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

[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.

[MBimrose16]

As the driver of a high CG robot, I have a couple feelings on this issue.
We were tipped twice last weekend at the AZ West Regional, both cases resulted in a penalty. In the first case, we were playing a qualification match and a robot t-boned us in the neutral zone going full speed completely knocking us on our side in what seemed like an intentional tip due to the prolonged contact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa-AHEtXedw&t=76m27s
This along with collisions with our robot that resulted in damage to our electronics system resulted in a red card for the team that flipped us.

In the second case, we were having defense played on us in an elimination match and were flipped over after 3 successive collisions in which we were obviously about to tip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa-AHEtXedw&t=340m35s
This resulted in a yellow card.

Overall, my team was at partial fault for building a high CG robot. We were pretty upset, especially in the qualification match where damage was actually done to our robot. We talked to all the teams involved and they were all gracious so no hard feelings or witch hunting please. I still am adamant any play that is aimed at disabling a robot, or unintentional damage done from colliding into a robot after a tip while trying to complete objectives like breaching the defenses should carry a penalty. What kind of penalty should be awarded is something that needs to be refined in the rules. I think a yellow card is too lenient. But as a driver, I am not in favor of ending a team's regional with a red card due to the split second decision of one team member at the controls.

I wasn't at Michigan, but from the video of OP's tip, and seeing first hand what an intentional tip would look like, I would have called that a clean hit. The refs this year have a difficult job and sometimes make questionable calls, but hopefully, by champs they will have seen enough matches and examples like this thread to make fair calls.

[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.

[Austin2046]

Here in the PNW we've seen a few tipped robot calls and they've gone both ways and have had major impact. Up until our Semi-Final match tie-breaker at the District championship, the instances I had seen here had been instant red cards. team 3663 had tipped a robot in the semi final tie breaker at Mt Vernon district, causing them to get the red card and get knocked out. Our semi-final tiebreaker at the district championship seemed to have the red card called on 1425 for tipping our alliance partner 2522, and then after the match the call was reversed. Without the third robot, we couldn't capture, and we lost the match based on points, and got knocked out. Consistency is the only thing I would ask for, so we know how to play, what to look out for, and what to expect the outcome to be.

[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.

[gp2013]

Originally Posted by Austin2046

Here in the PNW we've seen a few tipped robot calls and they've gone both ways and have had major impact. Up until our Semi-Final match tie-breaker at the District championship, the instances I had seen here had been instant red cards. team 3663 had tipped a robot in the semi final tie breaker at Mt Vernon district, causing them to get the red card and get knocked out. Our semi-final tiebreaker at the district championship seemed to have the red card called on 1425 for tipping our alliance partner 2522, and then after the match the call was reversed. Without the third robot, we couldn't capture, and we lost the match based on points, and got knocked out. Consistency is the only thing I would ask for, so we know how to play, what to look out for, and what to expect the outcome to be.

I agree wholeheartedly. Consistency would go a long way toward managing expectations.

[Abrakadabra]

Originally Posted by gp2013

I agree wholeheartedly. Consistency would go a long way toward managing expectations.

I don't agree at all if the consistent ruling would be to always protect the builder of a high CG robot from any kind of normal defense. From the number of reports coming in, I have to agree with the OP that it appears FIRST is doing just that.

This game had such potential - there has been unanimous praise for it from far and wide. But now that FIRST seems to be promoting the interpretation of Rule G24 to be that a single ref is allowed to assume that the intent of a team playing what most would call normal defense was to actually tip an already unstable robot? And then to allow that decision to potentially end a team's season? I think that breaks the game, and I am sad.

They tell us to expect "robust" interaction, and to build our robots "robustly". I guess "stable" is no longer a part of that directive.

I'm not about to quit FIRST, but this turn of events is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth, and my team hasn't even been affected by these rulings one way or another. However, I have personally witnessed it - at the last two events we attended, the same notoriously tippy robot benefited greatly from questionable red card calls in eliminations. It's starting to remind me of 2014 when teams had ball collectors extended beyond the frame perimeter and were just trying to play the game as it was designed, and then they drew a 50 point penalty when another robot would drive kamakazi-like into them and self-inflict damage inside their own frame perimeter. Just sad.

[waialua359]

If I'm trying to play offense and a defensive robot gets in my way, pushing me, blocking me, etc. ..... I see no scenario whatsoever where a red card is warranted, if I push you out of the way or tip you while trying to get free, with the intent of trying to score a boulder.
Intent means I'm in your courtyard with a boulder in my robot. Thats all the evidence that is needed to show a referee.

[Woolly]

Some of these situations could be mitigated by giving the refs some way to signal to a team causing another robot to nearly tip that from this point forward them causing a tip WILL be a red card for sure.

For example, say team 251 is on the red alliance, and team 1117 is on the blue alliance. Team 251 is playing defense on 1117, and pushes 1117 in such a way that it causes team 1117's robot to at least appear to almost tip. The referee points with a red flag at 251 and makes some kind of clear gesture signaling that it should be obvious that pushing harder will cause 1117 to flip, and that if 251 causes 1117 to flip, they will receive a red card. 251 is still allowed to play tough defense, however if 1117 ends up wrong-way up due to contact engaged by 251, 251 will receive a red card.

[Abrakadabra]

Originally Posted by Woolly

Some of these situations could be mitigated by giving the refs some way to signal to a team causing another robot to nearly tip that from this point forward them causing a tip WILL be a red card for sure...

The problem is that these red cards are being handed out for flips which happen almost instantaneously the first time contact is made (see the various videos being posted).

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Woolly

Some of these situations could be mitigated by giving the refs some way to signal to a team causing another robot to nearly tip that from this point forward them causing a tip WILL be a red card for sure.

What you are asking for is the responsibility of a coach, not a referee.

Originally Posted by Abrakadabra

The problem is that these red cards are being handed out for flips which happen almost instantaneously the first time contact is made (see the various videos being posted).

That is not what I saw in MICMP Q164, the match referenced by the OP. In that match, the head referee walked toward the courtyard where defense was being played, making it very clear that the situation was being watched closely by two referees.

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

In that match, the head referee walked toward the courtyard where defense was being played, making it very clear that the situation was being watched closely by two referees.

Two head referees, on top of that, as the referee who waves the flag for a foul is another FiM head ref.

(This is not to say that all head referees are perfect, just an attempt to add more context to the situation)

[EmileH]

I'm going to have to err on the side of every referee, regardless of their call. The rule G24 talks about intent - as soon as any rule introduces something regarding the intent of any team, the referee cannot be held responsible for misinterpreting the intent of the team. Expect different calls from different referees. In my opinion, the way it should be is that if you flip a team, regardless if they are tall, short, etc, it should be a red card on the first offense, because the fact of the matter is that tipping other robots knocks them out for the entire match. It is not gracious or professional and drive teams should practice to avoid tipping - regardless of intent.

This issue is not that different from the infamous "Your tall opaque robot is now illegal" thread. Rules that talk about team intent are, in my opinion, highly ambiguous and I stand by the call of every referee regardless of what the call is.