Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014

[JohnFogarty]

The matches I've watched at Waterloo have had some mild collisions/defense and no penalties have been called in the matches I've seen.

I've heard (in the Waterloo thread) it did cause one of 2056's alliances to lose with 70 pts of penalties.

[Nemo]

I can live with the "high speed or repeated ramming" foul. Effective defenders get in your way as opposed to trying to beat you up, so that part of the update doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me. Obviously, it will be a game-destroying rule if the referees are overeager to call it at the slightest hint of contact.

The "gameplay resulting in damage to opponent robots" foul is pretty problematic. Now it's an advantage if your robot can visibly fall apart after minor contact in order to draw fouls.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Nemo

I can live with the "high speed or repeated ramming" foul. Effective defenders get in your way as opposed to trying to beat you up, so that part of the update doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me.

I don't necessarily agree. Hitting an opponent (in the bumper zone) at the precise moment that they are shooting can be extremely effective. I think this is a reasonable part of the game, and unlikely to cause damage if done correctly (and it certainly doesn't need to be a 20fps collision to work well).

Is this now repeated ramming?

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by Nemo

Now it's an advantage if your robot can visibly fall apart after minor contact in order to draw fouls.

This is an interesting concept. Will this be the year of the Possum bot? (A robot that can play dead)

If they are going to actually enforce this new rule then they need to put a speed limit out and inspect to it. Otherwise it is way too subjective and open to such "gaming" of the system as mentioned above. I really don't want to see the last minute truss shot to win a close game turn into a last minute "possum" play to win a game that is nowhere near close.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

I don't necessarily agree. Hitting an opponent (in the bumper zone) at the precise moment that they are shooting can be extremely effective. I think this is a reasonable part of the game, and unlikely to cause damage if done correctly (and it certainly doesn't need to be a 20fps collision to work well).

Is this now repeated ramming?

Yeah, I also don't like how the rule opens the door for the referees to call a foul if you "ram" an opponent twice at 6 ft/s. To me that is shoving and bumping as opposed to ramming, but it is true that we are in a pretty fuzzy area with this rule. Like I said, it messes up the game if the referees are too eager with this foul.

[pfreivald]

I've been streaming pretty much every event today (two prep periods, and then a half day where I get to work on the syllabus for my new AP Physics 1 course--so I've got two computers up and am game-hopping while I work), and if anything I've observed fewer fouls, better games, and still a decent amount of pushing and shoving defense being played.

The sky is still where it is; it has not fallen.

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

The concern is that we don't have a precise understanding of what "inhibition", "high-speed", "aggressive", and "ramming" mean in an Aerial Assist context.

This isn't just trying to be pedantic. Many people have already witnessed completely contradictory and inconsistent rulings when it comes to physical contact this year. You have teams intentionally flipping other teams without penalty at one regional, and then you have teams getting called for Tech Fouls because an opponent's intake fell off when they hit the field barrier at another. (Even before this update).

And then you have all of the missed assists because refs are too busy entering scores, watching human players, and trying to get the defensive calls right.

Now you have all of the new gray areas being thrown into the mix. Yes, there are cases where "high-speed aggressive ramming" is clear as day. But there are plenty of other big collisions that occur naturally between teams acting in good faith, and you have normal defensive contact that results in damaged robots due to bad luck or poor construction. How will these be called?

The NHL has had rules against boarding for a long time, and there are still controversial calls and tweaks to the rule from time to time (there was a major one in 2011). But tens of thousands of NHL games called by a fairly small group of professional referees have established precedent for how the foul is generally called. We are halfway through the FRC season and have a much larger pool of volunteer referees...

Understandable, and believe me, I know how overworked the refs are this year. Our field crew in Orlando was about one more replayed match away from a breakdown on Friday. I also know that referee inconsistency has become almost a given in FIRST, but the answer to that is obviously better designed games & better referee training.

But it's not like looking out for Ramming/aggressive play is an ADDITIONAL responsibility to what the referees are already looking out for - they're already looking at G27's. This is a clarification on what constitutes overaggressiveness, and more flexibility to the refs on the penalties handed out for G27.

And this amendment doesn't come out of thin air, it's clearly coming from the Head Ref call this week, with head refs being frustrated at not being able to stop the flow of drivers to their "?" box complaining about overaggressive defense (in addition to the missed assists & incorrect scores). I'm always pleased to see FIRST react to situations in the field & make changes instead of ignoring them. See my whitepaper for some more of my thoughts.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

I don't necessarily agree. Hitting an opponent (in the bumper zone) at the precise moment that they are shooting can be extremely effective. I think this is a reasonable part of the game, and unlikely to cause damage if done correctly (and it certainly doesn't need to be a 20fps collision to work well).

Is this now repeated ramming?

Isn't it even more effective though to not let them get into shooting range? I mean if you can't win a pushing war then shot disruption is viable but I would say burning time through pushing is better then attempting to disrupt.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Isn't it even more effective though to not let them get into shooting range? I mean if you can't win a pushing war then shot disruption is viable but I would say burning time through pushing is better then attempting to disrupt.

Pushing is a lot higher of an opportunity cost as it always takes more time away from you than it does the defender. With a well timed, moderate speed ram to spin a robot, you make them miss their shot and spent 10 seconds chasing after a loose ball, while you only needed to invest 2-3 seconds to perform the maneuver. In a dynamic game where switching from offense to defense in crucial, this is a big difference. But is this "aggressive"? Is moving toward a robot at any speed "aggressive"?

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I've been streaming pretty much every event today (two prep periods, and then a half day where I get to work on the syllabus for my new AP Physics 1 course--so I've got two computers up and am game-hopping while I work), and if anything I've observed fewer fouls, better games, and still a decent amount of pushing and shoving defense being played.

The sky is still where it is; it has not fallen.

I would be interested to see if this is still the case tomorrow come eliminations. First day qualifiers under the "new" rules, it iss possible that there aren't enough good robots on the field at one time to really see the aggressiveness come out.

Everyone knows eliminations is another can of worms, and it is also when the games start to really "count". That is when teams drive their robots like they stole them because it is better to leave it on the field then lose because you didn't play hard enough.

This is also when the refs start to get worn out and the chances of mistakes start to really swing games. Subjective judgement gets foggier as you get burned out.

[raptaconehs]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Pushing is a lot higher of an opportunity cost as it always takes more time away from you than it does the defender. With a well timed, moderate speed ram to spin a robot, you make them miss their shot and spent 10 seconds chasing after a loose ball, while you only needed to invest 2-3 seconds to perform the maneuver. In a dynamic game where switching from offense to defense in crucial, this is a big difference. But is this "aggressive"? Is moving toward a robot at any speed "aggressive"?

This is the biggest question. If you come across the field at full speed and then hit a robot that is about to shoot, will you get penalized for it? Cause if blocking that shot can decide which alliance wins the match I think it will be hard to come at a reasonable speed. This will greatly effect close matches.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Pushing is a lot higher of an opportunity cost as it always takes more time away from you than it does the defender. With a well timed, moderate speed ram to spin a robot, you make them miss their shot and spent 10 seconds chasing after a loose ball, while you only needed to invest 2-3 seconds to perform the maneuver. In a dynamic game where switching from offense to defense in crucial, this is a big difference. But is this "aggressive"? Is moving toward a robot at any speed "aggressive"?

I really wanted to be very precise when I used terms in this years game so when I talked to my team a while back I talked about active and reactive defense (I honestly don't think they remember though.) Anyway active defense is the process of defending from advantageous situations like stopping a ball from being brought into play by zonning or forcing a bad decision such as driving an awkward route to score. Reactive defense is when you are reacting to threats like a team about to score or a robot lining up for a truss. In my opinion active defense is always better then reactive. Reactive defense I find is always more aggressive, because more is on the line at that point. Active defense is a major time sink because its mainly about forcing the opponent to have only bad options and hoping they pick the worst one. Reactive is about neutralizing a "threat" as fast as possible in the end it really comes down to preference I suppose.

[Conor Ryan]

As of lunchtime at Buckeye G27 has not been called.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

The matches I've watched at Waterloo have had some mild collisions/defense and no penalties have been called in the matches I've seen.

I've heard (in the Waterloo thread) it did cause one of 2056's alliances to lose with 70 pts of penalties.

I'm not 100% certain of the details, but reportedly the technical foul (50 out of those 70 FP) was revoked retroactively after the "victim", team 781, graciously told the head ref it wasn't called correctly. They had originally won the match by 47pts, so it swung it completely.

Those with better knowledge feel free to correct/amend/fill in the story.

[Anthony Galea]

According to the Head Ref at Traverse City, this rule update just allows the referees to call fouls on heavy defense that causes major damage, and doesn't fall into any other foul.

Everyone is overreacting.