, a strategy of consistently and aggressively ramming your opponent isn't within the spirit of the game, nor of FRC.

[OZ_341]

The issue is not the intent of the rules change. I am all for controlling robot damage and opening up some room for scoring. My big worry is that this new ruling is so open-ended that just about anything could be called.

I am just visualizing some critical moment in the eliminations when a robot loses a roller and the opposing alliance gets a tech foul for what amounts to an incidental collision and a loose part. If the new rules are taken to the letter, then this scenario is entirely possible.

I just hope that the Refs have concrete instructions from FIRST and that they communicate some very specific instructions to the drive teams prior to the start of qualifications at each event.

[Nathan Rossi]

It's interesting that they released this update at this time. I imagine most teams won't be looking for updates mid-regional, I hope they inform everyone about this change at the opening ceremonies (tomorrow), otherwise, there are going to be a lot of fouls in week 4.

I like the idea of this rule, it puts less focus on defense and hopefully will decrease the number of "robot battle scars." However, I'm afraid how referees are going to interpret "actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming." It's a bit too subjective.

[MattRain]

Im waiting for alot more fouls now....

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

The issue is not the intent of the rules change. I am all for controlling robot damage and opening up some room for scoring. My big worry is that this new ruling is so open-ended that just about anything could be called.

I am just visualizing some critical moment in the eliminations when a robot loses a roller and the opposing alliance gets a tech foul for what amounts to an incidental collision and a loose part. If the new rules are taken to the letter, then this scenario is entirely possible.

This^

[Sunshine]

Let's all all take a deep breath and relax a bit. FIRST has never been about being battle bots. There are other competitions that allow very agessive behavior. They see that some teams have given up on showing offensive play and technical abilities. They are just reacting to how we have collectively changed how they wanted the game to be played. Adapt and react in a positive manner. No says you can't play defense. There are many ways to play defense without causing damage, tipping, or high speed impacts. We'll all be fine.

[who716]

I don't like this one at all

[Matt_Boehm_329]

Good! No penalty for contact between two appendages was a silly silly rule because I could easily see teams taking advantage of that loophole with the amount of rule lawyering that goes on.

Edit: To compare it to a sport, I assume it would be called like checking in hockey. Charging is called but regular checks not. In hockey its 3+ strides going into a check, here it may be crossing more than two zones or something. It also rules out a team building a "ball intake device" in name only and using it to damage other teams' ball intakes. The explicit allowance for penalty free impacts in g28 I felt was too confusing when preceded by g27

[45Auto]

Worst update ever to the worst game in my nine years of being a FIRST mentor and drive coach.

I've already gone through one regional full of subjective calls. Lots of video out there of violations by one alliance not being called while identical play by the other alliance results in penalties. Not the ref's fault, they're human, no two people will see or interpret subjective events the same way.

Not like we have enough judgement call gray areas already that the refs have to make instant decisions on (did the kid's pinky really cross the invisible line? Is that enough that we call it or not? Is a robot "close enough" that we think it should be a 50 point or 20 point foul?), now the ref's have to decide if a robot is "high speed", "aggressive", "repeated ramming" or even playing "strategically".

On top of that, I'm now responsible for damage to the opponents robot from a legal hit?

Is high speed 6 FPS? 8 FPS? 10 FPS? Who knows?

What is "aggressive ramming"? Can anyone describe "non-aggressive" ramming for me so I at least have some idea of how to try to play this despicable game?

How do you do ANYTHING that is not "strategic" for an automatic tech foul and yellow card?

Our general plan (strategy) in our first regional was to play defense when not inbounding, then scoring the over-the-truss shot from our alliance partner. Now if we play any kind of defense we have to be low speed, non-aggressive, no repeated (more than once is repeated) ramming, AND it cannot be "strategic" without getting a penalty. How the heck do you play without following a general plan to achieve your goal???

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategic

stra·te·gic
adjective \strə-ˈtē-jik\

: of or relating to a general plan that is created to achieve a goal in war, politics, etc., usually over a long period of time

We built our robot to be strong and fast so we could play defense when we don't have the ball. Reinforced tank-drive kit-bot chassis with 6 cim, 2 speed transmissions.

Based on the way calls were going, our first 25 seconds of play in the 2nd final at Arkansas would have resulted in 3 or 4 tech fouls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA5J...ature=youtu.be

Our robot (2992) is the tall blue one at the top of the screen on the blue side of the field.

After autonomous, we reverse downfield to play defense. The red robot coming downfield rams us on our side of the field (0:20) (or did we ram it? Who knows? Aggressive High-Speed Ramming penalty for us because they die?), but gets shoved backwards into the wall and dies. Oops, penalty on us for damaging their robot. Maybe we should have run away? Someone should have told me.

Immediately after that collision, we cross the field and ram another red robot (0:22) that is playing defense on our inbounder/truss teammate. Was it a high-speed ram? Again, who knows? Do the refs like us or not? We shove it across the field sideways to free our teammate. Uh-oh, looks like "strategic" play to me.

About all I can think of now is to just accept our penalties with gracious professionalism, tell the seniors that we hope they had a good time, and hope it gets better next year for the underclassmen.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Nathan Rossi

It's interesting that they released this update at this time. I imagine most teams won't be looking for updates mid-regional, I hope they inform everyone about this change at the opening ceremonies (tomorrow), otherwise, there are going to be a lot of fouls in week 4.

At the LA regional, they held a special drivers meeting after practice matches to announce this.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Nathan Rossi

It's interesting that they released this update at this time. I imagine most teams won't be looking for updates mid-regional, I hope they inform everyone about this change at the opening ceremonies (tomorrow), otherwise, there are going to be a lot of fouls in week 4.

I like the idea of this rule, it puts less focus on defense and hopefully will decrease the number of "robot battle scars." However, I'm afraid how referees are going to interpret "actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming." It's a bit too subjective.

They have drivers meetings. If your drivers go to them & listen they will know about the rule changes. This has also gone out on the email blasts. The primary team contact gets them. Rather or not they actually them is the team's problem.

Referees are human. They will make mistakes. Occasionally the game's outcome will be effected by it. Get used to it. Before the last couple of rule updates, if a robot A ramming & destroying an appendage of robot B with structure their inside the bumper zone was legal. In fact robot B could have been penalized for robot As action. The updates are an improvement unless you want to play battle bots.

Sorry for the rant. Off to take my pills now.

[BrendanB]

Sometimes I wonder what goes through the minds of FIRST/GDC members when they make games and rules like this.

I for one agree with the rules to a degree and I will back up what Brandon said earlier which is we should see how it plays out in Week 4. Yes it does seem very open ended but let's see. For those of you competing, welcome to what it is like competing in Week 1. I for one and not a big fan of heavy defense damaging robots even if it is bumper to bumper contact however I have to ask the following:

Did the GDC even think this game through?

This is a serious question because now that I see this update they are trying to bring us away from heavier defense and bring the game down to what they see. I have a big problem that they didn't see this sooner because it is showing some lack of forethought on their part for a few reasons.

1. Teams have more in their drivebases than ever before. This is the second year we have been allowed to have 6 CIMs on our robot and look back over the years and read through Jim's paper on rules and you can see that 10 years ago was when CIMs were brought into the game. Now we have nearly any transmission available with a huge number of motors to throw in them.

2. The field is extremely open. We haven't had a field this open since the days of 2006 or 2009 (but this year doesn't fit well due to the low friction surface) but a lot of us looked back to 2006 when this game was announced and remember the defensive battles that took place. No, bumpers were not required but when goals changed there was a huge push from one side of the field to the other with many collisions and pushing matches. This is what happens when there is no traffic flow around the field and teams are working down field similar to football.

3. This has been mentioned before but what are the other two robots doing??? I can always see how FIRST wants us to play the game however I think they often get out of touch with how it will actually play out. There are many teams who just don't get their robots done and I think everyone of us has had to face an event or several matches as purely defensive because our upper assemblies just weren't working. Couple this with them pushing for more events with smaller quantities of teams in the district model even with many regionals and you have a smaller pool of teams to pull from. No matter what game FIRST makes, there will always be robots that for one reason or another just can't play the offensive role. In a year where they are only giving ONE ball to an alliance they just increased that number by a lot. Not because there are necessarily more teams who didn't finish but because with one ball the team who is better at scoring will have it for most of the time leaving many teams on the defense. Even teams who do play offense well have to play the defensive position. Our team inbounded and threw the ball over the truss in a matter of seconds and then played defense for the rest of the cycle because our offensive role was complete. We played defense on opponents and defense on the robots covering our main offensive scorer.

Now combine all three together and what do you have? A very defensive, tough, & rough game and it didn't take our team weeks to figure that out. We interpreted the signs immediately and that influenced our design choices on day 1 as it did with others in our area like 1058 who made a top notch drivebase to survive this game. How long was it going to take the GDC to figure this out? Week 4 of competition?

I for one feel like this game could be amazing but FIRST is definitely using fouls with large point values to control exactly how they want it played. That has already been debated but what I dislike the most about 2014 is I just feel the GDC is completely out of touch with how teams play. How many members of the GDC have ever been on an FRC team. How many of them have actually competed?

I have a lot of respect for the GDC as they have to make new games every year and the past few years have had hands down the BEST games. This year is a lot harder for everyone standing in light of the best game we have played. That being said though each year there are several portions of the game, rules, or manual that you have to sit back and ask, "Did they really think this wasn't going to be an issue" or "How were they expecting us to play this".

At the end of the day we are all human but these are the things that just baffle me.

[atucker4072]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Based on the way calls were going, our first 25 seconds of play in the 2nd final at Arkansas would have resulted in 3 or 4 tech fouls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA5J...ature=youtu.be

Our robot (2992) is the tall blue one at the top of the screen on the blue side of the field.

After autonomous, we reverse downfield to play defense. The red robot coming downfield rams us on our side of the field (0:20) (or did we ram it? Who knows? Aggressive High-Speed Ramming penalty for us because they die?), but gets shoved backwards into the wall and dies. Oops, penalty on us for damaging their robot. Maybe we should have run away? Someone should have told me.

Immediately after that collision, we cross the field and ram another red robot (0:22) that is playing defense on our inbounder/truss teammate. Was it a high-speed ram? Again, who knows? Do the refs like us or not? We shove it across the field sideways to free our teammate. Uh-oh, looks like "strategic" play to me.

About all I can think of now is to just accept our penalties with gracious professionalism, tell the seniors that we hope they had a good time, and hope it gets better next year for the underclassmen.

The only thing that I could see being called is the collision right after autonomous. That in my mind would be a high speed collision and definitely seems like it could have damaging effects.

Still haven't seen any matches yet though. So we will have to see how it plays out. Regardless there is no need for high speed collisions. The best defense I've seen I short close contact.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

They have drivers meetings. If your drivers go to them & listen they will know about the rule changes. This has also gone out on the email blasts. The primary team contact gets them. Rather or not they actually them is the team's problem.

Referees are human. They will make mistakes. Occasionally the game's outcome will be effected by it. Get used to it. Before the last couple of rule updates, if a robot A ramming & destroying an appendage of robot B with structure their inside the bumper zone was legal. In fact robot B could have been penalized for robot As action. The updates are an improvement unless you want to play battle bots.

Sorry for the rant. Off to take my pills now.

My only concern with this new ruling is the implementation. Basically the how and when it will be called. As long as that is clear to all teams, things should be good.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by atucker4072

The only thing that I could see being called is the collision right after autonomous. That in my mind would be a high speed collision and definitely seems like it could have damaging effects.

Exactly why this game sucks so badly.

The red robot comes all the way down the field full speed, under the truss and onto our side of the field. We (blue robot) barely have time to straighten up at the white line and move one robot length forward before we hit.

And you believe that it should be a high-speed collision penalty on the blue robot because the red robot died?

Too many "judgement" calls.