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

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Marc,
So we are all on the same page here, can you tell us exactly what rule for which the red card was given to your team?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Chris is me]

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.

"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!

[AdamHeard]

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!

Sounds like an excellent chokehold strategy.

[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.

[marccenter]

Al,

I am not sure what rule was called against FRC3548. I was busy picking up the laptop and joysticks when I saw the red card in front of the driver station. I will ask the driver tonight whether or not he remembers what call was given. I do assume G24.

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

[Boltman]

Regarding tipping....

Intent has to be there... if a robot starts to tip another bot but backs off then no harm or foul. If instead they tip and "follow through" to actually tip then a foul will be called most likely.

As for "incapacitate or harm" if a bot gets tipped and rights itself then neither of these have been met... first they were not incapacitated "action of righting self" nor "harmed".... now if the intent "on purpose" tip occurs and the bot could not right itself (effectively taking that bot out) then I can see the "incapacitate" coming into play. Harm if something broke may come into play as well.

As for High CoG...that is a design choice and has no bearing on the calling of a foul its crazy to think FRC would have a High CG rule..that is tin hat stuff. They would never institute that as refs would not follow it if not in game rules.

As for bots playing Defense...yes the fouls are stacked against your favor. By design. No one told you to play defense in the first place. Your risk/reward decision.