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

[tig567899]

Being one of the drive coaches for a defensive robot, I think the OP is somewhat justified. In the regional we went to, thank goodness we didn't deal with tipsy robots, but I can imagine the case where playing normal defense results in a tip.

Just like a lot of people on Chief Delphi have said, just because you have a robot that tends to fall over doesn't mean I suddenly have to avoid you. Similarily, just because your robot has the tendency to collapse upon contact doesn't mean it's my responsibility to not touch you.

[Lij2015]

As someone who not only has driver experience playing defense but has actually flipped a few robots that were playing defense on me in a quite aggressive manner, I find it crazy I never got a red card called on me based on the rules this year. I have straight up run into defensive bots twice to my recent knowledge at full speed (once in 2013 and once in 2014) and caused them to tip because they were in my way.

I do think that this game is penalizing playing defense on High CG robots, however when the point potential that an alliance loses because of a tipped robot is SO high (30 points as mentioned before) I honestly don't know what else can be done.

If I were reffing however based on this video alone, I absolutely wouldn't have given that a red. Maybe a yellow, but that's a pretty weak nudge on your part.

[maxnz]

Here are a couple of ideas:

1. A robot that tips another robot is given a card that is in between a yellow and a red card. An orange card, maybe. That card disqualifies the team for their next match, but not for the rest of quals or elims. (Yes, this doesn't cover matches at the end of quals and elims, that would need to be clarified)

2. The offending robot is disabled, making it so that the alliance that the robot is a part of cannot get a capture either, negating the effect of the opposing alliance only having two mobile robots and thus losing the potential 30 pts from a capture.

[EmileH]

Originally Posted by maxnz

Here are a couple of ideas:

1. A robot that tips another robot is given a card that is in between a yellow and a red card. An orange card, maybe. That card disqualifies the team for their next match, but not for the rest of quals or elims. (Yes, this doesn't cover matches at the end of quals and elims, that would need to be clarified)

Disqualification, by the Game Manual rules, means that the team scores 0 RP in that match (or if in elims, the entire alliance gets 0 points and automatically loses). It does not affect other matches outside of the yellow card that is also given to that team/alliance.

[maxnz]

Originally Posted by EmileH

Disqualification, by the Game Manual rules, means that the team scores 0 RP in that match (or if in elims, the entire alliance gets 0 points and automatically loses). It does not affect other matches outside of the yellow card that is also given to that team/alliance.

In my example, disqualified would have a slightly different meaning. There may be a better word for it. The example would have the robot unable to play in their next match (the specific FRC definition says that disqualified is a status, not specifically saying when they are dq'd, other than implying that it is for the current match). In elims, it would probably be changed to something similar to the robot being bypassed, thus not hurting the whole alliance as harshly.

I personally think that the second idea probably would work better.

[interpretTHIS]

It bothers me that nobody has posted or attempted to dissect the actual rule:

Originally Posted by 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

In this particular case, the actions of one robot led to another robot being tipped. The head referee determined that those actions were part of the strategy that the offending team was playing (presumably defense.) Whether or not this determination was correct is a different matter (head referees are humans and need to make decisions,) but by the letter of the rule, the head referee is certainly in their realm to make this determination.

As a side note, other reasonably astute observers made the same determination as the head referee. In the seconds leading up to the tip in this case, the GA said "But 3548 is just really playing the hardest D," which gives clear indication of the strategy that that observer believed the team was playing. The resulting action of that strategy, "the tipping", is what resulted in an invocation of G24. Now we follow the sentencing through: FOUL and Yellow, but incapacitation occurred, so Red.

Interpreting this makes the call seem feasible.

[BotDesigner]

Originally Posted by interpretTHIS

It bothers me that nobody has posted or attempted to dissect the actual rule:



In this particular case, the actions of one robot led to another robot being tipped. The head referee determined that those actions were part of the strategy that the offending team was playing (presumably defense.) Whether or not this determination was correct is a different matter (head referees are humans and need to make decisions,) but by the letter of the rule, the head referee is certainly in their realm to make this determination.

As a side note, other reasonably astute observers made the same determination as the head referee. In the seconds leading up to the tip in this case, the GA said "But 3548 is just really playing the hardest D," which gives clear indication of the strategy that that observer believed the team was playing. The resulting action of that strategy, "the tipping", is what resulted in an invocation of G24. Now we follow the sentencing through: FOUL and Yellow, but incapacitation occurred, so Red.

Interpreting this makes the call seem feasible.

I am curious about how to define "harm or incapitation". When would a yellow card ever be called because of a flip when a flip always results in incapitation?

[T3_1565]

I personally am more upset at the inconsistency of these calls.

I mean waterloo qf1-1 we were in a pushing match that resulted in our opponent getting underneath our bumpers and then driving us from the secret passage to the front of the tower (defense 3) before we finally flipped (we are 13" high and have been almost vertical on the field wall without flipping) and that was not given any card at all.

I'm fine with that decision on its own, but its upsetting to compare that decision to the one shown in the OP video. That was a clear bump and retreat defense on a tall, tippy robot, in a tall, tippy position.

The comparison between the two calls is the thing that is the most frustrating. Either call on there own is fine.

As long as its called consistently then there is no problem. The issue is that it is not being called like that.

[ToddF]

Just to throw a little wrinkle into this discussion, people should take the limited field visibility into account when intuiting driver intent based on robot actions. We played a match where one of our alliance partners (with a high CG) was tipped, and lost the match because of this. We review match video immediately after all our matches to critique our performance. The video showed what appeared to be an egregious instance of a defender purposefully tipping our partner. But, looking more closely, the tip happened when the defenders robot was in their drive team's blind spot. Rather than intentionally tipping, it's much more likely they were just trying to get their robot back into their view, and the high CG robot got in the way. The tippers probably were just as surprised as anyone when they found themselves on the receiving end of a yellow card.

In the first of the videos MBimrose16 posted, it appears that the view of the collision that resulted in the tip is blocked by the sally port door from both sides of the field. This theory is further supported by the fact that robots from both alliances then proceeded to ram into their tipped robot throughout the rest of the match. I can't believe this is intentional. It appears that the drivers simply can't see that spot in the field.

Again, in the second video, it looks like an egregious tip, but if the drivers of the red robot are in drivers station 1, their view of the robot-robot interaction is blocked by the tower. They might not have been able to see that they were tipping the blue bot. (They we not in station 1, as you can see when the ref gives the yellow card, and deserved the penalty.) Props, BTW, to the team who tried to get the flipped robot into the batter. It almost worked.

This visibility issue is the root cause for a lot of the seeming crazy "mistakes" you see drivers making this year. It's one reason why no one on any drive team wants to play this game with the drawbridges on the field.

[gp2013]

Originally Posted by T3_1565

I personally am more upset at the inconsistency of these calls.

I mean waterloo qf1-1 we were in a pushing match that resulted in our opponent getting underneath our bumpers and then driving us from the secret passage to the front of the tower (defense 3) before we finally flipped (we are 13" high and have been almost vertical on the field wall without flipping) and that was not given any card at all.

I'm fine with that decision on its own, but its upsetting to compare that decision to the one shown in the OP video. That was a clear bump and retreat defense on a tall, tippy robot, in a tall, tippy position.

The comparison between the two calls is the thing that is the most frustrating. Either call on there own is fine.

As long as its called consistently then there is no problem. The issue is that it is not being called like that.

Agreed. If there is no consistency, there is no clear message being sent to students. Seeing one team "get away" with something your team was DQ'd for leads to a lot of discontent that we as mentors get the pleasure of diffusing at a time when we are likely feeling the same way.

It is an issue that needs to be addressed but isn't any more difficult than expecting a group of 15 year olds to design and build a robot to climb a tower or cross a portcullis. FIRST is more than capable of coming up with a solution that does not involve barriers between competing robots (no more Recycle Rush please). It takes time, and it takes will and it takes communication none of which is difficult.

[interpretTHIS]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

"Defense" does not meet the definition of the quote above - it does not inhibit a robot through any of those methods, normally. It is only a "strategy" if the tipping is an intentional part of the defense. Under your logic, literally any time a robot tips over when someone is playing defense on that robot would result in a Red Card. Lots of teams would build robots very differently if that was the case!

If a strategy is employed in which the objective is to prevent a team from scoring, and to a reasonably astute observer, the execution of that strategy entails a risk of performing one of the prohibited actions of G24, then G24 may come into play.

In the specific case of this match, the previous interaction between the two teams at ~87s match time is further evidence that the drive team of the defending robot knew and understood the risks of playing defense in the manner that they played it. They rolled the dice twice, and lost the second time. The first roll was just the indication to an astute observer that they understood the implications of the risks associated with that particular action to begin with.

Originally Posted by T3_1565

I mean waterloo qf1-1 we were in a pushing match that resulted in our opponent getting underneath our bumpers and then driving us from the secret passage to the front of the tower (defense 3) before we finally flipped (we are 13" high and have been almost vertical on the field wall without flipping) and that was not given any card at all.

...

The comparison between the two calls is the thing that is the most frustrating. Either call on there own is fine.

In the Waterloo case, the offensive robot was playing the game with the strategy to score in their tower, while the defensive robot was playing with the strategy to stop the offensive robot. Even after a previous engagement that almost ended disastrously for one or both teams, the defensive robot continued to engage in the same fashion, and wound up getting flipped. Had the offensive robot in this same scenario been flipped instead, I would have expected the defensive robot to receive a Red card. However, because the offensive robot's strategy didn't involve interaction with the defensive robot, and therefore couldn't have been aimed at flipping the defensive robot, no Red was awarded. It would seem that the interpretation of the rule in this case, was in fact, consistent.

[gp2013]

[quote=interpretTHIS;1574819In the Waterloo case, the offensive robot was playing the game with the strategy to score in their tower, while the defensive robot was playing with the strategy to stop the offensive robot. Even after a previous engagement that almost ended disastrously for one or both teams, the defensive robot continued to engage in the same fashion, and wound up getting flipped. Had the offensive robot in this same scenario been flipped instead, I would have expected the defensive robot to receive a Red card. However, because the offensive robot's strategy didn't involve interaction with the defensive robot, and therefore couldn't have been aimed at flipping the defensive robot, no Red was awarded. It would seem that the interpretation of the rule in this case, was in fact, consistent.[/QUOTE]

Yet in North Bay, we were the offensive robot and the defensive robot was flipped after repeated hits on us and we received a red card whilst trying to drive across the court to cross the defences back to the neutral zone. Therefore, inconsistent.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by gp2013

Yet in North Bay, we were the offensive robot and the defensive robot was flipped after repeated hits on us and we received a red card whilst trying to drive across the court to cross the defences back to the neutral zone. Therefore, inconsistent.

This is not good at all. Sorry to hear about the red card.

[interpretTHIS]

Originally Posted by gp2013

Yet in North Bay, we were the offensive robot and the defensive robot was flipped after repeated hits on us and we received a red card whilst trying to drive across the court to cross the defences back to the neutral zone. Therefore, inconsistent.

Without understanding the specifics of that match and solely based on your description, I might agree that this particular instance is, in fact, inconsistent.

However, in your description, you describe the defensive robot as "repeatedly hitting" the offensive robot while the offensive robot was trying to go from the courtyard over the defenses. This would lead me to believe that perhaps either

a) G43 should have been called on the defensive robot if the contact was in the Outer Works
or
b) The defensive robot flipped themselves by engaging in a hit on the offensive robot, which certainly should not have invoked G24.

If a robot has a Boulder and is moving toward their opponent's Tower, their objective and strategy is clear. If a robot does not have a boulder, the intention become muddier, and a referee needs to decide who the "offensive" robot is in a particular scenario, as your position on the field doesn't solely dictate what your intended strategy is. Many factors need to be combined to help a referee determine if the team's strategy wound up in the incapacitation of another robot. Which leads me to my final point:

It's difficult to decipher consistency without match reference, video, and frame of mindset of the referees.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This isn't what the words of the rule say - this is an asinine interpretation of them. The rule is black and white - strategies aimed at the... inhibition... by tipping - the strategy has to be to cause a tip. That's what the word "by" is for in the rule. It is not "if tipping occurs when the strategy is defense" - the strategy has to be the illegal action. It's plainly clear from the wording of the rule, that the entire sentence is one clause and not two, that it is not "if you execute strategy, and then this happens, it's a red card".

First, let's make sure we cite the rule correctly:

Originally Posted by 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.

(Emphasis mine, contrasting the word "by" in your statement)

By your interpretation of the rule, only teams that make their strategy of "tipping" known should be penalized under G24.

The penalty isn't for having a strategy of "tipping someone's robot over", the penalty is for having a strategy that inhibits robots, via one of the listed methods. The intention of the drivers may NOT have been to tip the robot, but the intention WAS to inhibit the robot (definition of playing defense), which was employed in such a way that resulted in tipping, which then becomes the potential violation point of G24. This is where the referee needs to make a determination about the strategy, for example:

• Was the tipping itself intentional?
• Was there a shoving match in which one of the robots became unstable and the defender didn't back down?
• Did the offending team have understanding of the potential consequences of their actions (a previous similar-type hit resulted in instability of the offense robot)

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by interpretTHIS

By your interpretation of the rule, only teams that make their strategy of "tipping" known should be penalized under G24.

And this is how it's called. Teams that push other robots "up high" with arms, teams that "follow through" and push on the underside of the robot to "complete" the tip, teams that hit a robot while it is toppling, these demonstrate a strategy to inhibit via tipping. Teams that happen to tip when someone is playing defense do not necessarily do so.

Under your interpretation of the rules, an offensive robot could have a deliberately high CG, and anyone defending them could be red carded for merely attempting to defend them. It's literally a chokehold strategy to build this robot, if that interpretation stands.