an evil, desperate, ramp strategy

[Sachiel7]

Yeah, strategies targeted at tipping will likely get you DQ'ed. We were upset with several teams last year who kept intentionally ramming us in order to tip us (the way our arm was designed made it easy when it was extended) and managed to tip us out of one whole match.
I've been a bit bothered by some of the "defensive" ideas I've been hearing from teams this year. Mainly because it seems there are still quite a few teams out there who consider *potentially* damaging an opposing robot ok for defense.
I've heard talk of other teams setting up their drive system to spin at a high speed (aka Spinbot) to sit in front of the corner goals and spin rapidly such that noone will try to move them for risk of getting damaged.
Please guys, just treat the other alliance bots as if they were you just trying to win for the other alliance. Would you want to whack yourself spinning at a high speed?
You can still be a nusance just by "being in the way". But I'm pretty sure that if a ref saw you give a nudge before a bot tipped, there'd at least be a penalty on the way, if not a DQ.
My $.02

[Nimmy]

actually I agreed with what you said but a spinbot?
what's wrong with it? if you can't design a bot that will be strong enoguh to push others, why not make one that others wont want to push?
it would be the same as putting the bot vertically with the corner goal and going forder then reverse then forward again...repeating it
it isn't aimed at tipping others, it's aimed at keeping others away from you, unlike my idea which is AIMED at tipping others (which is why we won't use it)

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Nimmy

lol =) I know it's 91.4cm, I just mean is it gonna be that percise or are the judges gonna call it as 'backing up enough for the other robot to have a chance at getting away)

The refs will be watching it from the sideline. If they don't feel it is enough they won't stop the count. So yes, "'backing up enough for the other robot to have a chance at getting away" is the answer.

On a nitpicking side note, the judges decide who wins the awards and wear the purple shirts, the referees officiate and wear the zebra shirts.

Wetzel

[Stu Bloom]

IMHO ... Many people are talking about tipping or certain defensive strategies being "anti-GP". Gracious Professionalism has NOTHING to do with competing on the field, and everything to do with how we act off the field. During a competition you play to win ... WITHIN THE RULES. That is why there are competition rules, and referees to interpret and enforce them.

Most of the time it is extremely difficult to judge "intent" and/or "Strategies aimed solely at ... ". As an experienced FIRST referee I would say "let them play" unless there is a specific rules violation, or unless I feel there was CLEARLY and UNMISTAKABLY an intent to do harm. I can envision multiple scenarios in this game where struggles for control of the ramp/platform will lead to robots tipping. I believe it is inevitable due to the nature of this game and design of the field elements.

Design and build your robots accordingly; robust, with strong drive-trains, low center of gravity, bumpers (as encouraged by the rules this year), and self-righting mechanisms if you feel the need.

[DjAlamose]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

IMHO ... Many people are talking about tipping or certain defensive strategies being "anti-GP". Gracious Professionalism has NOTHING to do with competing on the field, and everything to do with how we act off the field. During a competition you play to win ... WITHIN THE RULES. That is why there are competition rules, and referees to interpret and enforce them.
Most of the time it is extremely difficult to judge "intent" and/or "Strategies aimed solely at ... ". As an experienced FIRST referee I would say "let them play" unless there is a specific rules violation, or unless I feel there was CLEARLY and UNMISTAKABLY an intent to do harm.

Im sorry but I must contend that GP is all about making a game fun and yet it still be competitive. Your actions on the field are a direct reflection of how you act off the field. Saying that your actions are completely different on and off the field tells me that 1) your either putting on a show for the judges or 2) your bi-polar.

The intent of the game is to prevent the scoring of points not to destroy robots and tipping a robot with motors spinning at 4000 rpm on a shooter with bets a gears whining at top speeds is a danger to all people not just the robot! Yes guards should be in place but those are 100% reliable. There is always that chance that something could go wrong. I agree that robot will fall over this year attempting to go up the ramp but I truly hope that it is not done by another robot.

And on a personal note, It is refs like you that cause me so much pain to see my robot get bashed up during a match by multiple rammings from another robot. By your logic any robot with bumpers will be able to take a hit. But that doesn't mean there won’t be side effects.

Last year we won Buckeye because our opponent had the same exact strategy that you have. Even there alliance members didn't like what they did. It is a sad day when FIRST turns out to be another Battle Bots competition.

Thats My 5 cents because 2 cents is worthless in this case.

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Any team planning to use this "slight nudge" strategy as a defensive mechanism has already decided to put the referee into a judgement call decision. You might as well start writing your complaints now, cause some of these judgements will go against you.

Robots don't stop on a dime. I don't care if you don't have your hands on the joystick at the moment of impact. If the forward momentum of your robot is the last bit of energy needed for that robot to tip over, you should be penalized, regardless of how slight the impact is, or how "tipsy" the other robot is. You have chosen a strategy that splits hairs over a rule concerning the intentional tipping of robots. As Beth has stated above, many would find this strategy to be Anti-GP.

Maybe next years KOP should have air-bag sensors, so we can measure just how much force was applied to a robot that tipped over. If the air-bag goes off, you get DQ'd -- guess what, it no longer becomes a judgement call!

There are so many other potential strategies that are defensive in nature and aren't Anti-GP, that I don't see the purpose for this particular one. Why is the strategy to wait on their platform? A high CG robot is logically going to be shooting for the high goal at the end of the match. You will have at least a half field-length to block and hinder their approach to the ramp. Why would you waste your time sitting on their ramp for a potentially disasterous strategy? No, there are way too many other strategies that can be employed at the end game, than to take a chance on something as risky as this.

Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree ...

In this year's game it is legal to push, shove, bump, and even "low speed" ram another robot. In fact, based on the new bumper rules this type of defensive strategy seems to be almost encouraged. There will definitely be some struggles for control of the platform/ramp, and there will definitely be some robots tipping over as a result. It is not illegal for a bot to defend its position, or to keep, or move, another robot off of the ramp. You can't expect a team to just allow their opponents to do whatever they want ... that is called defense ... and REQUIRED by each alliance for at least 40 seconds of each match.

Just because a robot tips as a result of the ramp battle it does not mean the other alliance should be penalized. As I stated in my post above (and this IS only my opinion - open to modification ONLY by my head referees interpretation of the rules) I would not be inclined to penalize a team unless there was clear and unmistakable intent to do harm.

[Sachiel7]

So if in field actions can be non-GP, why not strap a buzzsaw onto your robot and just finish off the other alliance quickly?
GP is and always has been a large part of your interactions on the field.
Yes, I expect alot of defensive plays, and that's 100% OK, but be considerate of the other bots. Just as the Rules state, Strategies aimed at the destruction of other robots is not permitted. If you have a defensive strategy and you think it could potentially damage an opposing robot, its not a good idea.
Also, I think you were misinterpreting my desription of the spinbot. The ideas I've been hearing from teams is a robot that spins very fast in-place (like a spinbot in battlebots) such that if you were to try and move them, your robot would become damaged. This violates GP, and also goes to show that GP should play a role in a teams strategy on the field. Spinning in place is not a design strategy, or an off field interaction, it takes place on the field, and would violate the concept of GP.
Do unto other bots as you would have them do to you...

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by DjAlamose

Im sorry but I must contend that GP is all about making a game fun and yet it still be competitive. Your actions on the field are a direct reflection of how you act off the field. Saying that your actions are completely different on and off the field tells me that 1) your either putting on a show for the judges or 2) your bi-polar.

The intent of the game is to prevent the scoring of points not to destroy robots and tipping a robot with motors spinning at 4000 rpm on a shooter with bets a gears whining at top speeds is a danger to all people not just the robot! Yes guards should be in place but those are 100% reliable. There is always that chance that something could go wrong. I agree that robot will fall over this year attempting to go up the ramp but I truly hope that it is not done by another robot.

And on a personal note, It is refs like you that cause me so much pain to see my robot get bashed up during a match by multiple rammings from another robot. By your logic any robot with bumpers will be able to take a hit. But that doesn't mean there won’t be side effects.

Last year we won Buckeye because our opponent had the same exact strategy that you have. Even there alliance members didn't like what they did. It is a sad day when FIRST turns out to be another Battle Bots competition.

Thats My 5 cents because 2 cents is worthless in this case.

Are you saying that a team should not be allowed to utilize a strategy that is specifically allowed in the rules?

<G22> Intentional ROBOT - ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTs are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, AIM HIGH is a highly interactive game, and some appropriate contact is allowed subject to the following guidelines:

• Rule <R35> in Section 5.3.4 establishes ROBOT BUMPER ZONEs. Any contact within this zone is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed long distance ramming. If two ROBOTs choose not to use bumpers, and they contact such that simultaneous contact occurs both in and out of the BUMPER ZONE, then this contact is considered within the BUMPER ZONE.
• Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable, and the offending ROBOT will be assessed a 5-point penalty, and may be disqualified from the match if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT. Incidental contact will not be penalized. Contact outside the BUMPER ZONE that is a result of tipping caused by contact within the BUMPER ZONE will be considered incidental contact.
• If a ROBOT extends outside of its 28 inch by 38 inch starting footprint, it is responsible for the extension’s contact with other ROBOTs and must not use the extension to contact other ROBOTs outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Likewise, other ROBOTs will not be responsible for contact with the extension outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Again, incidental contact will not be penalized.

I am paraphrasing here ... but I have heard Woody Flowers, when describing what Gracious Professionalism is, say something like "We compete like crazy on the field, then treat each other with respect, and cooperate off the field."

One of the greatest things about our society, and this community, is that differring opinions are welcome and encouraged. Many of us will continue to disagree on this topic of "how we play the game".

I feel It is vitally important, if FIRST is to survive and grow, that the games remain exciting to watch and compete in. I am very passionate about FIRST, and I DO NOT want to see FIRST become another Battlebots. However some amount of vigorous interaction between robots keeps the games more exciting. Playing to win WITHIN THE RULES (PLEASE note the emphasis) should be encouraged. The referee's job is to enforce the rules, as guided by the interpretation of our head referee.

[George1902]

Originally Posted by Sachiel7

So if in field actions can be non-GP, why not strap a buzzsaw onto your robot and just finish off the other alliance quickly?

To use Stu's words, a buzzsaw shows unmistakable intent to do harm.

Originally Posted by Sachiel7

Just as the Rules state, Strategies aimed at the destruction of other robots is not permitted. If you have a defensive strategy and you think it could potentially damage an opposing robot, its not a good idea.

You said it yourself, the rule prohibits "strategies aimed at the destruction of other robots," not "strategies that could potentially damage" other robots.

The difference is clear.

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Sachiel7

So if in field actions can be non-GP, why not strap a buzzsaw onto your robot and just finish off the other alliance quickly?

Because that is against the rules...

<G22> Intentional ROBOT - ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tippingover, or entanglement of ROBOTs are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed.

Originally Posted by Sachiel7

... GP is and always has been a large part of your interactions on the field. Yes, I expect alot of defensive plays, and that's 100% OK, but be considerate of the other bots. Just as the Rules state, Strategies aimed at the destruction of other robots is not permitted. If you have a defensive strategy and you think it could potentially damage an opposing robot, its not a good idea...

Sorry ... but I just can't agree ...
Just because a defensive strategy "could potentially damage another robot" does NOT mean that strategy is "aimed slolely at the destruction ..." of other robots. MOST defensive strategies will have the "potential" to damage another bot.

Originally Posted by Sachiel7

... Also, I think you were misinterpreting my desription of the spinbot. The ideas I've been hearing from teams is a robot that spins very fast in-place (like a spinbot in battlebots) such that if you were to try and move them, your robot would become damaged. This violates GP, and also goes to show that GP should play a role in a teams strategy on the field. Spinning in place is not a design strategy, or an off field interaction, it takes place on the field, and would violate the concept of GP.
Do unto other bots as you would have them do to you...

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I have not commented on the "spin-bot" concept. However I would say there is nothing wrong with that strategy. Think about the fact that while on defense you only have two robots defending against three offensive robots. If you want to sit in front of a corner goal and spin then you are leaving your partner defensive robot to defend the other two scoring options without your help. I would just stay away - go to the other corner goal to score - to avoid potential damage to my offensive robot. Of course, it would be another story entirely if you pursued another bot while spinning ... I would view that as intent to cause harm, and thus worthy of a DQ.

Again I will say, I believe we should always "play to win", WITHIN THE RULES while on the field. If our team happened to damage another robot during a match I would be the first one to offer my services to help with repairs. That's competition AND GP. And if our actions drew a penalty in the view of the referees, then so be it ... That's also part of the game.

[Sachiel7]

My point is that yes, it is true that the rules do not prohibit strategies that may potentially damage a robot. But, my point is that it is at that point, that decision is where GP does become a part of the interactions on the field. You either choose to follow it or not. If you follow it, you find a safer alternative. If not, you bash the opposing bot in an attempt to accomplish your goal.

I'm talking more about things I saw last year, and in years previous. Cameras torn off and beaten, arms torn up, Teams pushing over other teams, forceful ramming, etc.

I don't have a problem with you bumping around our bot, pinning us, pushing us off the ramp, ramming us in auto mode, etc. I have a problem with you slamming it high speed when you could've just pushed us.

The difference lies between remembering GP or thinking only of your priorities.

Remember too guys, FIRST isn't just all about the competition (although its a great part )

My $.02

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Sachiel7

My point is that yes, it is true that the rules do not prohibit strategies that may potentially damage a robot. But, my point is that it is at that point, that decision is where GP does become a part of the interactions on the field. You either choose to follow it or not. If you follow it, you find a safer alternative. If not, you bash the opposing bot in an attempt to accomplish your goal.

I'm talking more about things I saw last year, and in years previous. Cameras torn off and beaten, arms torn up, Teams pushing over other teams, forceful ramming, etc.

I don't have a problem with you bumping around our bot, pinning us, pushing us off the ramp, ramming us in auto mode, etc. I have a problem with you slamming it high speed when you could've just pushed us.

The difference lies between remembering GP or thinking only of your priorities.

Remember too guys, FIRST isn't just all about the competition (although its a great part )

My $.02

AND "slamming it high speed when you could've just pushed us" IS against the rules ...

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree ...

In this year's game it is legal to push, shove, bump, and even "low speed" ram another robot. In fact, based on the new bumper rules this type of defensive strategy seems to be almost encouraged. There will definitely be some struggles for control of the platform/ramp, and there will definitely be some robots tipping over as a result. It is not illegal for a bot to defend its position, or to keep, or move, another robot off of the ramp. You can't expect a team to just allow their opponents to do whatever they want ... that is called defense ... and REQUIRED by each alliance for at least 40 seconds of each match.

Just because a robot tips as a result of the ramp battle it does not mean the other alliance should be penalized. As I stated in my post above (and this IS only my opinion - open to modification ONLY by my head referees interpretation of the rules) I would not be inclined to penalize a team unless there was clear and unmistakable intent to do harm.

Stu, I understand your interpretation of the rules, but you are correct, we have a disagreement here. If a robot "sits" on their opponents platform and waits for the "tipsy" opponent to fully cross the field before it interacts with it, I consider that "intent". The offending robot has knowingly selected a strategy at which the tipsy robot is most vulnerable to tip over. If this isn't the "sole" intent of the strategy, why wait on the platform?

If, however, a robot is on the field and continually harrassing the tipsy bot, as the tipsy bot tries to return to its' platform, the intent is to stop the "tipsy" bot, not to select a point at which it is most vulnerable to tipping. Provided that all other contact is within the rules, I would not consider this strategy as "solely aimed at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTs".

The fact that the rule allows interaction between robots, and that tipping over may occur during this interaction, doesn't preclude the fact that strategies solely designed to cause tipping aren't still illegal. I fully expect a number of bots to tip during legal battles for mounting the ramp, but for a bot to solely sit and sandbag on the ramp with the intent to tip an opponent as it mounts, I still view as a violation.

As I said previously, this is a strategy of "splitting hairs" over a rule, and they are forcing the referees into a judgement call. Look at the vehement posts from previous years concerning "judgement calls". There are times when the FIRST community doesn't always sound like the FIRST community.

Maybe Carnack should predict that this will be the first major "ticked-off" post of the robot season, once Regionals begin.

For everyone's reference, here is <G22>:

Originally Posted by Chapter 4, Rev. C

<G22> Intentional ROBOT - ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping
over, or entanglement of ROBOTs are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not
allowed. However, AIM HIGH is a highly interactive game, and some appropriate contact is allowed
subject to the following guidelines:
• Rule <R35> in Section 5.3.4 establishes ROBOT BUMPER ZONEs. Any contact within this zone
is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed long distance ramming. If two ROBOTs
choose not to use bumpers, and they contact such that simultaneous contact occurs both in and out of
the BUMPER ZONE, then this contact is considered within the BUMPER ZONE.
• Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable, and the offending ROBOT will
be assessed a 5-point penalty, and may be disqualified from the match if the offense is particularly
egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT. Incidental contact will not be
penalized. Contact outside the BUMPER ZONE that is a result of tipping caused by contact within
the BUMPER ZONE will be considered incidental contact.
• If a ROBOT extends outside of its 28 inch by 38 inch starting footprint, it is responsible for the
extension’s contact with other ROBOTs and must not use the extension to contact other ROBOTs
outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Likewise, other ROBOTs will not be responsible for contact with
the extension outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Again, incidental contact will not be penalized.

[DjAlamose]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Are you saying that a team should not be allowed to utilize a strategy that is specifically allowed in the rules?

I am paraphrasing here ... but I have heard Woody Flowers, when describing what Gracious Professionalism is, say something like "We compete like crazy on the field, then treat each other with respect, and cooperate off the field."

One of the greatest things about our society, and this community, is that differring opinions are welcome and encouraged. Many of us will continue to disagree on this topic of "how we play the game".

I feel It is vitally important, if FIRST is to survive and grow, that the games remain exciting to watch and compete in. I am very passionate about FIRST, and I DO NOT want to see FIRST become another Battlebots. However some amount of vigorous interaction between robots keeps the games more exciting. Playing to win WITHIN THE RULES (PLEASE note the emphasis) should be encouraged. The referee's job is to enforce the rules, as guided by the interpretation of our head referee.

I am not saying that pushing is not a valid strategy, but in the context of this thread the situation, to my beliefs, is not within the spirit of GP. Causing a robot to tip purposely or accidentally is one of the worst things that can happen. Often times WITHIN THE RULES is not within the rules enough. There has always been way too much ramming (I consider ramming any contact at > 1m/s) and it is never within the rules. Robots with defensive capabilities need to be careful as not to harm other robots, that is my main point, because it happens way to often. And just because the action is not “aimed solely at the destruction” of a robot (nothing is, there is always another reason) doesn’t mean that its ok.

What Woody Flowers was saying (if that’s what he said, not saying your lying just that if its word for word) to compete like crazy not act like crazy. I also cannot hold respect for a team that either wishes to harm other robots or come close to harming robots by having a strategy that has the possibility of harming a robot.

Also, I believe that this year the game is very exciting. There will quite a few balls thrown out of the field and into the crowd as well as a lot of action with scoring. The finals are always the most exciting and that’s because of all the scoring going on. Just look at nationals last year. People were cheering when 7-8 tetras where on a goal. That’s because scoring is the excitement of winning.

I am sorry for my last post but ramming/tipping is a very touchy subject with me. And I agree with Sachiel7 about how much destruction there was last year, Way too much. Even if it was called as a penalty, it shouldn’t have ever happened.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by Beth Sweet

It's also pretty much as anti-GP as you can get because I'm thinking that's gonna cause a good chunk of damage to their machine. Guess it all depends on where your team's priorities lie.

I would agree with you Beth but from his description (and it wasn't exactly clear) I don't think there would be significant damage. Just a nudge? Maybe I'm reading something wrong.

However, if there were significant damage I would defnitely agree with you that this would be unGP (a rules violation? I don't think so but maybe).

Paul Dennis