YMTC: Defensive Strategies

[eugenebrooks]

Originally Posted by Justin_302

see i have to disagree with you on this. i think teams should be able to stop an offensive robot. i think the ramming rule a little harsh because teams should be building their robot for a little abuse, but a full power ram should not be able to fly. ..but it makes me wonder why the rules are so strict this year

Having a robot that got three wheels broken off at Sacramento, two
in rapid succession with a multiple attempts at the third as we could still
"offensively" move to score, I would like to suggest that if high speed
ramming is allowed, that we also be allowed to build and field the
perfect energy absorbing bumper.

It goes as follows:
Have a metal plate outside the wheels, but within the legal footprint.
The plate is mounted on shafts that go through bushings in the frame.
The shaft contacts the handle end of a 10 pound sledge hammer on a pivot
so that when the plate is struck at high speed, the kinetic energy of the
impact is converted to kinetic energy in the hammer that slams down
vertically on the robot that struck at high speed. The plate is on the
side where it could not be employed offensively, and where it would
protect the wheels. Any robot that tries to get themselves a wheel,
or two, had better be well amored from above. A simple push does not
impart any energy to the hammer that is otherwise kept in place with bungies...

This really looks like battle bots, but any rational person would say
that a robot that is slamming to produce damage is getting their due.
Legal? You get really unhappy when a team slams a high speed only
for the purpose of breaking wheels off. It has no place in FIRST robotics.

[BRAVESaj25bd8]

Some teams are very good at defense. Our robot was built to cap the goals and we can do 3 to 4 caps per match but we found out that defense is our strength. Our main driver is very good about not ramming robots. He goes slow until he is touching them and then pushes them. You cannot discourage defense because then it would be too simple of a game. If we see you trying to cap a goal that we don't want you to cap, we're going to go over to you and push you. I think if there is repeated contact then it is maliscious. If there is 1 time where contact occurs and then it continues, that's just good defense. Our strength is defense any we might be able to defend any robot in the competition so my opinion is probably weighted. But when it comes down to it, ramming is wrong, pushing is good...

...and kinda fun .

[MattB703]

Dr. Brooks
Do you really believe that the other team was trying to break your robot?

If they indeed were this is a very sad time in FIRST robotics.

I admit that I am perenially nieve, but I truly believe that most of these situations are young people who get a little excited about trying to keep an opposing robot away from scoring position. If they cannot push you steady state the natural (and wrong) reaction is to use an impact. It is our job as coaches to be on gaurd against that.

I don't want to believe that any team in FIRST would intentionally break another robot to win a match.

[eugenebrooks]

Originally Posted by MattB703

Dr. Brooks
Do you really believe that the other team was trying to break your robot?

I think that you can only look at the data and reach your own conclusions.

The robot does not really attempt to push. It backs up and impacts a
wheel at high speed. The left rear wheel pops off. The first broken
wheel is easily interpreted as an unintended consequence.
Our robot still moves, carefully, towards capping a goal. The robot
backs up again and rams the middle wheel at high speed, breaking it off.
This action was taken with knowledge of what had happened with the
first high speed impact, itself being against the rules.

Amazingly, our robot could still inch its way towards capping a goal.
Equally amazingly, the robot that had broken two wheels off then
impacts our robot several times again, in the location of the
remaining wheel on that side.

The driver came by after the match to see the damage done. He did
not apologize for the action and its consequences. He was asked why
he kept ramming us after breaking off two wheels. His answer was
that he did it because we were still moving.

This is what happened, YMTC.

[Waynep]

Two Words: SOFT DEFENSE
Any robot can be an effective defensive partner if they play defense smart. There are a lot of teams that don't realize that you don't have to be the strongest bot or be the bully who rams, or has a wedge to be a defensive robot. Give me any robot and I will get them to play effective defense by getting in the way or pushing in the right spots. Good example is 1708, when we put them in using the kit bot they did nothing different then what we would have done had 395 been running and did an incredible job against MOE. (MOE I say this with all due respect as you had an outstanding robot and was the most threatening to us as a capper). Positional defense is more important than taking out one paticular robot. When robots become bullies they lose sight of what else is going on on the field and wind up wasting their time tangling with one robot. And as others have said, it's not in the SPIRIT of FIRST; everyone has worked very hard to get their robots here to compete so you should be mindful of what they put so much time and effort into. You do not have to hit hard to play defense, nor should you in my opinion. Also, set boundaries to avoid taking penalties and to provide best coverage. Make soft defense clear on your alliance during strategy meetings for your opponents sake and for your alliance.
-wayne

[Rich Wong]

Originally Posted by Waynep

Two Words: SOFT DEFENSE
.....
Also, set boundaries to avoid taking penalties and to provide best coverage. Make soft defense clear on your alliance during strategy meetings for your opponents sake and for your alliance.
-wayne

EXCELLENT WORDS TO LIVE BY!

[Justin_302]

I am not saying FIRST should be battlebots. I am saying defense is part of every game. Teams should build their robots to take abuse.

[Eria4044]

Originally Posted by Justin_302

I am not saying FIRST should be battlebots. I am saying defense is part of every game. Teams should build their robots to take abuse.

Right. In the St. Louis regional last week, there were robots that tipped over easily. It wasn't unfair to take advantage of that, as the goal of the game is to win. And I think everyone knows that there's a fine line between defensive maneuvers and just ramming the heck out of another robot. There are rules against, for example, intentionally ripping out somebody's battery. Defense is just part of the game, but people should remember to be civil.

[Matt Reiland]

Originally Posted by Justin_302

I am not saying FIRST should be battlebots. I am saying defense is part of every game. Teams should build their robots to take abuse.

Justin, as the thread starter I totally agree with you that defense is a valid strategy, what I don't like (and why I started the thread) are the certain teams that are playing essentially an 'offensive' defense of going around and ramming the other robots. Blocking is OK, pushing is OK, tipping is NOT OK and ramming shouldn't be OK. If you are literally backing up and going forward and backing up and going forward into another robot you should be penalized, if it continues I argue that you should be DQ'd. My real beef is that at certain regionals you would be and at others you might/might not be penalized and definitely not DQ'd. The rules should be consistent.

If ramming is the name of the game, then heck, we can take the lift off our robot and armour up the sides and play all day long with who ever wants to play, but that isn't the point of this competition IMHO. As stated earlier, you can build a very robust robot, but it stands little chance over time of not being affected by a 130lb hammer nailing it over and over, and over. Eventually it will break.