Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid

[Cory]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Regardless of the ramming team's intent, high-speed ramming penalties exist to protect the other robots from damage.

<G37> (as follows) would disagree to an extent:

a. High speed accidental collisions are likely to occur during the MATCH, and are an expected part of the game. However, high-speed intentional (emphasis mine) ramming is not acceptable and will be penalized.

It says quite clearly in no fewer than 4 places throughout G37 that robots must be designed to withstand high speed collisions as this is a high speed game.

It seems to me the entire point of G37 is to keep robots as it says, from pursuing strategies involving intentional damage or destruction of opposing robots. It clearly makes reference to accidental collisions at high speed being expected, and the necessity for teams to make robust robots due to such high speed interaction.

The only mention of handing out a penalty for high speed ramming is when the offending team intentionally does so. I will admit that intent is nearly impossible to judge normally, but I think during hybrid intent is quite clear.

For example, a robot with an excellent hybrid mode who nearly always crosses 3-4 lines is not going to collide with a team on purpose. That would be totally counterproductive towards their own scoring. Therefore if they collide with another team, I would assume it was incidental.

My concern lies almost exclusively with teams who have the intent to block the lane in their own home zone.

I guarantee that with certain teams very effectively shutting down all traffic in their home zone by parking 3' out in front of the lane divider, this will become a prominent strategy by many teams who have weak hybrid modes.

If this becomes common, sooner or later some team with a good, fast hybrid mode (such as 1114, or 1024, or others that we saw this weekend) is going to collide with the blocking team at high speed.

Is the team who is trying to score points in hybrid by effectively completing the task at hand going to be penalized for ramming a team that quite clearly intended to do nothing more productive than ruining the hybrid routines for the other alliance? If so, I will be extremely unhappy.

As long as the GDC wants to let teams impede others in hybrid (which seems to be what update 2 and 5 are saying), it seems entirely unfair to punish a team which may collide with them.

[thefro526]

We thought about using this strategy in some of our matches but did not have the opportunity. I see this being addressed in the next update

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by thefro526

We thought about using this strategy in some of our matches but did not have the opportunity. I see this being addressed in the next update

How do you think will be addressed? Can't a robot that has no autonomous and just sits there be guilty of impeding? Or a robot that just decieds to cross the first line and stops?

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by tawnos23

I believe an update allows impeding in hybrid mode.

Unintentional impeding is allowed, however intentional impeding is not allowed in hybrid mode from the Q&A.

Originally Posted by Q&A

Rule <G38> and Rule <G40> were modified to remove any concerns that teams may have about inadvertently impeding robots during the Hybrid Period. This was to avoid an unrealistic requirement that the robots be able to autonomously recognize and respond to "Bump To Pass" signals or identify and steer around stalled robots on the Track during the Hybrid Period. The purpose of these modifications is not to permit the intentional blocking of the Track during Hybrid Period.

The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized. However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.

I was at the midwest regional today, and it was obvious that robots moved forward to block 1024's amazing autonomous modes. The refs never called a penalty. It is not like this happened just once, teams were doing it to them all day.
Joey

[TomZ]

I will not name names. Anyone who watches the matches will see quite a few teams, and a very low number team in particular who should know better, blocking in quite a few hybrid modes.

I'll say it again. These teams should know better. I will have our drivers bring it up to the Wayne State folks during the drivers meeting, and they will be ready to talk the refs after EVERY match that they see this strategy in.

Hybrid mode is something that is very difficult to do, and good ones should be celebrated. Not stopped by a clearly illegal tactic.

[Shankar M]

Originally Posted by Cory

Is the team who is trying to score points in hybrid by effectively completing the task at hand going to be penalized for ramming a team that quite clearly intended to do nothing more productive than ruining the hybrid routines for the other alliance?

I am definitely in the camp for letting the teams who have the prowess to write amazing autonomous modes strut their stuff. The best of the best should be allowed to showcase their talents to everyone, and I am sure everyone is equally anxious to see what these teams have come up with. However, to suggest that teams that are not quite at that level sit idly by and let their opponents rack up points seems a bit unfair.

If your robot was not able to circle the track, or at least not able to circle the track as many times as your opponent, are you going to let them drive around untouched? Isn't that just giving up before you've even started?

In an ideal situation, of course everyone is crossing as many lines as they possibly can. Unfortunately this is not always possible for all teams, so they are forced to adapt. If a team cannot cross four lines, then is it not equally as beneficial for them to stop their opponent from crossing four lines? Is this not the kind of situation that teams consider at the beginning of the season?

Do we want to try and do the scoring, or do we think that we are more suited, more capable of building a very good robot that can limit the number of points our opponent scores?

Offense tends to look more glorious on the field, but it is often a defense that can give teams an edge. This year, the rules seem to be written to provide an advantage to the robots that are out to score. Despite this, teams that were not so adept at scoring showed this weekend that there are ways to play defense.

Although, impeding seems like an ideal defensive measure, the rules seem to indicate that the action of impeding an opponent is illegal. So what does that leave teams that are not able to lap during hybrid to do? What does that leave teams that are able to lap far fewer times than their opponent to do?

[Drwurm]

I saw a lot of impeding today, in hybrid and in tele. I saw robots blatantly
tipped, some while hurdling.

I saw very little in the way of penalties for the teams attempting these, and
no yellow cards. The yellow cards that were handed out seemed very trivial.

That said, this is week one. Perhaps now that there have been some
regionals, the refs at the others will get a feeling for what the real problems
are. This is a tough game to ref, considering in previous years, defense such
as this has been a viable strategy. The definition for impeding is a tough nut
to crack.

Even cracking down on hybrid mode impeding could get tricky. If a team
drives forward at 1ft/s could they claim to have just been in the wrong place
at the wrong time, and it was an "accident" when they blocked the path? I
would hope that no teams stoop to this level, but it's bound to happen some
time. (Hopefully they wouldn't also claim that they were rammed during the
same maneuver....)

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

Unintentional impeding is allowed, however intentional impeding is not allowed in hybrid mode from the Q&A.

I was at the midwest regional today, and it was obvious that robots moved forward to block 1024's amazing autonomous modes. The refs never even said anything. It is not like this happened just once, teams were doing it to them all day. I also didnt see refs calling impeding during teleoperated mode.
Joey

Unfortunately, that GDC response sounds like wishful thinking. It suggests that the referees should estimate the team's intent, which is always a cause for careful consideration among conscientious officials. I suspect that these officials will tend to err on the permissive side, because the opportunity to assign a small sanction (i.e. a 10-point penalty) is not available, and the requirements for a yellow card include "egregious" conduct—which is very tough to justify against a robot playing positional defence under autonomous control against an opponent with an unpredictable path, approaching from behind.

In other words, it's not getting called because the referees don't think that simple defence in hybrid mode is necessarily egregious.

On the other hand, <G40> makes it known that "ROBOTS shall not intentionally IMPEDE the flow of traffic around the TRACK." This statement is part of a rule, but disobeying it carries no specific penalty. Despite the lack of a penalty, it ought to be followed by teams preparing hybrid mode routines.

Of course, the trouble with <G40> is that it doesn't make a clear distinction between intentionally taking an action which might possibly impede an opponent, and intentionally instructing the robot to act an impediment. (And I realize that that is a difficult distinction to express in an enforceable manner!) For example, if Redabot was programmed to advance 1 m and do a series of doughnut maneouvres during the hybrid mode, would it be be intentionally impeding Bluabot, which just happened to want to pass through the same area during its hybrid mode? It's a judgement of intent, and as noted before, those tend to favour the alleged offender, simply because it's too hard to know for sure.

[Jimmy Cao]

I feel that any team taht's intentionally obstructing in autonomous should not only get a penalty, but they should lose protection under the highspeedram rule. I mean... If you move into the way of an autonomous robot that's laping, it's your fault. You cant say they intentionally rammed you. If given the choice, of course they'd rather get the 8 or 12 points for the lap than take you out with an autonomous hit.

I have a feeling there will be a team update on Sunday/Monday/Tuesday that puts a rule simular to what's above into effect.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

For example, if Redabot was programmed to advance 1 m and do a series of doughnut maneouvres during the hybrid mode, would it be be intentionally impeding Bluabot, which just happened to want to pass through the same area during its hybrid mode?

I think the solution is to not consider flagging/carding teams for ramming in Hybrid.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Regardless of the ramming team's intent, high-speed ramming penalties exist to protect the other robots from damage.

Regardless of the team’s intent, teams that move three feet forward and stop should earn themselves a yellow card. Not only to protect both robots from damage, but also to protect the integrity of the way the game is clearly supposed to be played.

[T3_1565]

See the problem with this argument it the fact that the refs have to assume things.. which they aren't going to do. You can't assume they are blocking on purpose, as was said (wrong place at the wrong time). and you can't assume that the speedy bots aren't trying to hit people (they only do laps cause they "miss" the opposing robots). So if you leave it up to assuming they you will get bad calls.

Better to make sure your robot doesn't travel a billion mile an hour around a corner or, like was said, in the opposing zone.

And as was said a billion mile an hour auto mode has never been allowed, why should it be now, whereas defensive autos have always been allowed.

[waialua359]

I just dont think impeding during hybrid is wrong, if the GDC decides not to call it and its "legal."
HOWEVER, if the blocking robot gets hit, that's their fault and the robot ramming into them shouldn't get penalized.

BUT, this whole issue is hard to prove which is why I dont think they will change the rule. What if a team is using a remote, but loses range, and it stops? What if a team doesn't even move from its starting position, but has an opponent ramming into them in the process of trying to do a lap during auto mode? Should that be penalized also?
Its tough. The game calls for scoring more points if you can lap, hurdle and herd faster, yet, if you go too fast and bang someone, its a possible penalty.
No referee or game is perfect and there may be conflicting issues concerning game play. Its just tough.

[Laxphan1525]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

I was at the midwest regional today, and it was obvious that robots moved forward to block 1024's amazing autonomous modes. The refs never even said anything. It is not like this happened just once, teams were doing it to them all day. I also didnt see refs calling impeding during teleoperated mode.
Joey

I was competing at Midwest Regional Event this weekend and you could see on many occasions the refs weren't calling the impeding traffic rule. In fact I think they were more concerned about the ridiculous cross traffic rule. When you’re stuck in a small quadrant with three or four other robots it’s hard to maneuver around. Why are teams penalized for barely crossing the line when clearly there attempting to get around and increase the flow of traffic? As opposed to sitting and waiting in a short game for everyone to clear out. I mean they were even penalizing teams who crossed the lines during autonomous. I think this rule is obnoxious because clearly teams aren't trying to drive clockwise to mess with the game they are just trying to get around the track.

As for 1114 case I say why should they be given a yellow card because they can race around the track 16 feet per second. It’s not like they have control over where teams go. Especially when teams started to pick up on how they can ruin there lap. I could understand if they hey guys why don't you tone done the autonomous a little bit but giving them a yellow card right away I think that was a bad call.

[T3_1565]

Originally Posted by Laxphan1525

I could understand if they hey guys why don't you tone done the autonomous a little bit but giving them a yellow card right away I think that was a bad call.

I agree a verbal warning would of been good, instead of right to the yellow card