Intentionally tipping and disabling your own robot FTW...

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by SlimBoJones

Which leads to another interesting dilemma. The tipped, disabled robot can incur no more penalties of ANY kind, based on the way the rule is written. This essentially grants the team "immunity" from the moment the e-stop is hit.

1) A referee would be handcuffed in trying to penalize the team for breaking the spirit of FIRST. Even if it was the right thing to do.

2) If you really wanted to cover your bases, you would hit the e-stop as your robot was in the process of tipping, before it tipped to the point of penetrating the 80" diameter cylinder. I don't think robots that tip over, and as a result, extend beyond the 80" diameter cylinder, will be penalized however.

3) Getting through the blocking, tipped, disabled robot would probably mean pushing it hard enough to bend or break something, especially if it was designed specifically for the purpose of blocking. That also poses a very high risk for penalties for the opposing alliance trying to push through, especially if the bumper zone vs non-bumper zone contact penalties are still in effect for the disabled, tipped robot.

Effectively you've created a situation where your alliance is winning, scoring is frozen, you cannot incur penalties, and you've created a very strong incentive for your opponent to take a penalty.

Strategists drool. Gracious professionals cringe.

Any drooling strategists might not have yet fully thought through things. It seems possible that someone might have foreseen this potential little dilemma and already have a solution in mind should any team attempt to use this as a strategy.

Notice that the (revised) rule indicates that a disabled Robot will not receive any additional PENALTIES. It does not say anything about being immune from receiving a RED CARD (note that in the formal definitions, they are not the same thing).

-dave

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Notice that the (revised) rule indicates that a disabled Robot will not receive any additional PENALTIES. It does not say anything about being immune from receiving a RED CARD (note that in the formal definitions, they are not the same thing).

There's a practical problem with that, though: you can't directly get a red card for egregious behaviour, only a yellow card (according to <T05>), unless the red card results from two yellow cards in two separate matches (due to <T07>). Also, <T09> tells us that red cards can be recieved directly, for disqualifications that don't result from yellow cards—but then the grounds for disqualification need to be something else. That brings us back to the subject of the thread: there doesn't seem to be a sanction with immediate punitive results, unless the behaviour is repeated in more than one match (in which case another yellow card will quickly deal with the offender).

While the referees will obviously hand out a yellow card every time this happens, that does give a team a theoretical opportunity to use this strategy once in the qualifying rounds and once in the elimination rounds, without being disqualified.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

There's a practical problem with that, though: you can't directly get a red card for egregious behaviour, only a yellow card (according to <T05>), unless the red card results from two yellow cards in two separate matches (due to <T07>). Also, <T09> tells us that red cards can be recieved directly, for disqualifications that don't result from yellow cards—but then the grounds for disqualification need to be something else. That brings us back to the subject of the thread: there doesn't seem to be a sanction with immediate punitive results, unless the behaviour is repeated in more than one match (in which case another yellow card will quickly deal with the offender).

While the referees will obviously hand out a yellow card every time this happens, that does give a team a theoretical opportunity to use this strategy once in the qualifying rounds and once in the elimination rounds, without being disqualified.

Hmmm. Tristan, didn't you ref at one point? If so, would you consider a 9-13 foot tall robot falling towards either the robots or the refs/scorers/judges as a safety hazard? And, if a robot is deemed a safety hazard, it can be DQ'd, right? Not only that, but if it is routinely a safety hazard, the refs can refuse to allow it to compete until it is no longer a hazard, if I read the rules correctly.

I may be lawyering the rules a bit much, but I think this is the easy way to discourage this/allow red cards. Also, this effectively disables other robots (even more of a stretch).

[Koko Ed]

Unless your robot is completely offensively inept I cannot see any reason to purposely disabling it. And considering that any robot that can move can score this strategy shouldn't be given any consideration unless you are completely insane.

[Mr. Lim]

A couple people have posted responses as to why a team would even consider a strategy like this. Why waste your engineering resources on this type of mechanism, etc. Why not try and score instead?

Consider a few things:

1) What does your perfect alliance consist of? Mine is 2 extremely effective hurdlers, and one other robot. There are only two alliance trackballs, and assuming your 2 hurdlers can maintain possession of the ball throughout most of the match, your 3rd robot should never interact with a trackball. There is no "viable" defensive strategy, so what is your ideal 3rd robot supposed to do?

DRIVE REALLY FAST, make 10 laps, and score 20 points right? THAT, in my opinion, is waste of engineering resources. Most every FIRST team probably feels they are capable of doing much more, and I predict most will! But a 3rd robot that can herd or hurdle is no better than one that can't. It should never touch a ball, so why bother having the capability of herding or hurdling?

I'm looking for a 3rd robot that doesn't need to herd or hurdle, but can still change the outcome of a match. Wouldn't a robot like this fit the bill?

If you're an alliance captain making your last pick, and you have a field of mediocre herders and hurdlers, or a speedster that can spontaneously decide to be "tippy, disably, and extendy" at the perfect moment, who are you going to pick?

If your team consistantly qualifies 16 or lower at an event, will be fighting for a 3rd robot spot in the eliminations, and you are seriously thinking about WINNING an event (remember, it's not everything, but it IS important to many), these are viable strategy decisions.

2) Over the years, the serpentine draft has added some interesting complexion to 3rd robot picks. No doubt, this "tippy, disably, and extendy" speedster will be offensively weak. During qualifications, I would expect it to do very poorly, and rank at or near the bottom, which is actually a very good thing for the team. Most "terrible" robots that rank dead last with no discernable scoring capabilities tend to not be picked.

The caveat is that during the last round of picks, generally, the last to pick, higher ranked teams have more scouting and strategy experience. They would be the most likely to recognize that your "tippy, disably, and extendy" speedster is actually an EXCELLENT 3rd robot.

From this standpoint, strategy decisions like this can vault your team from the bottom of the rankings, to regional winners before you even cut your first piece of metal.

I personally don't think it would be so strange for a team to consider doing something like this.

It would kill me though if I ever saw it done on purpose.

[IbleedPink233]

Originally Posted by SlimBoJones

A couple people have posted responses as to why a team would even consider a strategy like this. Why waste your engineering resources on this type of mechanism, etc. Why not try and score instead?

Consider a few things:

1) What does your perfect alliance consist of? Mine is 2 extremely effective hurdlers, and one other robot. There are only two alliance trackballs, and assuming your 2 hurdlers can maintain possession of the ball throughout most of the match, your 3rd robot should never interact with a trackball. There is no "viable" defensive strategy, so what is your ideal 3rd robot supposed to do?

DRIVE REALLY FAST, make 10 laps, and score 20 points right? THAT, in my opinion, is waste of engineering resources. Most every FIRST team probably feels they are capable of doing much more, and I predict most will! But a 3rd robot that can herd or hurdle is no better than one that can't. It should never touch a ball, so why bother having the capability of herding or hurdling?

I'm looking for a 3rd robot that doesn't need to herd or hurdle, but can still change the outcome of a match. Wouldn't a robot like this fit the bill?

If you're an alliance captain making your last pick, and you have a field of mediocre herders and hurdlers, or a speedster that can spontaneously decide to be "tippy, disably, and extendy" at the perfect moment, who are you going to pick?

If your team consistantly qualifies 16 or lower at an event, will be fighting for a 3rd robot spot in the eliminations, and you are seriously thinking about WINNING an event (remember, it's not everything, but it IS important to many), these are viable strategy decisions.

2) Over the years, the serpentine draft has added some interesting complexion to 3rd robot picks. No doubt, this "tippy, disably, and extendy" speedster will be offensively weak. During qualifications, I would expect it to do very poorly, and rank at or near the bottom, which is actually a very good thing for the team. Most "terrible" robots that rank dead last with no discernable scoring capabilities tend to not be picked.

The caveat is that during the last round of picks, generally, the last to pick, higher ranked teams have more scouting and strategy experience. They would be the most likely to recognize that your "tippy, disably, and extendy" speedster is actually an EXCELLENT 3rd robot.

From this standpoint, strategy decisions like this can vault your team from the bottom of the rankings, to regional winners before you even cut your first piece of metal.

I personally don't think it would be so strange for a team to consider doing something like this.

It would kill me though if I ever saw it done on purpose.

You are very much limiting the strategies that a team can use - even to the point of being unrealistic. I can almost guarantee that there will be no robot that will be able to perfectly keep control of their ball for an entire match while Hurdling - the rules appear to be designed to prevent that. Also, a robot without a Trackball is still able to do things such as: play defense (which there are plenty of "viable" ways to do, just poke around the forums), herd opponents' balls, etc. Limiting them to doing laps and the freak chance that tipping over can help you win one match is making that robot a very inflexible robot, and thus, a poor pick for any alliance. Even ignoring any possible penalties, I know that my team - with a great scouting and intelligence system that I am a part of - would only pick that robot over another that could only go around the Track 9 times, they are by no means an "EXCELLENT" pick.
Not to mention - if you are going to be 9 ft tall anyway, why not try to score? Why would you design a bot that had a tower that would only be used once per regional?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by EricH

Hmmm. Tristan, didn't you ref at one point? If so, would you consider a 9-13 foot tall robot falling towards either the robots or the refs/scorers/judges as a safety hazard? And, if a robot is deemed a safety hazard, it can be DQ'd, right? Not only that, but if it is routinely a safety hazard, the refs can refuse to allow it to compete until it is no longer a hazard, if I read the rules correctly.

I may be lawyering the rules a bit much, but I think this is the easy way to discourage this/allow red cards. Also, this effectively disables other robots (even more of a stretch).

I was actually considering posting exactly that, but decided against it. I figured that if the team is smart (and crazy) enough to plan out a strategy using this technique, they'll also be smart enough to fall toward the centre divider.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I was actually considering posting exactly that, but decided against it. I figured that if the team is smart (and crazy) enough to plan out a strategy using this technique, they'll also be smart enough to fall toward the centre divider.

Yeah, but the best-laid plans...

The main thing is that this can effectively disable other robots. Call me a lawyer if you will, but that is explicitly prohibited and is a cardable offense, up to a Red Card for the first attempt/success and at minimum a penalty at first.

And the GDC will probably take measures as soon as someone tries this. (And, if the refs are smart, as soon as the robot starts going over, they will start pulling out flags for impeding/80" violation.)

[Compnerd]

Has anyone considered that if your robot is tipped and is laying down, and robots are running into it, my bet is that your going to have some serious damage to your bot... Penalties would be the least of my worries in this situation, as this could potentially take you out of the entire competion depending on the severity of the damages..

[IbleedPink233]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

There's a practical problem with that, though: you can't directly get a red card for egregious behaviour, only a yellow card (according to <T05>), unless the red card results from two yellow cards in two separate matches (due to <T07>). Also, <T09> tells us that red cards can be recieved directly, for disqualifications that don't result from yellow cards—but then the grounds for disqualification need to be something else. That brings us back to the subject of the thread: there doesn't seem to be a sanction with immediate punitive results, unless the behaviour is repeated in more than one match (in which case another yellow card will quickly deal with the offender).

While the referees will obviously hand out a yellow card every time this happens, that does give a team a theoretical opportunity to use this strategy once in the qualifying rounds and once in the elimination rounds, without being disqualified.

Ummm, as a general rule, you don't want to nitpick the words of someone on the GDC! When they deal with the intent or organization of the rules, especially, they know more about it than any of us!

Also, why would you build a robot that is designed to fall once during an entire regional? That means that you either have to waste the resources to actuate something strong enough to tip over your bot and make the entire robot durable enough to withstand the impact (ie lots of weight and engineering time) for such a tiny gain OR you have to risk the safety of your robot to tip it over when it is not designed to do that. Either way, you are hurting yourself in the long run, if not the short run, as well.