Rules that I think should be changed.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by 2641Captain

I want everyone's opinion on two rules that I think are too harsh. The two rules I am referring to are:

<G34> FINALE PERIOD ROBOT Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in contact with their TOWER or in contact with an ELEVATED ALLIANCE partner may not be contacted by an opponent. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

<G35> FINALE PERIOD TOWER Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in may not contact the OPPONENT’S TOWER. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.
Let me know what you think.

I see both of these as safety rules. Not because robots might get damaged but because the field might. In Ann Arbor 2337 had 2619 hang off them on the practice field (Something we never got to do in competition ). Given the number of people we had to have stand on the other side of the tower to keep it from flipping I would NOT want robots hanging being hit and swinging around as it would cause further stresses on the tower and its anchoring.

[Tuba4]

During qualification match 38 in which 63, 128 and 2641 were allied against 1114, 128 and 2641 did successfully block 1114 from the tower without contacting the tower. So tower defense CAN be done!!! You did it!! The result was a 6-6 tie, the only blemish on 1114's record.

[Tom Line]

I don't mean to be emotional here, but this stems from several events that happened at a recent competition we were in. There is a very, VERY good reason that robots ARE NOT ALLOWED to beat on robots that are trying to lift.

Have you ever seen a 150 pound robot fall 4 feet to the ground? It really doesn't matter how strong you make your bot - all that weight is guaranteed to destroy things. Two bots at the competition decided to blatently ignore the rules about contact while lifting, and took a run at us. One smashed into us over and over as we lifted, causing considerable damage (and no small amount of ill will because it appeared that they were actively trying to damage us).

We just spent 2 months of our life devoting every waking minute to building a robot that works well. Allowing another bot to dismantle it by knocking folks off the tower would be... well... just plain silly. Plus, there's absolutely NO way to make a bot that isn't going to be damaged by a fall from 4, 6, or even 8 feet.

Hanging's hard enough already, isn't it?

[Nuttle89]

Originally Posted by 2641Captain

I want everyone's opinion on two rules that I think are too harsh. The two rules I am referring to are:

<G34> FINALE PERIOD ROBOT Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in contact with their TOWER or in contact with an ELEVATED ALLIANCE partner may not be contacted by an opponent. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

<G35> FINALE PERIOD TOWER Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in may not contact the OPPONENT’S TOWER. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

There are two real problems with these rules that I can think of. First, as a part of playing good defense it is a good idea to block the tower without touching it, but it is very hard from my experience to see when you are close to the tower and if you are actually touching it. Second, the second half of the rules talks about obvious intentional contact. This is up to interpretation and I believe that it is a lot of pressure to put on an official, and it is difficult to really tell what someone's intentions are.

I would like to recommend that the rule is kept, but changed slightly with a less severe penalty such as a loss of points or a yellow card. I think a RED CARD should only be used for something that really has changed the game in a way that mischievous.

Let me know what you think.

I think what is in greatest need of clarification here is "obviously intentional contact." Based on the redcard offense, one would think "malicious" would be a better suited term. I can easily see a justifyable redcard for teams who intentionally try to ram hanging robots off the tower.

I suppose what really is at stake here: Is the rule a measure of safety or strategical limitation? That is, is the rule in place solely to discourage hanging defence, or is it more the issue of robot + gravity = bad? Perhaps Q&A will have an answer...

[Thuperscout]

"The rule should indicate that the tower is not to be interfered with ...so that robots can hang... a simple touch of the tower is not interference ...especially when no robot is even trying to hang..."

But where do you distinguish between a tap and a push? An accidental tap, for some teams' hanging mechanisms can cause disaster. The rules are for the safety of all robots, and are extremely needed. Hanging is already hard enough to do, so why would you add this extra obstacle? Some team could tap the tower "accidently" and say, "It was just a tap, we didn't mean it..." but it still could result in serious damage. Staying away from the tower is a good idea in my opinion.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Nuttle89

I suppose what really is at stake here: Is the rule a measure of safety or strategical limitation? That is, is the rule in place solely to discourage hanging defence, or is it more the issue of robot + gravity = bad? Perhaps Q&A will have an answer...

It's quite clearly both.

[Vikesrock]

The bottom line of this one is simple, either you stay the heck away from the tower starting at ~25 seconds or you are playing with fire.

$10 says that 1114 thought of the fact that it would be much more difficult to defend their hang (in addition to other benefits) if they hung from their near zone and factored that into their design decisions. I know it was a factor in my mind when we designed our hanger.

Defending a hang in the far zone is an extremely risky proposition, without camera input I would liken it to Russian Roulette.

[dtengineering]

The best way to deal with an opponent who is going to hang is to go and hang yourself.

Er... maybe that sounded a bit odd... but it is clear that, from time to time, the GDC will add rules to promote offense.

That is because defense is simply easier to do. Defense, for the most part, increases entropy... offense has to reduce it.

Thermodynamics says that offense is harder than defense.

Jason

[2641Captain]

I by no means would ever want to see this rule changed so robots could knock other robots off the tower. Instead I would like this rule changed so if you go to block a robot from getting to the tower and you accidently bump it you don't get thrown out of the competion. To me the read card seems extremly harsh.

[Mr MOE]

Many have already answered the question originally posted in this forum. It appears that the intent of the GDC is clear. I would strongly suggest that you accept the rules as they are and move on. There are always rules we don't agree with, just like in life.

Our character is defined by how we respond.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by 2641Captain

I by no means would ever want to see this rule changed so robots could knock other robots off the tower. Instead I would like this rule changed so if you go to block a robot from getting to the tower and you accidently bump it you don't get thrown out of the competion.

If this were legal, I would have designed a hanger that could reach over a defender.

I think that's what it comes down to, really. This rule should have impacted everyone's design so randomly changing it because you want to stop Hanger XYZ is going to hurt teams with foresight.

[2641Captain]

I just wanted a couple of opinions. Thanks for your input.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

The best way to deal with an opponent who is going to hang is to go and hang yourself.

Er... maybe that sounded a bit odd... but it is clear that, from time to time, the GDC will add rules to promote offense.

That is because defense is simply easier to do. Defense, for the most part, increases entropy... offense has to reduce it.

Thermodynamics says that offense is harder than defense.

Jason

Shooting fish in a barrel isn't hard, either. This argument is soooo much like the all student vs. all engineer built robot arguments, where no one ever agrees to meet in the middle. The game is at its best (such as the hot topic semifinals in Pittsburgh, or the 63 vs. 1114 qualifying tie) when there is a BALANCE of tough defense and offensive scoring THROUGH the defense; not when everyone gets out of each other's way and "fake" scores into empty nets.

I believe the rules regarding tower contact should be preserved as written; however, I hope referees take a sensible approach to applying them under certain situations, especially if a defensive robot is pushed into the tower by a would-be hanger. People absolutely love to cite that "devil made me do it" rule to protect offenders; last I checked, that protection is built into the rules for ALL robots, regardless of what strategies they are employing at the time.

Sure, it would be great for robots to be able to hang to counteract the opponent's hanging; however, many robots were simply not designed to hang from the start, or they decided to abandon hanging later in the season, and I see no problem with that. I don't see 63 or 3138 or 217 hanging around anywhere, and they are doing just fine. Many teams made a conscious effort not to hang because they didn't see the reward - 2 points - worth the risk and application of weight/time/resources/higher CG relative to their drivetrain and kicking mechanisms, which are far more critical to affecting the net score of the match. You hang for show; kick for dough.

Apparently, this type of tower defense is quite the challenge - not easy at all, otherwise, teams wouldn't be asking for rule changes to make it easier. Sounds like quite the marketable skill for an elimination round alliance for those who can master the practice. It is agreed by many that both hanging and defense are more valuable in the eliminations; being able to block hanging while applying effective defense without penalty requires true practice and skill, just like any other offensive endeavor. I say go for it, but be ready to accept the consequences if your execution lags behind your passion for the strategy.

[JesseK]

The reasons for the harsh penalties in these two rules are plain and simple to me:

1. Being under defense while hanging increases incidental contact while hanging
2. Incidental contact while hanging 3 feet in the air increases the risk of damaging one or more robots
3. Let's face it, some teams will literally try to pull another robot down off the tower, regardless of intent of any "defense is allowed" rule
4. Damaging one or more robots ruins many individuals' day
5. Damaging one or more robot while in contact with the tower may also damage the tower, ruining everyone's day due to the delay caused by repairing the tower

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by Mr MOE

Many have already answered the question originally posted in this forum. It appears that the intent of the GDC is clear. I would strongly suggest that you accept the rules as they are and move on. There are always rules we don't agree with, just like in life.

Our character is defined by how we respond.

That reply is all anyone needs to read after reading the first post.

Some people just do not learn when to stop and deal with it.