Tipping opponents robots

[Joe Johnson]

All,
I am not a FIRST Noob. It's been a decade and a half since I read the Parade Article "They're competing with their minds - and loving it" by Michael Ryan (by the way, free Mt. Dew to someone who can find an online copy of that article for me to link to) -- an article that changed the arc of my life in ways too numerous to list...

I am asking for this discussion because

a) I have a new team with new drivers and one of the most aggressive chassis I have ever built. I really am looking for guidance. But more importantly,
b) I think that our lovely ChiefDelphi.com Fori have lost something in the several years since I have been away chasing a white rabbit called Robotic Amusements. We've lost the kind of discussions we used to have about what it means to be a FAS and non-FAS. Of course, we still have them but the signal to noise ratio is not what it once was.

I think we all can elevate our game here if we want to. As a small example, we can ask questions that are of specific interest but we can ask them in a way that has more general applicability.

So... ...the effort for me starts today. When are you going to start bringing your A Game to these fori?

Don't take too long thinking about it. We need more of us working to build the world we want to live in.

Join me...

Joe J.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

When are you going to start bringing your A Game to these fori?

Joe J.

OK, buddy. I am with ya. I promise to pay more attention to the fori and be a better CD user and mentor.

Andy B.

[ExTexan]

I think we all can elevate our game here if we want to. As a small example, we can ask questions that are of specific interest but we can ask them in a way that has more general applicability.

So... ...the effort for me starts today. When are you going to start bringing your A Game to these fori?

Don't take too long thinking about it. We need more of us working to build the world we want to live in.

I am hoping that this is not as condescending as it could be interpreted.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

All,
I am not a FIRST Noob. It's been a decade and a half since I read the Parade Article "They're competing with their minds - and loving it" by Michael Ryan (by the way, free Mt. Dew to someone who can find an online copy of that article for me to link to) -- an article that changed the arc of my life in ways too numerous to list...

I am asking for this discussion because

a) I have a new team with new drivers and one of the most aggressive chassis I have ever built. I really am looking for guidance. But more importantly,
b) I think that our lovely ChiefDelphi.com Fori have lost something in the several years since I have been away chasing a white rabbit called Robotic Amusements. We've lost the kind of discussions we used to have about what it means to be a FAS and non-FAS. Of course, we still have them but the signal to noise ratio is not what it once was.

I think we all can elevate our game here if we want to. As a small example, we can ask questions that are of specific interest but we can ask them in a way that has more general applicability.

So... ...the effort for me starts today. When are you going to start bringing your A Game to these fori?

Don't take too long thinking about it. We need more of us working to build the world we want to live in.

Join me...

Joe J.

Ok, I'll bite, I just spent 20 minutes searching for that article. I think I found out a lot of stuff about the right Michael Ryan but was unable to find the article. Parade's online archives only date back to 2003.

Joe, my opinion, let the robots play. 397 has an aggressive chassis, a skilled driver, and we can't flip her if we try (we tried). FAS or non-FAS we should design robots such that they are hard to flip. Who knows, you might learn something.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

It's been a decade and a half since I read the Parade Article "They're competing with their minds - and loving it" by Michael Ryan (by the way, free Mt. Dew to someone who can find an online copy of that article for me to link to) -- an article that changed the arc of my life in ways too numerous to list...

I know I have a copy of that somewhere. I've moved too many times since then though so I have no idea where "somewhere" is... If I remember right, I'm in one of the pictures in that article, which is why I kept it.

Interestingly... that article was written back when tipping was perfectly legal!

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I am not a FIRST Noob.

Believe me, Dr. Joe, we know ... and I still have a set of bow-tied BB Carrier plates to prove it

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by ExTexan

I am hoping that this is not as condescending as it could be interpreted.

Nothing bad intended. If I insulted folks I am sorry.

I am not generally one of these guys who talks about the old days and gets all teary eyed, perhaps you are right in pointing out my "we've lost something" slant.

BUT regardless... ...There is no doubt that there is a lot of noise on the signal on these fori. There are 100 threads on that very topic.

I am calling all hand not to give up on them but to do something about it. Clearly we can make this place better. We can post more interesting posts, we can be the cooling rods when things get out of hand, we can be the moral compass when folks have lost their way. We can make this a place where good discussion flourishes and lousy conversationalists (aka flamers) move on.

That is my point.

Joe J.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

OK, buddy. I am with ya. I promise to pay more attention to the fori and be a better CD user and mentor.

Andy B.

Oh, thank goodness.

Jane

P.S. Thank you, Dr. Joe.

[ExTexan]

Fair enough, I commit to my best shot. However, CD being the largest, best and practically only outlet for the huge number of increasingly diverse student body involved with FIRST, I liken this noise to a robotics event.....better learn to wear earplugs because it's not going away!

[eugenebrooks]

I witnessed a robot aggressively push another robot about 10 feet,
eventually into the bump at 45 degrees, tipping it, at SVR. I was
surprised that there was no penalty as the action appeared to have
no other purpose. It did not happen again, so I presume that ref's
told the team that this behavior was a bad idea. I thought it was
a fine example of bad behavior on the competition field.

Eugene

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by ExTexan

Fair enough, I commit to my best shot. However, CD being the largest, best and practically only outlet for the huge number of increasingly diverse student body involved with FIRST, I liken this noise to a robotics event.....better learn to wear earplugs because it's not going away!

Richard,
Over the past few years, we have lost some valuable input/guidance/humor/insight/integrity in CD because some of the folks who have helped to provide that have all but disappeared. Their posts definitely have. They may still check in or hang around and read but their posts have ceased - and it's sad. It could be that the chatter and noise level have made people grow tired of CD - I have no idea. Also, I'm not saying that members have to stay bound to CD forever, but there is always room for improvement and for good discussion to flourish, encouraged by thought-provoking and insightful posts.

When Andy Baker stopped wading into the middle of a ruckus or a good thread turned bad - or he stopped creating threads that introduced interesting topics, it was a loss for the CD community. The pathways to his knowledge, wisdom, and humor were closed. Shut down. Same with Dr. Joe. Those are just 2 examples where the standard of excellence was weakened and the whole of the fori suffered. Are they the only 2 people who matter to CD? No - but their absence has been felt. Missed. And there are more who could help bring it back into balance and restrengthen the standard of excellence. All of us.

I'll hush now and let you guys get back to your tipping talk.

Jane

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by eugenebrooks

I witnessed a robot aggressively push another robot about 10 feet,
eventually into the bump at 45 degrees, tipping it, at SVR. I was
surprised that there was no penalty as the action appeared to have
no other purpose. It did not happen again, so I presume that ref's
told the team that this behavior was a bad idea. I thought it was
a fine example of bad behavior on the competition field.

Eugene

Eugene,
See now that doesn't sound so bad to me... ...well until the tipping it bit. But the first part.

Suppose there is a defender harassing your prize scoring robot in the near zone. It seems to me that it is a FAS to push them across the field and even a bit onto the bump, holding them for a bit (until the pinning rules kick in) if necessary to defend my partner.

But of course, if we intend to tip them in the end, I suppose we've crossed the line even if we don't actually manage to accomplish it.

Thoughts?
Joe J.

[hektormagee]

Originally Posted by Homsar66

*sighs* Well they at least they're going to accomplish their goal of making it similar to mainstream sports. I think this year will leave more than a few teams unhappy with referee decisions.

Haha. Sounds just like High School football!

[eugenebrooks]

The robot might have been harassing the robot that tipped them,
and pushing a robot is fair game, but the tip in the end, if that
was the intent, is not fair game. If it were to happen twice
it would become clear to the refs that it was intentional and
would likely be penalized. No other scorer and no balls were
in play when it happened, but it does take at least two such
events to establish a pattern.

Pinning has its limits in the rules, but pushing a robot back and
forth to keep it out of play has no limit in the rules that I know
of. This keeps the robot out of play, but also ties up your robot
doing it. Purposely tipping to put a robot out of play is not fair game,
in my opinion.

There are many situations where a robot might end up tipped
that are not purposeful. As an example, using your robot to
run interference on the other side of a bump might end up
with a tipped robot if it keeps coming over the bump on top
of the robot running interference. This, in my opinion, is
fair game. The tip was the result of an action taken by
the robot that ended up tipped.

The bottom line is that the line between the results of aggressive
but reasonable play and an intentional tipping strategy is a fine one.
In the end it is up to the refs to decide. I would not come to
a match thinking that there is a free license to tip another robot
to put it out for the rest of the match.

Eugene

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Eugene,
See now that doesn't sound so bad to me... ...well until the tipping it bit. But the first part.

Suppose there is a defender harassing your prize scoring robot in the near zone. It seems to me that it is a FAS to push them across the field and even a bit onto the bump, holding them for a bit (until the pinning rules kick in) if necessary to defend my partner.

But of course, if we intend to tip them in the end, I suppose we've crossed the line even if we don't actually manage to accomplish it.

Thoughts?
Joe J.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by ExTexan

I am hoping that this is not as condescending as it could be interpreted.

Dr Joe just has a talent for making bold predictions and pushing the forum in new directions. For those that join from 2008 and on, that is where the Looking Forward prediction concept came from.

Originally Posted by eugenebrooks

There are many situations where a robot might end up tipped
that are not purposeful. As an example, using your robot to
run interference on the other side of a bump might end up
with a tipped robot if it keeps coming over the bump on top
of the robot running interference. This, in my opinion, is
fair game. The tip was the result of an action taken by
the robot that ended up tipped.

Where this type of play is particularly important is defending against a robot that hangs from the bump. I have seen very inconsistent calls for this, from ranging from no penalty to a red card and a penalty.

I really can't understand the red card and a penalty (from regional I will not mention out of respect, and to keep this discussion constructive dont post regionals either). The team didnt have a prior yellow card. Neither robot is touching the tower so no protection rules and that wasn't the call. So a <G36> yellow card for tipping should be the max for this offence. I think the ultimate call was a <G38> (penalty & red card) which obviously doesn't apply because both robots are on the bump so it is permitted under <G37>.

I made a point to watch these type of calls at our regional to feel out what was RAS (Ref Appropriate Strategy) and I was satisfied with how it was called. I would have used that strategy if given the chance.