Flipping Rule

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

While I tend to agree with this sentiment to a certain extent, I can also see a very uniform message being delivered by referees at different events... "Don't tip robots."

It is very much like the hockey rule for high sticking where you are responsible for your stick. If it hits someone in the face... even if they weren't wearing a face shield, and even if you didn't mean to... heck, even if you didn't know you did it... you get the penalty. It's your stick, and it's your job to look after it.

If these calls had all gone the other way, and the rulings were "you can tip robots so long as you make it look like you weren't really trying to tip them", then I can see defensive strategies being devised to take advantage of this.

I totally get what you are saying... but congratulate the refs for sending a very clear message. Don't tip robots. You will be held responsible if you do. Even if you didn't really mean to. Just. Don't. Tip. Robots.

Jason

The difference though is that unlike Hockey, you don't always know where your robot is or what it's interacting with (or, for that matter, have control of it). A robot isn't physically attached to you, unlike a hockey stick (unless you're doing something stupid like throwing the hockey stick).

I guess my argument would be that teams in this years game aught to be perfectly capable of designing robots that don't tip when legally defended (unlike in 2010 where the bumper rules basically caused virtually any sustained robot-to-robot contact to result in one or both bots tipping). If the team is, to a reasonably astute observer not maliciously trying to tip the other robot, and not violating any other rules, the refs should not be automatically giving out cards.


Actually I find this topic somewhat similar to back in 2014 when people were complaining about defense being to rough and robot damage. I'm sorry, but if you don't want your frame crushed in during a game with a completely open playing field, don't build it out of <1/16" aluminum (or skipping an outer frame altogether and just using bumpers as the frame, like several teams did). A little common sense would go a long way for solving many of these issues.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

The difference though is that unlike Hockey, you don't always know where your robot is or what it's interacting with ...

I guess my argument would be that teams in this years game aught to be perfectly capable of designing robots that don't tip when legally defended (unlike in 2010 where the bumper rules basically caused virtually any sustained robot-to-robot contact to result in one or both bots tipping). ...

...

I like to think I play hockey with the same GP I bring to the robot field, but from time to time my hockey stick has ended up in places where I never really meant for it to end up... the point is that I'm responsible for it whether I know what I'm doing with it or not. It completely eliminates the "but I didn't MEAN to do that" defense and saves the refs from having to determine intent, which, in lieu of a Vulcan mind-meld, is somewhat challenging.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that robots that wish to engage in pushing battles should be designed to engage in pushing battles. I specifically advised a rookie team this year to keep their bumpers as low as possible in order to gain advantage should they end up in a pushing battle... and in 2010 we added hockey sticks as "roll bars" to the top our robot. It was self-righting in any position except flat on its back... we made sure that it couldn't end up flat on its back. (Yes! We were responsible for those hockey sticks, too... and the ones we had on our 2008 robot!)

The point I wanted to make was that I appreciated the uniformity and clarity of the refs decisions. In the overall context of the game, delivering the message "don't tip robots" is much better than leaving it vague, or variable. Like you, I'd be fine if the decision consistently went the other way, too... but I think that might encourage teams to look at ways that their non-bumper mechanisms might 'accidentally' catch an opposing robot's bumper. A clear and consistent message of "don't tip" has been delivered and it is now up to teams (and other head refs) to see that it is followed.

Jason

(Besides, I always appreciate a 'no tipping' policy...)

[Boltman]

G24:

Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping ,entanglements, or deliberately putting a BOULDER on an opponent’s ROBOT are not allowed.

Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD

Initiating deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT
on or inside the vertical extension of its FRAME PERIMETER is not
allowed.