Go to Post If you plan the work and work the plan, you will very likely make it to the district championship. - IKE [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy > Scouting
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 13:15
ToddF's Avatar
ToddF ToddF is offline
mechanical engineer
AKA: Todd Ferrante
FRC #2363 (Triple Helix)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 600
ToddF has a reputation beyond reputeToddF has a reputation beyond reputeToddF has a reputation beyond reputeToddF has a reputation beyond reputeToddF has a reputation beyond reputeToddF has a reputation beyond reputeToddF has a reputation beyond reputeToddF has a reputation beyond reputeToddF has a reputation beyond reputeToddF has a reputation beyond reputeToddF has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

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.
__________________
Todd F.
mentor, FIRST team 2363, Triple Helix
Photo gallery
video channel
Triple Helix mobile

Last edited by ToddF : 18-04-2016 at 13:36.
Reply With Quote
  #47   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 13:21
gp2013 gp2013 is offline
Registered User
FRC #2013 (Cybergnomes)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2014
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 42
gp2013 will become famous soon enoughgp2013 will become famous soon enough
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by T3_1565 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #48   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 13:24
interpretTHIS interpretTHIS is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Page 1
Posts: 6
interpretTHIS will become famous soon enoughinterpretTHIS will become famous soon enough
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
"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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by T3_1565 View Post
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.

Last edited by interpretTHIS : 18-04-2016 at 13:27.
Reply With Quote
  #49   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 13:28
gp2013 gp2013 is offline
Registered User
FRC #2013 (Cybergnomes)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2014
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 42
gp2013 will become famous soon enoughgp2013 will become famous soon enough
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

[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.
Reply With Quote
  #50   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 13:34
waialua359's Avatar
waialua359 waialua359 is offline
Mentor
AKA: Glenn
FRC #0359 (Hawaiian Kids)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Waialua, HI
Posts: 3,304
waialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gp2013 View Post
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.
__________________

2016 Hawaii Regional #1 seed, IDesign, Safety Award
2016 NY Tech Valley Regional Champions, #1 seed, Innovation in Controls Award
2016 Lake Superior Regional Champions, #1 seed, Quality Award, Dean's List
2015 FRC Worlds-Carver Division Champions
2015 Hawaii Regional Champions, #1 seed.
2015 Australia Regional Champions, #2 seed, Engineering Excellence Award
2015 Inland Empire Regional Champions, #1 seed, Industrial Design Award
2014 OZARK Mountain Brawl Champions, #1 seed.
2014 Hawaii Regional Champions, #1 seed, UL Safety Award
2014 Dallas Regional Champions, #1 seed, Engineering Excellence Award
2014 Northern Lights Regional Champions, #1 seed, Entrepreneurship Award
2013 Championship Dean's List Winner
2013 Utah Regional Champion, #1 seed, KP&B Award, Deans List
2013 Boilermaker Regional Champion, #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award
2012 Lone Star Regional Champion, #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award
2012 Hawaii Regional Champions #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award
Reply With Quote
  #51   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 13:41
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is offline
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,718
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Chris is me
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by interpretTHIS View Post
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.
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".
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
...2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
---
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
...2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design
...2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
...2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
...2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 Minnesota 10,000 Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
Reply With Quote
  #52   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 14:12
interpretTHIS interpretTHIS is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Page 1
Posts: 6
interpretTHIS will become famous soon enoughinterpretTHIS will become famous soon enough
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gp2013 View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
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:
Quote:
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)
Reply With Quote
  #53   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 14:18
T3_1565 T3_1565 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Twitch Drive Designer
FRC #1360
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 855
T3_1565 has a brilliant futureT3_1565 has a brilliant futureT3_1565 has a brilliant futureT3_1565 has a brilliant futureT3_1565 has a brilliant futureT3_1565 has a brilliant futureT3_1565 has a brilliant futureT3_1565 has a brilliant futureT3_1565 has a brilliant futureT3_1565 has a brilliant futureT3_1565 has a brilliant future
Send a message via MSN to T3_1565
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by interpretTHIS View Post

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.
Actually in this case the first engagement had not stopped. While it was true that during the engagement both bots tipped up from one another (creating an "A" shape with the "noses" touching), the "second" engagement you speak of was the offensive robot landing on the ground and the defensive robot landing on top of them (one side of the "A" fell before the other side did). In this case if offense were to back up then no flip would occur. However they drove forward (possibly due to being unable to see? Too many factors as to why)

Either way as I said, its about consistency. If you see the interpretation of the rule in this case to be correct then that's fine. However, you used the word consistent, which it is not. The calls on flipping have been all over the map. This is why there are so many threads about the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #54   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 15:03
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is offline
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,718
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Chris is me
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by interpretTHIS View Post
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.
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
...2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
---
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
...2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design
...2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
...2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
...2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 Minnesota 10,000 Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
Reply With Quote
  #55   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 20:01
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is offline
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 19,803
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxnz View Post

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.
Ya don't wanna go there.

There used to be this particularly annoying penalty, the disable+DQ. (This was before red cards.) The effect was the same as a red card, but the robot in question was disabled for the rest of the match. An ACCIDENTAL tipping could put you in a disable+DQ situation. 'Nuff said.
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

Reply With Quote
  #56   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 20:28
Dale's Avatar
Dale Dale is offline
Head Coach & Mentor
AKA: Dale Yocum
FRC #1540 (Flaming Chickens)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 504
Dale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud of
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

In my opinion the rule should be expanded to include something that that makes it clear that bumper to bumper contact (resulting in a tip) will never result in a penalty. That would clear up a lot of situations. If a robot can be tipped just by being pushed in its bumper zone that is just a design / driving choice the team decided to make.
__________________
2016 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2016 Winner Oregon City District, 2015 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2015 PNW District Engineering Inspiration; 2015 PNW District Finalist; 2014 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2014 Championship Innovation in Controls; 2013 Chairman's (Oregon); 2013 Finalist (OKC); 2012 Winner (OKC); 2012 Chairman's (OKC); 2012 Woody Flowers (Oregon); 2011 Volunteer of the Year (Oregon); 2011 Finalist & Captain (San Diego); 2011 Innovation in Control (San Diego); 2010 & 2007 Chairman's (Oregon); 2010 Regional Champions (Colorado); 2010 Innovation in Control (Colorado); 2009 & 2008 Engineering Inspiration (Oregon); 2008 Regional Champions (Oregon); 2007 Regional Finalist (Oregon); 2005 Rookie Inspiration (PNW)
Reply With Quote
  #57   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 20:45
Fusion_Clint's Avatar
Fusion_Clint Fusion_Clint is online now
Registered User
AKA: Clint Brawley
FRC #0364 (Fusion)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Gulfport MS
Posts: 240
Fusion_Clint has a reputation beyond reputeFusion_Clint has a reputation beyond reputeFusion_Clint has a reputation beyond reputeFusion_Clint has a reputation beyond reputeFusion_Clint has a reputation beyond reputeFusion_Clint has a reputation beyond reputeFusion_Clint has a reputation beyond reputeFusion_Clint has a reputation beyond reputeFusion_Clint has a reputation beyond reputeFusion_Clint has a reputation beyond reputeFusion_Clint has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale View Post
In my opinion the rule should be expanded to include something that that makes it clear that bumper to bumper contact (resulting in a tip) will never result in a penalty. That would clear up a lot of situations. If a robot can be tipped just by being pushed in its bumper zone that is just a design / driving choice the team decided to make.
I think this is the answer to this debate.

In order for a yellow or red card to be issued the offending robot must have keep pushing to the point that their bumper/robot is contacting something other than the bumper of the opposing robot (frame, drivetrain, etc). If it tips from bumper contact then that is a design problem.
__________________
Clint Brawley
USAF 1992-2013
Fusion 364, 2014 Season to present
Reply With Quote
  #58   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 21:00
dirtbikerxz's Avatar
dirtbikerxz dirtbikerxz is offline
Captain | Driver | CAD | Junior
AKA: Rohit Gondi
FRC #3991 (KnightVision)
Team Role: Driver
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 473
dirtbikerxz has much to be proud ofdirtbikerxz has much to be proud ofdirtbikerxz has much to be proud ofdirtbikerxz has much to be proud ofdirtbikerxz has much to be proud ofdirtbikerxz has much to be proud ofdirtbikerxz has much to be proud ofdirtbikerxz has much to be proud ofdirtbikerxz has much to be proud ofdirtbikerxz has much to be proud of
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint View Post
I think this is the answer to this debate.

In order for a yellow or red card to be issued the offending robot must have keep pushing to the point that their bumper/robot is contacting something other than the bumper of the opposing robot (frame, drivetrain, etc). If it tips from bumper contact then that is a design problem.
I would also like to add "If it apparent the opposing bot is tipping, than the defending bot must back away as fast as possible". I say this, because I've seen matches where only the bumpers of two bots will touch, but one bot is so powerful, it will be able to completely lift an opposing bot to a point where gravity will finish the tipping motion, by only continuously pushing on it.
__________________

Team 3991: Driver since freshman (2015-), Captain since sophomore (2016-), CADer
"The human condition is not perfect. We are not perfect specimens, any of us. We're not robots." - Michael Ovitz
My posts may or may not reflect the views of my team, they are my opinions, and mine alone.
Reply With Quote
  #59   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-04-2016, 21:02
Nathan Streeter's Avatar
Nathan Streeter Nathan Streeter is offline
FIRST Fan(atic)
FRC #1519 (Mechanical MAYHEM)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 676
Nathan Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeNathan Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeNathan Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeNathan Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeNathan Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeNathan Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeNathan Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeNathan Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeNathan Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeNathan Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeNathan Streeter has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale View Post
In my opinion the rule should be expanded to include something that that makes it clear that bumper to bumper contact (resulting in a tip) will never result in a penalty. That would clear up a lot of situations. If a robot can be tipped just by being pushed in its bumper zone that is just a design / driving choice the team decided to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint View Post
I think this is the answer to this debate.

In order for a yellow or red card to be issued the offending robot must have keep pushing to the point that their bumper/robot is contacting something other than the bumper of the opposing robot (frame, drivetrain, etc). If it tips from bumper contact then that is a design problem.
I very much agree with this. It seems to me that the only time bumper-bumper contact should result in fouls or cards is if it is a case of egregious high-speed ramming or something of that ilk. A separate rule should exist for flipping (must involve non-bumper contact to come into effect) and for damage within the frame perimeter.

Judging intent is always unreasonable... and it hurts both sides if a call is made incorrectly. Honestly, what bothered me more about the referee's assigning a red card was less the result (automatic loss), but more that apparently the referees thought our drivers and team were the type to strategically flip an opposing robot. That is what hurts the most. Our team couldn't have intended to NOT flip 125 any more than we did (and do). We were just trying to play ordinary, quality defense by keeping them out of their scoring position. :-/ Unfortunately, we went from pushing them to flipping them in the blink of an eye!
__________________
"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up men to gather wood, divide the work, or give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses - behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights." - Muhammad Ali
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Leonardo da Vinci


Student: 2006-2010 (#1519)
Mentor: 2011-Present (#1519)



Last edited by Nathan Streeter : 19-04-2016 at 08:52.
Reply With Quote
  #60   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-04-2016, 14:34
XaulZan11's Avatar
XaulZan11 XaulZan11 is offline
Registered User
AKA: John Christiansen
FRC #1732
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Milwaukee, Wi
Posts: 1,329
XaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to XaulZan11
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?

My suggestion would be to completely get rid of the tipping rule. Put it on the teams to build untippable or rightable robots if they want to be successful instead of putting it on refs to judge 'intent'. There are way too many examples of tipping being called inconsistently this year.

In order to prevent teams from just building wedges and going around tipping/lifting other robots, put a rule in the says any tipping as a result of non-bumper to bumper contact is a red card. It is a whole lot easier for a ref to judge if a robot as an appendage outside their bumpers than if they intended to tip another robot.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:42.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi