Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

[cbale2000]

Videos like this upset me a bit, especially when I think back to a robot I saw in 2013 that was like 16" wide x 44" long x 50" tall (or something silly like that) that would tip over CONSTANTLY with even the slightest nudge.
Back then, no one ever called fouls on robots that tipped it (and half the time they tipped themselves anyways) because it was obvious that it was the fault of the team for building a tip-prone robot. I wonder had that robot been built this year how many teams defending (or just brushing by it in passing) would have been red or yellow carded.

IMO, FIRST aught to make teams bear some responsibility for making sure their robots can withstand the rigors of NORMAL match play, including being defended via normal bumper-to-bumper contact. Like it or not, it's part of the game.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

Videos like this upset me a bit, especially when I think back to a robot I saw in 2013 that was like 16" wide x 44" long x 50" tall (or something silly like that) that would tip over CONSTANTLY with even the slightest nudge.
Back then, no one ever called fouls on robots that tipped it (and half the time they tipped themselves anyways) because it was obvious that it was the fault of the team for building a tip-prone robot. I wonder had that robot been built this year how many teams defending (or just brushing by it in passing) would have been red or yellow carded.

IMO, FIRST aught to make teams bear some responsibility for making sure their robots can withstand the rigors of NORMAL match play, including being defended via normal bumper-to-bumper contact. Like it or not, it's part of the game.

What about tall robots that look too heavy but aren't? What about a robot who's CG is 10" off the ground but is full height?

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

Videos like this upset me a bit, especially when I think back to a robot I saw in 2013 that was like 16" wide x 44" long x 50" tall (or something silly like that) that would tip over CONSTANTLY with even the slightest nudge.
Back then, no one ever called fouls on robots that tipped it (and half the time they tipped themselves anyways) because it was obvious that it was the fault of the team for building a tip-prone robot. I wonder had that robot been built this year how many teams defending (or just brushing by it in passing) would have been red or yellow carded.

IMO, FIRST aught to make teams bear some responsibility for making sure their robots can withstand the rigors of NORMAL match play, including being defended via normal bumper-to-bumper contact. Like it or not, it's part of the game.

Ah. You would be talking about my robot in 2013 (326). I'm not going do defend our design choices, because we good reason why we did this. I will say though that the robot you are speaking of was only tipped 3 times in 50+ matches. I believe only once was there a foul called as the intent was to flip.

Now in 2010 we had built a robot with a high CG with 3 wheels that was tipped much more often via normal bumper-to-bumper contact, and 9/10 times no foul was charged.

It's a ref call as much as anything in sports.

[BrennanB]

Okay so i've kind of avoided these discussions about tipping, but like there is something that everyone who is talking about this is missing, and I feel like I have to bring this up.

Like this to me is the same as people complaining about tech fouls in 2014. Tipping fouls are super necessary in this game. In 2014 there needed to be a aggressively penalizing ball possession since the opponents literally couldn't score if you did that. Yet people whined and complained about the fouls and "wanted the foul penalty to be reduced" without spending two seconds to think about the problem in its entirety.

Also tipping fouls have nothing to do with who is playing defense on who.

This year it's really hard to win with only 2 robots mobile at the end of the match (you lose at least a 30 point swing). Refs need to be calling these tips aggressively, since it can completely ruin an alliances chances for winning. Lets be honest no robot is "designed to be tippy" and it's not like these tips are common so robots are "purposefully" trying to be tipped to win the match.

Anyone who is complaining about tipping cards as too agressive this year to me is just looking at this whole issue from a hugely biased perspective. These people are just blatantly ignorant of the inherent game design challenges that just need to be addressed by referees.

[BotDesigner]

I wonder how GDC would go about coming up with more definite rules for tipping. Right now it is obvious just by looking at the different of calls being made at events that the sketchy "Strategys aimed at" definition really does not fit the bill for calls that make or break event success for many teams.

I like the suggestion that robots have to pass some sort of tipping test where the robot has to be able to be tipped to a certain angle and doesn't fall over. This would at least make any call clear where the tip resulted from a t-bone.

Currently we are having the referees judge intent. There has to be a better way.

[gp2013]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Anyone who is complaining about tipping cards as too agressive this year to me is just looking at this whole issue from a hugely biased perspective. These people are just blatantly ignorant of the inherent game design challenges that just need to be addressed by referees.

I think you are oversimplifying. FIRST specifically addresses strategies aimed at damaging a robot. Nothing in the rule book indicates what should happen when two robots engaged in offensive/defensive interactions result in one robot accidentally tipping. What do you do when a defensive robot drives up onto another robots bumpers behind a sally door or drawbridge and ends up tipped?

Seems to me penalizing the offensive robot for tipping seems harsh. Especially considering the call essentially ends their season and the thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars that team invested. FIRST has specifically said they designed this game to impair visibility. To what end? To penalize teams for accidents? Expecting a driver to prevent tipping an aggressive defender from 40 feet away behind two sets of defences borders on the ridiculous.

In 2014 the foul points were harsh. When an alliance essentially can rack up over 200 points because of a stupid human player is ridiculous when the average match scores without penalties were roughly half that. Penalties should be aimed to teach and direct students behaviour to correct it, not to disqualify teams for accidents or errors.

The other issue is fairness in applying the rules. If tipping is penalized with a red card, then every tip should be penalized the same.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Speaking about design, what if a robot that was designed to flip itself back over gets tipped over by another robot? do they still get the red card? or is that team who made that design choice penalized because they can't be incapacitated? What if they decide to stay upside down, is that a G11 because they want the other alliance to get that red card?

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by gp2013

I think you are oversimplifying. FIRST specifically addresses strategies aimed at damaging a robot. Nothing in the rule book indicates what should happen when two robots engaged in offensive/defensive interactions result in one robot accidentally tipping. What do you do when a defensive robot drives up onto another robots bumpers behind a sally door or drawbridge and ends up tipped?

Which a "strategy" is pretty ambiguous sure. But I think the referees have to call it that way to preserve the season of the other side of the glass which you currently are ignoring. No alliance is "entitled" to a win.

Seems to me penalizing the offensive robot for tipping seems harsh. Especially considering the call essentially ends their season and the thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars that team invested. FIRST has specifically said they designed this game to impair visibility. To what end? To penalize teams for accidents? Expecting a driver to prevent tipping an aggressive defender from 40 feet away behind two sets of defences borders on the ridiculous.

You seem to be specifically sighting the case where your specific team was given a red card, I won't comment on that. A tip is a tip. A tip with no call is virtually a lost match. It doesn't matter how you got tipped. Defender? Scorer? Breacher? You are still equally screwed when the time comes to capture and you are instantly down 30 points. You are blindsighted to the other side of the argument completely.

In 2014 the foul points were harsh. When an alliance essentially can rack up over 200 points because of a stupid human player is ridiculous when the average match scores without penalties were roughly half that. Penalties should be aimed to teach and direct students behaviour to correct it, not to disqualify teams for accidents or errors.

This is just an inherent game design flaw. No rule change can fix this. There was only one ball, thus these rules had to exist at these point values. Just like tipping robots has to be called aggressively to not screw over teams.

The other issue is fairness in applying the rules. If tipping is penalized with a red card, then every tip should be penalized the same.

Again not every tip is the same, nor is every call perfect.

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

Speaking about design, what if a robot that was designed to flip itself back over gets tipped over by another robot? do they still get the red card? or is that team who made that design choice penalized because they can't be incapacitated? What if they decide to stay upside down, is that a G11 because they want the other alliance to get that red card?

I don't think anyone purposefully decides to design their robot to fall over and then flip themselves upright. It's a pretty non-existent scenario

[gp2013]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Which a "strategy" is pretty ambiguous sure. But I think the referees have to call it that way to preserve the season of the other side of the glass which you currently are ignoring. No alliance is "entitled" to a win.

You seem to be specifically sighting the case where your specific team was given a red card, I won't comment on that. A tip is a tip. A tip with no call is virtually a lost match. It doesn't matter how you got tipped. Defender? Scorer? Breacher? You are still equally screwed when the time comes to capture and you are instantly down 30 points. You are blindsighted to the other side of the argument completely.

Not at all, I can fully understand how a tipped robot would feel to lose by being tipped. My point is that the rules need refining. There are better ways to resolve the issue of a tipped robot than just issuing a red card.

The reality beyond the red card is that mentors now have to deal with the fallout - from upset students, to mentors simply walking away from the program, to sponsors wondering what happened.

It isn't about the win or loss it is about the fairness of the issue.

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Again not every tip is the same, nor is every call perfect.

But if a tip is a tip how is every tip NOT the same. I don't understand. You can't have it both ways. Either every tip results in a red card, or there are subtleties that need to be clarified for referees when calling red cards.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by gp2013

Not at all, I can fully understand how a tipped robot would feel to lose by being tipped. My point is that the rules need refining. There are better ways to resolve the issue of a tipped robot than just issuing a red card.

The reality beyond the red card is that mentors now have to deal with the fallout - from upset students, to mentors simply walking away from the program, to sponsors wondering what happened.

It isn't about the win or loss it is about the fairness of the issue.

Then suggest a viable refinement?

Are mentors and students really walking away from the program because of one "bad" ref call??

But if a tip is a tip how is every tip NOT the same. I don't understand. You can't have it both ways. Either every tip results in a red card, or there are subtleties that need to be clarified for referees when calling red cards.

I could probably write out a 10+ page document on all different types of tips and how they occur and how I would theoretically call them and why. There are too many scenarios to write out, and thus it is left up to the refs. Also I never said a tip is a tip, I said a tip impacts the alliance regardless of how it was executed, and referees thus should be less more critical of their calls on said tips.

[gpetilli]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Then suggest a viable refinement?

Clearly this is a very delicate road to navigate, but perhaps there is a "fair" solution. What if instead of a red card, the ref e-stops the offending robot (possibly plus a yellow card). This way the 30pnt swing is negated and a clear message is sent that this is not gracious behavior.

I do think even this penalty needs to be reserved for clear intended tipping. High CG robots are clearly a bad team decision for this game and the team needs to own that. If contact is bumper to bumper, I would assume the intent was to block, not to tip - a "prolonged push" is a gray topic.

[gp2013]

Not to be argumentative but...

Originally Posted by BrennanB

I won't comment on that. A tip is a tip.

And that one "bad" ref call triggered the reason mentors are walking away namely the response we received when we tried to question the call.

Don't get me wrong. I think FIRST is a good program. That is why I haven't walked away. But FIRST could be a GREAT program if open discussion about things like this weren't immediately shut down. Our response from the referee was that he wouldn't review the call, our response from FIRST was that they wouldn't micromanage their referees. Not exactly satisfying to teams that invest the money and time to participate.

Knowing how much effort and money it takes to run teams in this program, how do you maintain the morale of a team and its community when you are essentially turfed from a competition because of an accident? I honestly can't blame them when you consider they invest hundreds of hours (some of our mentors volunteer nearly 1000 hours a year).

As for viable alternatives - replay the match, make use of video replay, actually take the time to review what happened. 4334 was nearly red-carded in Western Canada because 5015 ran into them and disabled themselves. Neither team wanted the red-card called. The ref there actually took the time to make the decision not to red card basing it on evidence, not supposition. Yes, it delayed things 10 minutes, but considering the consequences and how uncommon flipping is in any event (maybe 2 or 3 times), I think it is prudent to take the time to actually be sure of what you are giving the red card for. I give a lot of credit to the officials at Western Canada for doing that and for actually listening to students.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by gp2013

Not to be argumentative but...

And you missed the second half of that statement that gave to context to that. Apologies for the lack of clarity in my position.

And that one "bad" ref call triggered the reason mentors are walking away namely the response we received when we tried to question the call.

Don't get me wrong. I think FIRST is a good program. That is why I haven't walked away. But FIRST could be a GREAT program if open discussion about things like this weren't immediately shut down. Our response from the referee was that he wouldn't review the call, our response from FIRST was that they wouldn't micromanage their referees. Not exactly satisfying to teams that invest the money and time to participate.

That's unfortunate that the team is taking it that hard. I can imagine that it would be similar to losing because a team tipped a robot on your alliance. You can't value one over the other. And yes! We should have a discussion about it. With the referees, with the community. But at some point we need to take action. Stick with what we have or make a change.

Knowing how much effort and money it takes to run teams in this program, how do you maintain the morale of a team and its community when you are essentially turfed from a competition because of an accident? I honestly can't blame them when you consider they invest hundreds of hours (some of our mentors volunteer nearly 1000 hours a year).

You could literally make the exact same argument to a team that was eliminated because of a tip not redcarded.

As for viable alternatives - replay the match, make use of video replay, actually take the time to review what happened. 4334 was nearly red-carded in Western Canada because 5015 ran into them and disabled themselves. Neither team wanted the red-card called. The ref there actually took the time to make the decision not to red card basing it on evidence, not supposition. Yes, it delayed things 10 minutes, but considering the consequences and how uncommon flipping is in any event (maybe 2 or 3 times), I think it is prudent to take the time to actually be sure of what you are giving the red card for. I give a lot of credit to the officials at Western Canada for doing that and for actually listening to students.

Pretty sure Refs are pretty good about taking the time to make sure that their cards are assessed correctly. You even gave an example of that being the case

As for the replay. I haven't thought about it much and it's pretty late, so I can't create any coherent thought on that xD

[s_forbes]

This part of the game will always be controversial, I don't think there's a way to write the rules so that tipping incidents are handled in a clear-cut way. When you have thousands of teams with engineering minded members trying to maximize their winning potential, it's inevitable. The tipper will always be redcarded? OK, here I come with my high CG offensive design to draw some penalties! Incidental tipping should be expected as part of gameplay and not punished by the rules? OK, my defensive robot has a short wheel base and happens to kick up a lot when pushing other robots, but it's not intentional!

I like that it's up to the head ref to make decisions based on how individual matches play out, since added lawyering in the rulebook just makes life more difficult. I don't like the red card = 0 points ruling in eliminations though, it's always frustrating to see it determine matches.

Which ever team is tipped on Einstein this year should lead to some fun discussion.

[Dezion]

Originally Posted by gp2013

I think you are oversimplifying. FIRST specifically addresses strategies aimed at damaging a robot. Nothing in the rule book indicates what should happen when two robots engaged in offensive/defensive interactions result in one robot accidentally tipping. What do you do when a defensive robot drives up onto another robots bumpers behind a sally door or drawbridge and ends up tipped?

I completely agree. The rule book also does not address what happens if you accidentally flip a teammate with a high CG over (which I have seen occur). I would hope no team attempted to intentionally flip over another robot, but it is not something that can be completed avoided.

Yes, being tipped almost prevents your alliance from winning (especially in eliminations). However, is it not a strategic decision to play defense? Shouldn't a team understand that they have the potential of losing a match by being tipped because they played defense?

I'm not stating that the rule is perfect how it is either. I'm stating the game manual, which should be used to consider strategic options, such as defense.