<G09> Dropping Tubes on Your Opponent

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by xenicator

I seem to recall the word "innovation" prominent in the acronym of FIRST. Creativity in interpreting the rules where no robot is being harmed seems, on the contrary, to be IN the spirit of FIRST. I have noticed that Gracious Professionalism has started to be increasingly used to discourage innovation rather than maliciousness. Is it ungracious to hope that there is a slight loophole in the rules which makes this game based on technology rather than simply driver control and quickness of wit? Without these loopholes what is this game but another sporting event, something that is opposing the spirit of FIRST and promoting the “Rich and Famous” as an ideal lifestyle rather than commitment and hard work.

To quote Dave Lavery

"Lawyers find loopholes. Engineers find solutions. For which would you rather be known?"

The rules are constraints. If you decide to become an engineer, you are going to face constraints. If you find that the guidlines your employer gives you offer you a loop hole which will make your life easier but you will be creating a product that is not at all what your employer wants then when you present the product your boss wont laugh and say "$@#$@#$@#$@# you got me" they will as a best case senerio send you back to do it right.

If you want the game to be based on technology (It is a robotics competition how can it not be?) then build an arm that is faster, a drive train that is stronger, an autonomous that is perfect and then tell me that you need loop holes. I was talking to Dave from 121 today and he pointed out that every year on Einstein the teams that win are the teams that can score the best. Focus on scoring, if you can do that then you dont need to waste your time and ringers on the other alliances robot.

[SteveO]

As it is right now, it seems like robots should be designed in such a way that ringers are not easily placed on them.

I don't see that becoming as big an issue as deflated ringers getting caught in drivetrains etc.

[Joobacca]

Originally Posted by SteveO

As it is right now, it seems like robots should be designed in such a way that ringers are not easily placed on them.

I don't see that becoming as big an issue as deflated ringers getting caught in drivetrains etc.

very interesting. i'd like to see FIRST's response to this scenario. it seems to be there needs to be much clarification on various rules, and we'll be seeing them within days.

[dtengineering]

Hmm... In 2004 team 1241 had a great robot that would catch all the balls as they were dropped from above. Another team picked up one of the giant double-points balls and stuffed it into their ball hopper, preventing them from catching any of the small balls. This was not considered against the spirit of the game, or rules... and the real example of G.P. was how 1241 responded to a brilliant and innovative move by their opponent.

In this year's game it would strike me that your robot should be able to survive having a ringer dropped on it... without either inadvertently taking possession of the ringer or having a key mechanism disabled by the ringer.

Mind you, the Q&A forum and competition officials DO take precidence over my opinion.

Jason

[Tytus Gerrish]

that's a slick move and a briliant tactical manuver. i look forward to seeing it happen.

[Beth Sweet]

You know, when I was on HOT, we did a very similar maneuver (put the giant ball in the robot of the Canadian team with the blue shirts and orange hats) and not only was it not considered poor sportsmanship, it was considered brilliant strategy. Are people offended because this would be intentional penalizing to the other team if they are already holding a ring?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Beth Sweet

You know, when I was on HOT, we did a very similar maneuver (put the giant ball in the robot of the Canadian team with the blue shirts and orange hats)...

That was the aforementioned team 1241; they have orange toques and blue jerseys.

Back on topic, the consternation regarding this being against the spirit of FIRST is a little ridiculous. You can't expect to participate in a competition (or even a competitive environment, like business) where no party seeks to choose the most beneficial strategy for them, within the rules and ethics that govern their enterprise. Where's the ethical fault in causing an opponent to incur this penalty (in the FRC)? They know the rules, and should have studied them well, and as a result, if they didn't anticipate the possibility of this manoeuvre (and protect against it, if desired), they should expect to reap the consequences.

Simply put, there's no harm done, and no violation of the rules; what's the problem? If every strategy that helped your opponents to lose a match were considered so egregious, what sort of competition would we have?*

If the rule is amended, then you have a tacit statement from FIRST that this was not what they intended. If not, exploit the rule to its reasonable limits, and conversely, don't complain to the referees when someone does it to you. It's just part of the game.

I fully support asking the Q&A about it, though. But let's first seek to understand what the status of the Q&A is this year—are responses equivalent to official rules and updates, or are they guidelines for the interpretation of rules? Basically, if the Q&A contradicts a stated rule, which takes precedence this year (it's gone various ways in the past)?

*Don't speak of 2001....

[Imajie]

How can you protect against it if you have the flags on your bot, thats a very easy target for any team.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Imajie

How can you protect against it if you have the flags on your bot, thats a very easy target for any team.

Robots may extend vertically; you could take advantage of that to devise a protective device, if you felt it necessary.

[Ian Curtis]

Thank you Tristan! Remember folks, when Woodie first introduced Gracious Proffessionalism, TIPPING OTHER ROBOTS ON PURPOSE WAS LEGAL! The manualIt was only changed becuase a 121 was so good at it, then would just tip everyone else in the first 20 seconds and use the rest of the match to score as the only robot on the field.

EDIT: Actually, 1997 was the year of Aquatread VI (I know there was a V in it), 121's robot that was too good as tipping, as in 1998, tipping became illegal again.

[Ericgehrken]

This shouldn't be a violation because this was beyond the receiving team's control and the advertantly place the tube into their own possession.

[Alekat]

I could see lots of bots with big flat tops for stacking purposes. Falling ringers could easily land on these surfaces and then all it takes is some lip to keep it from being shaken off.

[KevinH]

If FIRST doesn't take a stance against this, I think this must be considered fair strategy. The only reason for debate is the word 'penalty'; if this word wasn't used it'd be a clear, clean strategy. We'll have to see if FIRST is opposed to us inflicting penalties on other teams intentionally in this situation.

I'm expecting a rule update.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Something more likely to happen, and less likely to elicit FIRST's sympathy, is the very real possibility that a team might drop a tube in a way that it is hung up on their own robot, but still impossible to score or dislodge. In this case, a robot might just be hamstrung for the match, unable to pick up another tube.

[kawelch]

IMHO... having an opponent place a tube on you is not under your control and you should not be penalized. Designing a robot that has the flaw that the tubes it is moving get hung up and can't be removed is a bad design and therefore is subject to not picking up more tubes.