Team Update #18 (Let's Try This Again)

[Travis Hoffman]

I know what you're all thinking - *groooooooan*. Oh just hush for a bit. See where this goes. I've been doing some thinking as I've been packing for Toronto. I'd like to alter my standpoint on the Team Update #18 rule changes a bit.

First, the modification of <S01>:

1. I think the most beneficial thing to come out of this Team Update is to see FIRST institute a WHY WE MADE THIS CHANGE section to each rule modification. I think this is a great practice that should be permanently adopted, but it needs to be thorough. When you release the rules each year, for the most controversial/open for interpretation rules in the book, have additional sections which explain why each rule was created. Give examples of what is permitted and what isn't, much like you did with the Loading Zone infraction examples provided in Team Update #4 (by the way, it would have been easier for the head ref at SVR to locate those examples if they had been incorporated into the main body of the Game rules and not left in that separate team update document - something to think about). You've got to explain to these kids and these refs exactly what is right and what is wrong. The talk of having videos which show examples of proper and improper robot behavior is wonderful, because then you can educate the spectators at an event in addition to the teams. I freely offer up any of our old robots for use in such videos - they are lonely and wish to be on TV. Any ideas which encourage more communication and understanding among FIRST, its volunteers, its teams, and the guy on the street are welcome.

2. I agree with Elgin - adding more penalties to an already penalty saturated game increases the complexity of the game for everyone and increases the punitive nature of the game for the drivers. We want to reward, not punish. However, safety is an area where these kids need to follow the rules without question. It is the one area where such penalties are warranted, because human safety is at stake. I have a proposal - if FIRST agrees to get rid of the tacked-on and tacky <G25> 10-point *overaggressiveness* penalty [or better yet, move it out of the preamble so that it can only apply to inappropriate robot actions, where it belongs], I will wholeheartedly welcome this safety penalty with open arms.

3. Regarding robot disablement for safety infractions - The change from "will" to "may" be disabled was necessary to include the examples of "marginally unsafe" actions under the <S01> umbrella. I think it's clear now that FIRST does not want refs to disable robots for barely breaking the plane or for bumping their own partners in their own HP loading zones. The 10-point penalties should be enough to discourage such activities. I hope FIRST is communicating this to all refs before this weekend. Consistency!


Regarding <G18>:

1. It was the worst kept secret in FIRST that the game designers preferred offense over defense this year (and probably beyond). I'm glad they actually came out and said it. However, Steve W is right - this does contradict the 2005 Triple Play animation, as well as the wording of <G25>. And you can tell by the responses you've received so far on Update 18, that not everyone is as pro-offense as you'd think. Many are miffed that FIRST would try to tell them how the game *should* be played. To them, it sounds elitist. I tend to agree. The REALITY is, each year, including this one, some teams just won't have the means or the time to apply a lot of great technology to their robot - they are proud just to build something that drives around and maybe has a rudimentary arm that flips tetras under a goal - 1708 comes to mind). They cannot possibly hope to compete against a veteran alliance filled with relative superpowers. Other teams have intentionally designed their robots around defense as a primary strategy. If we force everyone to play offense in a direct competition, all we're doing is favoring the favorites and maximizing their ranking scores. Yahoo, as if teams like 71 and 111 need any more help! I'm all for the underdog and giving them as many options as possible to succeed against the more established teams. Many times, they will fall short, but they'll feel really great about their performance, and every so often, they'll pull off the upset. And that's a beautiful thing. Employing smart defensive strategies is an important option for many, and FIRST is trying to limit their ability to use that option, if not take it away altogether. I think that is most unfortunate. What is wrong with balance and freedom of choice? Instead of seeking to forcibly eliminate all defense through rule changes and penalties, why not simply focus on the nasty byproducts of overactive defense we've seen permitted sporadically all year, namely, ramming and tipping? Let's get the refs calling those penalties more (not completely - that's impossible) consistently, and see if the offensive teams have a better time of it while still giving the defensive dudes a chance to play the game their own way.

2. To all you offensive ballerinas out there (said with the utmost of respect), why are you afraid of a little additional challenge to spice up your boring I can cap 28 tetras in 2 minutes if no one touches me lives? I've seen robots like 229 fight past a formidable and LEGAL defensive stand and still cap. That impresses me far more than watching someone go la de da all day without any opposition, because that robot is displaying the total, balanced package. Let those defensive teams play, BUT ENFORCE RAMMING AND TIPPING RULES AT ALL COSTS!

3. Regarding pushing and descoring, my opinion continues to be that if an offensive bot is trying to cap but knocks over a tetra stack while a defensive bot employs legal pushing means to stop him, then that lil ol' pushing bot should not be penalized for the inability of offensive bot to maintain the integrity of the stack and ward off that perfectly legal maneuver. Some may call this a roadblock to progress. I call it keeping the technology-laden teams honest. If you want to show off your ability to stack 3 miles high without interruption, that's why you go to those Cub Scout robot demos in the summer. Maybe Andy, Chris, and the boys can hold a tetra capping contest at IRI, who knows? We've been defended this way many times this year while trying to cap, and you know what? I agree, it's ANNOYING! But HEY, it's LEGAL, so we keep fighting, and usually succeed in capping. We respect the little guy trying to keep us from achieving our objective, and our drivers feel a little greater sense of accomplishment in being able to persevere under those conditions.

One final point - one I've shared with a certain popular mentor on this forum who may have the time to run with this once the season ends. Most of the commonly shared knowledge on these forums, especially the stuff the "Gods of FIRST" hand down to the common masses, deals with DRIVETRAINS. Frames. Shifting Transmissions. Torque-speed curves. MORE POWER!!!!!!! If our overriding goal is offense, why is the bulk of the shared technology focused on things commonly associated with defense? JVN's strong kitbot frame. Paul Copioli's rugged transmissions. AndyMark's light and sturdy shifters. NBD (yes I know you can use those on an arm - that should stand for "Nothing but Defense", btw). What happens if defense goes away? Are we going to see people stop incorporating these designs into their robot? Why put a shifting transmission in if there's no need for it? Will the educational benefits these technologies bring be reduced if defense is permitted to die? Will our drivetrains start to become wussy and overly simplified because we're all too busy playing offense to care? I'm not sure.

I know FIRST is delivering these common frame and drivetrain components to teams, hoping they'll all create the same base frame and drivetrain in a short amount of time, leaving them to focus more on complex manipulator designs. This is a commendable undertaking on their part. Is FIRST succeeding in that task? I'm not sure. But it seems to me that if we truly want to elevate the technology level of all teams, we shouldn't just assume that they're all going to do it by themselves once they have their stock frame and drivetrain. Shouldn't we also be gathering some of the best arm designs - four-bars, extensions, articulated, etc. from around the FIRST community and sharing those publicly as well? It would be great if such an arm design library and perhaps the programming that goes along with them would be built up to the same level that we see our drivetrain designs shared. Only then, when we all truly do our part to directly elevate the rookies and other teams to utilizing solid arm technologies, maybe FIRST can truly justify reducing the amount of defense they allow in a game. Notice I said reduce, not eliminate!

Well, gee, that wasn't so bad, was it? I feel pretty good about that one. Again, thank you to FIRST for LISTENING and TRYING to change. Good luck, and let's hopefully see some real progress this weekend.