Flipping Rule

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

I was wondering...

Let's say robot A is a tall robot with a high CG.
Let's say robot B is a low bar robot.
And C is a low bar robot able to upright itself

If A gets tipped over easily, because of their design, is that a strategy aimed at giving opponents red cards? Should the refs be more indulgent about moderate defense played on A that causes tipping?

If C gets tipped over, the same way B would get tipped over, but C is able to flip itself back on its wheels, would there still be a red card?

What if C decides to stay in that flipped position, like B would do because they can't do otherwise, would that be a violation of G11?

How unfair is it for teams who planned on being able to flip back if they got tipped over?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

If C gets tipped over, the same way B would get tipped over, but C is able to flip itself back on its wheels, would there still be a red card?

There is no reason a robot that is able to self right would not still draw a red card in this scenario. The rule is against tipping robots, not against keeping robots tipped for the duration of the match.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

There is no reason a robot that is able to self right would not still draw a red card in this scenario. The rule is against tipping robots, not against keeping robots tipped for the duration of the match.

but the red card is given when damage or incapacitation occurs, so the robot that can flip back does not meet the criteria

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

but the red card is given when damage or incapacitation occurs, so the robot that can flip back does not meet the criteria

Yes, that is correct ( I had to read the rule again)

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.

This is Violated regardless of whether the robot can right itself or not

Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD

This specifies the punishment, Yellow card for the violation, but a Red card if incapacitation occurs.

I really hate this rule, especially in this game. It should be clear to teams that tipping is a risk in this game, which leaves them with the options to either design a robot that doesn't tip, or design a robot that can right itself. This rule seems to reward teams who did not take this into account.

I would much rather have this rule read Yellow card for strategies aimed at inhibition (though those means) and Red card tor strategies with the intent to incapacitate. I don't like that this has to be an eyeball test, but I like it more that giving a yellow card to a team who flipped a well designed robot, and a red card to one who flipped a robot with a design flaw.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

There is no reason a robot that is able to self right would not still draw a red card in this scenario. The rule is against tipping robots, not against keeping robots tipped for the duration of the match.

That is how I remembered it too, but per G24 the red card is given if harm or incapacitation occurs.

Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

but the red card is given when damage or incapacitation occurs, so the robot that can flip back does not meet the criteria

You ever flipped a robot? You NEVER know if there's damage until you find it later.

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

You ever flipped a robot? You NEVER know if there's damage until you find it later.

If the robot were to right itself, and then continue to play, I could not imagine a referee calling a red card based on damage occurring.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

If the robot were to right itself, and then continue to play, I could not imagine a referee calling a red card based on damage occurring.

To me strategies aimed at disabling or damaging opponents need to be met with the harshest penalty possible. If I wanted to play battlebots I WOULD (I do want to, I might in the future) but FRC isn't the place for that.

You'd be ok with a team flipping team A, team A self righting (prolly takes a couple seconds) then that same team flipping team A again repeatedly without a red card? The strategy is CLEARLY aimed at disabling or damaging A. And every time that team A goes over there's a risk of damage.

I am a firm believer in Vex's rule that (paraphrased) gives the offensive teams the benefit of the doubt in any interaction. Face it, we get the game play we encourage - if we don't penalize teams playing extremely aggressive defense more teams will realize it's a good way to shut down scoring robots and, frankly, games will get BORING. (see 2003)

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

You'd be ok with a team flipping team A, team A self righting (prolly takes a couple seconds) then that same team flipping team A again repeatedly without a red card? The strategy is CLEARLY aimed at disabling or damaging A. And every time that team A goes over there's a risk of damage.
(see 2003)

I am not at all OK with that, see my earlier post. I think the rule is poorly written, however by the rule a red card is issued only when Damage or Incapacitation is the result of the strategy.

My point (like MaGiC_PiKaChU's) is simply that the rule as written seems to unfairly punish teams who built a self righting robot.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

the rule as written seems to unfairly punish teams who built a self righting robot.

now what if that robot decides to stay upside down? That would be a G11? That seems pretty unfair.

[sastoller]

Has anyone seen the refs check the tipped robot's bumper height after a tipping incident, before giving a yellow or red card to the tipping robot?

It seems to me that if the tipped robot had bumpers that were above the 12" height limit, the tipping robot should not be penalized. I realize that all robots are inspected prior to playing in qualification matches, but I have seen several cases where bumper brackets become bent during a match from repeated collisions and are no longer within the 12" height limit by the end of the match. This just seems like something the ref's should be sure of when making a decision to give a yellow or red card. This is something that teams with already high bumpers should keep a close eye on as well.

Unfortunately, this is yet another case where the rules call on the refs to judge the intent of a robot/driver. It's a bad deal all around, but I don't know a better way to assess a penalty for tipping in a physical game like Stronghold. It's a shame that there seems to be a lack of consistency between the Head Refs at different events on these "intent rules", and as a result, this has significantly changed the outcome of several events.

[kevin.li.rit]

Originally Posted by sastoller

Has anyone seen the refs check the tipped robot's bumper height after a tipping incident, before giving a yellow or red card to the tipping robot?

It seems to me that if the tipped robot had bumpers that were above the 12" height limit, the tipping robot should not be penalized. I realize that all robots are inspected prior to playing in qualification matches, but I have seen several cases where bumper brackets become bent during a match from repeated collisions and are no longer within the 12" height limit by the end of the match. This just seems like something the ref's should be sure of when making a decision to give a yellow or red card. This is something that teams with already high bumpers should keep a close eye on as well.

Unfortunately, this is yet another case where the rules call on the refs to judge the intent of a robot/driver. It's a bad deal all around, but I don't know a better way to assess a penalty for tipping in a physical game like Stronghold. It's a shame that there seems to be a lack of consistency between the Head Refs at different events on these "intent rules", and as a result, this has significantly changed the outcome of several events.

Part of the bumper problem is when you robot has a center wheel drop and the robot changes direction, the bumper height will change causing it to get wedged under/over another robot. No rules on the bumpers are violated (correct me if I'm wrong) since it will still pass bumper height requirements when standing normally on the floor. For our robot we realized this and put the bumpers in the middle of the bumper zone so it would still stay in the bumper zone regardless of which 4 wheels are touching the ground.

Maybe this is something FIRST should address next year?

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I am a firm believer in Vex's rule that (paraphrased) gives the offensive teams the benefit of the doubt in any interaction. Face it, we get the game play we encourage - if we don't penalize teams playing extremely aggressive defense more teams will realize it's a good way to shut down scoring robots and, frankly, games will get BORING. (see 2003)

Like in 2015, when there was only offense? I'm not sure what we do with tippy robots being tipped, and/or aggressive plowing, but I know for sure that we shouldn't discourage defense with such a rule. There's nothing interesting or strategic about watching six teams do six things with no interaction. On the other hand, games like 2014 has me filling out new play sheets all the way through champs. This year's game already restricts defense more than necessary IMHO

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

Like in 2015, when there was only offense? I'm not sure what we do with tippy robots being tipped, and/or aggressive plowing, but I know for sure that we shouldn't discourage defense with such a rule. There's nothing interesting or strategic about watching six teams do six things with no interaction. On the other hand, games like 2014 has me filling out new play sheets all the way through champs. This year's game already restricts defense more than necessary IMHO

There's a world of difference between no interaction (2015) and discouraging teams who ONLY ram into other robots. In fact, you can avoid the latter with rules aimed at making scoring easier because it gives them a way to positively contribute. I want to see a rule about erring on the side of offensive robots because it means that crap like a defender breaking their intake on us doesn't give us a penalty (2014 NEDCMP)This rule absolutely needs to come attached to incentivizing the sort of zone defense that makes for more interesting matches.

And lest you think I'm all for no defense - 125 played defense on 1519's alliance last weekend but we didn't touch them (until they came over and tipped us). There's more ways to play defense than to ram into the opponent.

[jfitz0807]

Consider the case of a low bar robot with a large intake/shooter that can be raised high so it can shoot over a defensive robot. When the shooter is low, the robot has a low CG and when it is up, the robot has a high CG and is susceptible to being tipped. A defensive robot tries to bump it to alter the shot in the hopes of making it miss. If the defensive robot continues to push the shooter, it is possible that the shooting robot may tip.

If the shooting robot is about to tip, why is it not incumbent upon that robot to LOWER its shooter to prevent the tip?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by jfitz0807

Consider the case of a low bar robot with a large intake/shooter that can be raised high so it can shoot over a defensive robot. When the shooter is low, the robot has a low CG and when it is up, the robot has a high CG and is susceptible to being tipped. A defensive robot tries to bump it to alter the shot in the hopes of making it miss. If the defensive robot continues to push the shooter, it is possible that the shooting robot may tip.

If the shooting robot is about to tip, why is it not incumbent upon that robot to LOWER its shooter to prevent the tip?

For 90% of robots with a raisable shooter, the defender's drivetrain (including any driver reaction time) is a heck of a lot faster than their shooter's raising mechanism. For the other 10%, their reaction time plus transmission time evens it out to about equal. So maybe they're TRYING, but the defender doesn't give them the chance before they go over. You bet that they're not going to be happy that the defender didn't back off! (Read as: "I thought it was incumbent on the defender to back off!")

If it's actually an accident, you probably just hit them once. But a sustained push-through is a lot harder to class as an accident (and easier to class as intentional, thus, strategy)--and those accounted for almost all if not all of the tipping cards I was on a ref crew for!