A few thoughts on gracious proffesionalism by a rookie mentor...

[martin417]

When I decided to volunteer to help the local high school robotics team, I had no idea what to expect. I kind of expected small, simple, remote controlled, erector set type machines that would perform simple tasks. I attended the kickoff in January, and was impressed not only with the complexity of the task and robot, but also with the philosophy of the FIRST organization. I love the idea of gracious professionalism and “coopetition”. I really enjoyed working with the kids and other mentors during the build. When I reached the regional (Peachtree regional), I was pleased to find that in the pits, the teams lived up to the motto. They were all gracious, helpful, and professional.

Then, on Friday, the matches started. What a disappointment! I believe that FIRST has done an excellent job of designing a game that encourages attaining a goal. As in real life, one wins by striving to do the best one can to attain his or her goals, not by preventing others from doing so. The game rules are carefully constructed to encourage teams to advance by scoring, and to discourage hindering other teams, a practice that some teams have called “defense”. Since one of the goals of FIRST is to model real life, and in real life, one rarely gets ahead by preventing others from excelling, I understand why the rule framers went to so much trouble to construct an offense only game. As I said, once the matches started, I was appalled. I saw many matches where one or more teams never made an attempt to score, but spent the entire match doing their best to prevent others from scoring. If the game were football, defense would be part of the game, but this is not football. Imagine watching a game of golf, and seeing Tiger Woods run out and tackle another golfer on his back-swing, or attempt to damage his clubs between holes. I saw some teams go so far as to damage other robots, and while I cannot say with certainty, it often appeared to be intentional. This is my first year of involvement with FIRST, and after the introduction I had, I was hoping for better.

I have nothing but praise for the FIRST organization, and all the people that volunteered to make the Peachtree Regional a success. Not all teams engaged in “defense”, I saw many that only did the best they could to score. I was somewhat surprised that the referee’s did not ever call an infraction of rule <G37>, even though I saw several instances that appeared, to my eyes, to be obvious violations.

I spent several days thinking about how to express this concern in a gracious, professional way. I hope I have not offended anyone. The views expressed here are mine, so if I have offended anyone, I apologize. I am curious if I am the only one that sees things this way.

Martin Wilson, PE

[GaryVoshol]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that defense was totally prohibited. Please see the existing thread "Defense, It's still here" http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=61047 Note the quote from the GDC Q&A about defense being allowed.

At the Detroit Regional, the top penalties called were <G22>, <G42> and <G37>. 42 and 37 can both be considered anti-defense rules, or maybe more properly, defense-limiting rules.

[IndySam]

I am sorry that you were disappointed but defense has always been a part of the game. You should have seen the defense played the three previous years, this year is very tame compared to that.

I see nothing about playing defense that is not GP. It's part of the game and is a valid strategy that has always been around.

As far as you golf analogy, defense in golf is a mind game, a good golfer like TW is looking for every advantage they can get including messing with their opponents heads. It's not all GP either.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I'm not sure where you got the idea that defense was totally prohibited.

I did not say that defense was totally prohibited. I merely said that the idea, the spirit of the game, and of FIRST, is to excel by achieving, not by preventing others from achieving (my opinion).

While some defense is legal by the rules, I do not believe that acting in a defense only mode, or intentionally damaging other robots displays gracious professionalism.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by IndySam

You should have seen the defense played the three previous years, this year is very tame compared to that.

I have watched videos of some of last years matches, and I believe that the behavior during some of those matches led to the rules this year to try to prevent some of that behavior. Once again, my opinion.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by martin417

I did not say that defense was totally prohibited. I merely said that the idea, the spirit of the game, and of first, is to excel by achieving, not by preventing others from achieving (my opinion).

While some defense is legal by the rules, I do not believe that acting in a defense only mode, or intentionally damaging other robots displays gracious professionalism.

You are correct that intentionally damaging another robot is not GP and should lead to disqualification.

[dsmoker]

I think one other thing to consider is that not all teams have the same resources in terms of money and mentors, and as a matter of strategy build a robot that is mainly defensive, within the rules of the game, in order to play as part of a successful alliance. I see nothing wrong with the "team" way of strategizing, as long as, as stated above, the idea is to play legal defense and not intentionally damage another team's robot. We have live on defense the past two years, and did so quite successfully. This year, we chose to go on the offensive and had a little bit of a tougher time because, although our robot did what we intended it to do, it could not hurdle as fast as robots built by other teams with more money and mentors (and therefore more sophisticated designs, control systems, etc.). Not that I am begrudging these teams their resources, I am just saying that, for teams like ours, defensive and strategizing as part of an alliance when desigining can be a path to success in the game itself. And this comes from a team that won this year's Johnson and Johnson Gracious Professionalism Award at the CT Regional.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by IndySam

You are correct that intentionally damaging another robot is not GP and should lead to disqualification.

Whether or not it's GP, it's still explicitly against the rules.

Originally Posted by <G37>

ROBOT to 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. In all cases involving ROBOT-to-ROBOT contact, the TEAM may receive a PENALTY and/or their ROBOT may be disqualified if the interaction is inappropriate or excessive...

I haven't seen any of the matches from the Peachtree regional, so I can't comment on the quality or quantity of defense there. But I will risk a wee bit of stereotyping as I point out that about every other match had one or more rookie teams, and that rookie teams are more likely to produce robots that end up being more effective in preventing other teams from scoring than in scoring themselves. If your 'bot can't keep up with the other alliance in laps and hurdling, but can hold them back enough for your partners to keep up, I believe playing defense is the appropriate strategy.

[Taylor]

I would argue that playing defense usually allows your alliancemates more scoring opportunities - the ultimate in teamplay. It also adds to the game challenge - the truly great teams/alliances find ways to overcome defensive strategies.

[kaszeta]

Originally Posted by boiler

I would argue that playing defense usually allows your alliancemates more scoring opportunities - the ultimate in teamplay. It also adds to the game challenge - the truly great teams/alliances find ways to overcome defensive strategies.

Agreed. Heck, one of my favorite years as a mentor[1] was Aim High, because strategy was continuously adapting throughout the competition season, and there were lots of adjustments, counter-strategies, etc (our team re-wrote our autonomous modes several times, and would even change our mode as we saw the other team lining up).

A huge part of FIRST is the team interaction: seeing what other teams are doing, and reacting to it.

[1] Also one of my least favorite, since the 8.2V bug rearing itself at Manchester was one of the most frustrating experiences I've had... But that's another story.

[ebarker]

throwing in a couple of cents here .....

I didn't see but a few matches there but it did seem like a couple of them were a little rough. I hope no one perceives us as being an offender.

Our defensive strategy was to knock opposing alliances balls off the rack near the end game. Our other two strategies was to make laps and knock balls off the rack for alliance mates that needed the ball.

In one match the bot in front of us repeatedly kept backing into our arms and kept creating an entanglement, ultimately causing a 40 point penalty and a yellow card against us. This was the first time I can ever remember seeing a crowd booing loudly and I hope to never see that again.

We seemed to convince the referees the contact wasn't intentional but the score stands.

We went to the pit, cut the arms in half, changed the software, and followed 10 feet back from the robot in front, plenty of stopping distance on slick highways.

aarrghh

[A_Reed]

Originally Posted by martin417

I merely said that the idea, the spirit of the game, and of FIRST, is to excel by achieving, not by preventing others from achieving (my opinion).

Some would love to see this happen but it is not realistic. offensive players are not always gonna get away scott-free.

I'm no engineer but just as it is in every build season you have to overcome adversities to complete you robot within a set of parameters. I imagine real life engineering is the same way.

the adversities in the game would be teams that play defense (Legally) and the teams that overcome will be known at the end of the year as the teams with great strategy and a great robot.

[Boydean]

I agree with you on your concept on GP, I love hearing the different ways GP means to different people. But has stated not only is defense discouraged in the rules,but it is also a bad strategy in the long run for your team. Since your teams ranking score is based off your opponents raw score.

As stated here.

Originally Posted by Section 9.3.5

All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to the un-
penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to their final
score (with any assessed penalties).
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a number of ranking points equal to their
ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).

Originally Posted by Section 9.3.8

The total number of ranking points earned by a team throughout their qualification matches,
divided by the number of matches played (excluding any SURROGATE matches), then truncated
to two decimal places, will be their ranking score.

Note: because your ranking score is derived directly from the match scores of your opponent
ALLIANCES, it is in your interest that both your ALLIANCE and the ALLIANCES you “defeat”
obtain a high score. The most valuable “WIN” results from a close, high-score match.

Although this is something that encourages GP and fair play, I have seen teams who completely discards this section and wipe out their opponents.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by martin417

I did not say that defense was totally prohibited.

OK, "totally prohibited" was probably an exaggeration.

I merely said that the idea, the spirit of the game, and of FIRST, is to excel by achieving, not by preventing others from achieving (my opinion).

An opinion not totally shared by everyone, but you are entitled to your opinion and to defending it. Well done in that respect.

While some defense is legal by the rules, I do not believe that acting in a defense only mode, or intentionally damaging other robots displays gracious professionalism.

I totally agree here. However I've rarely seen a team that is intent on destroying another team's robot. Playing physically, yes. Sometimes outside the rules, yes, and then we hope that the referees saw it as well. But for the 4 years I've been involved with FRC, I've not seen malicious destruction.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

But for the 4 years I've been involved with FRC, I've not seen malicious destruction.

In one of the quarterfinal matches, I observed a team deploy their manipulator (when their ball was not in the vicinity and therefore had no reason to deploy) causing it to become entangled with the arm of an opposing alliance bot. This team then backed up at full speed, ripping off the arm of the other bot. At the conclusion of that match, a team member was observed high-fiveing the driver of the offending bot and exclaiming "Dude! you are a beast!"

While not proof of intention, certainly not GP.