|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#46
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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. Last edited by ToddF : 18-04-2016 at 13:36. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
Quote:
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. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
Quote:
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:
Last edited by interpretTHIS : 18-04-2016 at 13:27. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
This is not good at all. Sorry to hear about the red card.
|
|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
Quote:
|
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
|
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
Quote:
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. |
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
Quote:
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. |
|
#55
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
Quote:
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. |
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#57
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
Quote:
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. |
|
#58
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
Quote:
|
|
#59
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Is FRC giving high CG robots a free pass on defense?
Quote:
Quote:
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! Last edited by Nathan Streeter : 19-04-2016 at 08:52. |
|
#60
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|