Flipping Rule

[rocknthehawk]

Originally Posted by kevin.li.rit

It wasn't intentional on our part (2262). It all happened very fast, we wouldn't even want to attempt to wedge our robot under another robot. We have 2 RS-550 + 2 Planetary GB hanging right up against our frame perimeter in the front and our roborio in the rear.

Poor wording on my part, it was meant to be a question if the pushing match was an intentional flip. You guys played an extremely tough defense and we were worried about going up against you...definitely would have shut us down.

[kevin.li.rit]

Originally Posted by rocknthehawk

Poor wording on my part, it was meant to be a question if the pushing match was an intentional flip. You guys played an extremely tough defense and we were worried about going up against you...definitely would have shut us down.

Thanks, I definitely understand the penalty and we're trying to be constructive with the situation.

[NShep98]

Originally Posted by rocknthehawk

Based on this video, that's exactly what happened.

32 seconds in, you're already tipping yourself. Reading G24 do you believe the blue alliance intentionally tipped you? (and then the shoving match of 125/2262 causing an intentional flip)

But in this video, you can see that we do not actually start tipping until contact is made, or at least fractions of a second before.

Do I feel bad that this happened in such a critical match? Of course. Do I believe it was intentional? Not at all. Is it my call to make? Unfortunately not for the blue alliance.

The fact of the matter is this is a game with a fair amount of gray areas, in which you must be extremely careful to not accidentally do something that looks purposeful. I doubt 4176 or 2262 meant to tip us or 125, but they did, and the refs used their best judgement at the time. [Edit]In fact, my team got a foul from our own tip for interfering with crossing. If anything, the 125 tip was more up in the air.[/Edit]

Again, I am sorry this happened to the opposing alliance, and I understand their frustration, but I hope they don't take it too hard, as this is still only a game, and one they played very well regardless of the outcome of this match.

[cbf]

Originally Posted by kevin.li.rit

Yep there are 2 tips the first tip occurs when the one blue robot is traversing the rockwall in the opposite direction about 31 seconds in. and tips the red robot after they clear.

So I think our video has a better angle on the tipping of 125 at the Boston district event that you're referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ljx-Dsy-N4. Note that the video is over seven minutes long. It took quite a while for the judges to conference about this before they decided on the red card. (We keep the camera rolling on matches until the scores kept up. In this case, I wish my student cameraman had kept rolling so we could have heard the whole announcement about the red card.)

Personally, I think the first tip -- where Blue 4176 is just trying to cross back to the neutral zone and Red 2079 is just driving by, was completely inadvertent, and did not warrant a call. If anything Red 2079 was violating rule G43 by interfering with Blue 4176's crossing.

The second tip -- where Blue 2262 repeatedly hits Red 125 was different. Here Blue 2262 is quite intentionally playing a very aggressive defense -- which results in tipping 125.

But I have some problems with the award of the red card here. Part of it is that the very same Robot 2262 played similarly aggressive defense on us (2877) in the Quarter Finals and in fact damaged our robot in two straight matches. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edRyGRw-6G0?t=1m40s where they bash into us 4 times, after which we could no longer drive) -- which caused us to lose the match (and the one before it, which had a similar result) and get eliminated.

But they didn't tip us, so we don't get the benefit of a card -- or even a foul. It would in fact, have been practically impossible to tip our robot, which is quite heavy and low to the ground.

This is something that's bothered me for a number of years. In 2014 for example, there were some top-heavy robots that tipped easily. I believe that year, tipping a robot was a 50 point "technical foul". There was one robot I remember that was seriously top-heavy that benefited from that foul at least three times in one competition -- because nearly any contact would result in it tipping over.

So my question is whether this rule is fair? A robot like 2262 presumably thought they were playing aggressive defense within the rules (or else that ref sure failed to give us a foul call he should have a couple of matches earlier). The same actions that are fine with one robot however, cause another to tip. If you look at the video -- 2262's driver had very little time to notice that 125 is starting to tip and react. So yes, you can argue that the third and fourth time they ram 125 was gratuitous and worthy of a foul -- but they only got it because 125's robot was somewhat tippy (I know 125 tipped at least once simply crossing a defense, and given the number of matches they played, I'll bet they tipped more than once.) Should it be the case that if you build a robot that tips easily, you get extra protection from being strongly defended?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Refs. Refs wear zebra stripes.

Us blue shirts don't know or really care much about events on the field.

[kevin.li.rit]

Originally Posted by cbf

So I think our video has a better angle on the tipping of 125 at the Boston district event that you're referring to: [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ljx-Dsy-N4"]
The second tip -- where Blue 2262 repeatedly hits Red 125 was different. Here Blue 2262 is quite intentionally playing a very aggressive defense -- which results in tipping 125.

But I have some problems with the award of the red card here. Part of it is that the very same Robot 2262 played similarly aggressive defense on us (2877) in the Quarter Finals and in fact damaged our robot in two straight matches. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4gXaHkGNo0?t=1m40s where they bash into us 4 times, after which we could no longer drive) -- which caused us to lose the match (and the one before it, which had a similar result) and get eliminated.

But they didn't tip us, so we don't get the benefit of a card -- or even a foul. It would in fact, have been practically impossible to tip our robot, which is quite heavy and low to the ground.

This is something that's bothered me for a number of years. In 2014 for example, there were some top-heavy robots that tipped easily. I believe that year, tipping a robot was a 50 point "technical foul". There was one robot I remember that was seriously top-heavy that benefited from that foul at least three times in one competition -- because nearly any contact would result in it tipping over.

So my question is whether this rule is fair. A robot like 2262 presumably thought they were playing aggressive defense within the rules (or else that ref sure failed to give us a foul call we should have a couple of matches earlier). The same actions that are fine with one robot however, cause another to tip. If you look at the video -- 2262's driver had very little time to notice that 125 is starting to tip and react. So yes, you can argue that the third and fourth time they ram 125 was gratuitous and worthy of a foul -- but they only got it because 125's robot was somewhat tippy (I know 125 tipped at least once simply crossing a defense, and given the number of matches they played, I'll bet they tipped more than once.) Should it be the case that if you build a robot that tips easily, you get extra protection from being strongly defended?

Exactly, it seems like robots are getting penalized for inadvertently tipping, top heavy robots during robot to robot interactions. We were trying to play aggressive defense on you and 125 but we weren't trying to tip or damage anyone. In real time you can barely see 3rd or 4th hit, it looks like one continuous interaction since us and 125 never fully disengage.

[PayneTrain]

>robot configured in a low-bar compatible size
>under 15" at least
>"top heavy"

Once again I am left off the mailing list for the armchair physicists club and frankly I am offended.

However this pales in comparison to no one notifying me of this convention of the armchair zebra club. Thanks for setting the record straight.

I hope Andrew can remind his team of the rule you all cited. 125 clearly committed a G11 in this match and should have received a yellow card. They intentionally built their robot in a 22"x24"x13" configuration under 100 pounds so the strong independent toasters of New England could be trapped into tipping their robot and get themselves kicked out of eliminations.

The only question I have is, when did 125 decide to flip themselves over to trap 2262? Was it after the first, second, third, or fourth hit?

It's pretty clear that the fix was in for 125 to win the whole event for a fourth year in a row.

[kevin.li.rit]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

>robot configured in a low-bar compatible size
>under 15" at least
>"top heavy"

Once again I am left off the mailing list for the armchair physicists club and frankly I am offended.

However this pales in comparison to no one notifying me of this convention of the armchair zebra club. Thanks for setting the record straight.

I hope Andrew can remind his team of the rule you all cited. 125 clearly committed a G11 in this match and should have received a yellow card. They intentionally built their robot in a 22"x24"x13" configuration under 100 pounds so the strong independent toasters of New England could be trapped into tipping their robot and get themselves kicked out of eliminations.

The only question I have is, when did 125 decide to flip themselves over to trap 2262? Was it after the first, second, third, or fourth hit?

It's pretty clear that the fix was in for 125 to win the whole event for a fourth year in a row.

I don't know what you're trying to say. No on is accusing 125 of trying to intentionally cause other teams to violate g24. You can call it a 3rd or 4th hit if you want but when you watch it in real time it very quickly and looks like one engagement. Our main issue with what happened is that we did not intentionally tip 125 but we were penalized that way.

No one was claiming G11 or a fix, so really what is the point you are making?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by kevin.li.rit

I don't know what you're trying to say. No on is accusing 125 of trying to intentionally cause other teams to violate g24. You can call it a 3rd or 4th hit if you want but when you watch it in real time it very quickly and looks like one engagement. Our main issue with what happened is that we did not intentionally tip 125 but we were penalized that way.

No one was claiming G11 or a fix, so really what is the point you are making?

I believe he forgot his [] tags.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by kevin.li.rit

I don't know what you're trying to say. No on is accusing 125 of trying to intentionally cause other teams to violate g24. You can call it a 3rd or 4th hit if you want but when you watch it in real time it very quickly and looks like one engagement. Our main issue with what happened is that we did not intentionally tip 125 but we were penalized that way.

No one was claiming G11 or a fix, so really what is the point you are making?

Everyone knows planes can't fly, it's just the Illuminati using their magnet powers to propel their chemtrail spreading death tubes.

You were making up wild assumptions about a robot and disregarding written rules in an attempt to build and defend a case. I am not alone when I say that I find the approach to exist on a spectrum of "needlessly petty" to "willfully fantastic" so naturally I assumed we were engaging in the grand Chief Delphi tradition of an absurdity duel.

Not to be the person I hate and harken back to the olden times, but FIRST culture used to soundly reject the blatant self promotion of one's team I have seen in some threads and the fist-shaking "defenses" I have seen in this one.

[kevin.li.rit]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Everyone knows planes can't fly, it's just the Illuminati using their magnet powers to propel their chemtrail spreading death tubes.

You were making up wild assumptions about a robot and disregarding written rules in an attempt to build and defend a case. I am not alone when I say that I find the approach to exist on a spectrum of "needlessly petty" to "willfully fantastic" so naturally I assumed we were engaging in the grand Chief Delphi tradition of an absurdity duel.

Not to be the person I hate and harken back to the olden times, but FIRST culture used to soundly reject the blatant self promotion of one's team I have seen in some threads and the fist-shaking "defenses" I have seen in this one.

I don't think I'm making wild assumptions on a robot that I've observed over several matches between 2 events. I'm can definitely see why it was called the way it was and I can disagree with the call at the same time.

You can be absurd if you want. If you think we deserved a red card, fine. I'm okay with that too.

[Jessica Boucher]

Okay, let's take a breather. No use getting heated over completed matches.

[IronicDeadBird]

These kinds of interaction are always bound to happen when you have a contact game.

I mean the obvious solution is we just go back to Recycle Rush...

[kevin.li.rit]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

These kinds of interaction are always bound to happen when you have a contact game.

I mean the obvious solution is we just go back to Recycle Rush...

Its funny you should mention that because....

https://youtu.be/P5PNV1LHjZk?list=PLH5vuk87UxfCAgOqHHcLdXVERgw9BDlx 4

[NShep98]

Originally Posted by kevin.li.rit

Its funny you should mention that because....

https://youtu.be/P5PNV1LHjZk?list=PLH5vuk87UxfCAgOqHHcLdXVERgw9BDlx 4

You guys just can't catch a break, can you?