Tipping opponents robots

[kirtar]

The only cards that I've seen given for tipping somebody were G34s in which the robot attempting to elevate was rammed repeatedly.

[Cyberphil]

I know I never purposely attempted to flip teams during this past weekend, but inevitably, some teams did flip, or at least went up on their side. Sorry for those who were unfortunate enough to get flipped. But we were never called on it. It was a great regional, and I can't wait for next year already!!

[ThirteenOfTwo]

I was a little irritated at our recent regional with the penalties which were alternately called and not called. Once we lost a match by one point because the refs failed to notice that a team on the opposing alliance had literally had one of its bumpers fall off, and Kalani High School almost got a red card for ending the match directly between a team and its tower (but not touching either and not trying to harass its opponent).

These were understandable mistakes given the amount of stress that the judges were under, but the one thing that was really excessive in its not-being-called was deliberately aggressive play. One team in particular became notorious; nearly every single robot that tried to play defense on them wound up flipped, broken, or stuck in one of the goals and unable to get out because of the two-inch lip. We were one of the very few teams who tried defending on them to make it out of the match intact, and that was pretty much only because a) we had an exceptionally sturdy and low-to-the-ground robot and b) we crossed the bump with a minute remaining to go help our alliance partner in the midfield score some points. Not a single penalty was ever called on them, and they ended up doing extremely well in the tournament. I don't mean to insult them, because they really do have a great robot and a talented driver, and they completely deserved their win, but I felt that the level of aggressiveness that was displayed as a part of their strategy was questionable and should have been called.

Even more prevalent than "accidental" tipping was getting jammed into the goals. If you can believe it, it was actually a defensive strategy discussed by certain teams to wait near the bump until a ball was herded into the goal, then charge the team that herded it in and ram them so hard that they would become stuck, effectively pinning them for the rest of the match. Teams that tried to play defense on robots with high traction by getting between those robots and the goals sometimes ended up with their robot pushed in instead of the ball, effectively neutralizing the entire alliance's defensive capabilities. Maybe the next update should have something to do with this...

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by ThirteenOfTwo

I don't mean to insult them, because they really do have a great robot and a talented driver, and they completely deserved their win, but I felt that the level of aggressiveness that was displayed as a part of their strategy was questionable and should have been called.

You are simply the latest to do this and by no means the most offensive, so I will apologize in advance for the fact that this is directed at your post. I am frankly tired of reading posts like these, and your post was just "the straw that broke the camel's back".

If you are going to post something, and you think it needs a phrase such as "I don't mean to insult them", or "no offense", or another disclaimer of the sort, please resist the temptation to click that button. Your post is almost certainly insulting or offensive, you know this already which is what caused you to add the disclaimer. Take a deep breath, wait a few days to let the emotions of the competition temper a bit, then if you still have a problem with a team address it in the appropriate manner, directly with that team. Many teams can be contacted via an email address on their website. You can also do a member search by team number here on CD and use the private message system to contact the team and ask for contact info for a mentor (if all you find is students or you can't tell if it is a student or mentor)

If you want the opinions of the community on a specific situation, rule, interpretation, or behavior, then please leave team numbers out of it. If you think your description will make it really obvious to people who you are talking about, consider using the FIRSTaholics Anonymous forum to mask what event you are talking about if that will help. What could possibly be gained by bringing team numbers into this type of discussion?

[ThirteenOfTwo]

I understand completely what you mean, and I apologize for bringing up a specific team number in my post. At the time of my original post, I was unaware of the existence of FIRSTaholics Anonymous, and my mentioning that the team in question won the regional, along with the knowledge of where I'm from, would have made it quite obvious which team I was speaking of. The original post has been edited to remove the number of the team from the thread. Mentioning that they did extremely well in the regional was necessary to underline my point that not only does this behavior exist, but it can be genuinely advantageous to use in a competition, and that teams are cottoning on to that fact. In my opinion, FIRST should cotton on too, and start calling it. I understand that judges were put off by the hundreds of penalties called in early regionals, but honestly, certain behavior is completely penalty-worthy. Like I said, this team never did it to us. I hold no hard feelings towards them, and I wholeheartedly congratulate them on their magnificent engineering, which will certainly be something to watch out for at Worlds. However, they are an example of a problem that I think is becoming quite widespread with this year's game. Has anyone else encountered this type of strategy in use?

[waialua359]

The "strategy" is simple.
Put balls into goals.
Your post sounds like we are the defensive bot trying to either flip or pin robots into goals on purpose.

We dont waste time getting into tug of war matches.
Being on offense as a striker, our job is to score balls. If a defensive robot gets in the way by trying to block the goal, what do you expect? We have always tried to push balls into goals regardless of whether a robot is there or not. You will not find a single match where we pushed a robot into a goal, over a bump or flipped over without the intent to possess a ball and/or score.

If you think a penalty should be called in every instance that this has occurred, perhaps you should study the game of soccer.

On another note, we've only use a FP/CIM on each side of our robot for our drive system for the 3 regionals we attended. For CMP, it'll be 2 CIM's on each side. We will continue with the strategy of scoring soccer balls into goals efficiently, with or without defense. As a selling point for our team at CMP for anyone that is looking for a striker, we take great pride in scoring every ball that comes into our zone. Our strategy with our partners is to never aim for goals from the midfield. It takes less time just getting it over the bump and we'll take care of the rest.

[rwood359]

Originally Posted by ThirteenOfTwo

Teams that tried to play defense on robots with high traction by getting between those robots and the goals sometimes ended up with their robot pushed in instead of the ball, effectively neutralizing the entire alliance's defensive capabilities. Maybe the next update should have something to do with this...

The GDC created the dimensions of the goals and of the robots. They designed in the lip on the goal. They wrote the one defensive robot rule without an exception for an incapacitated robot. I don't doubt that they knew that it would be possible for a robot to be pushed into a goal and that it would eliminate the defense.
The game animation warns that tipping is possible and should be considered in robot design. If in the eyes of the referee, a robot in intentionally tipped, it should be called.
All teams had to make design decisions. Some build very agile machines, some build more for power. Using a football analogy, the agile bot would made a good defender for a wide receiver. If it goes in over center on a goal line stand trying to stop a fullback, it is the wrong player for the position.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by ThirteenOfTwo

I was a little irritated at our recent regional with the penalties which were alternately called and not called. Once we lost a match by one point because the refs failed to notice that a team on the opposing alliance had literally had one of its bumpers fall off, and Kalani High School almost got a red card for ending the match directly between a team and its tower (but not touching either and not trying to harass its opponent).

These were understandable mistakes given the amount of stress that the judges were under, but the one thing that was really excessive in its not-being-called was deliberately aggressive play. One team in particular became notorious; nearly every single robot that tried to play defense on them wound up flipped, broken, or stuck in one of the goals and unable to get out because of the two-inch lip. We were one of the very few teams who tried defending on them to make it out of the match intact, and that was pretty much only because a) we had an exceptionally sturdy and low-to-the-ground robot and b) we crossed the bump with a minute remaining to go help our alliance partner in the midfield score some points. Not a single penalty was ever called on them, and they ended up doing extremely well in the tournament. I don't mean to insult them, because they really do have a great robot and a talented driver, and they completely deserved their win, but I felt that the level of aggressiveness that was displayed as a part of their strategy was questionable and should have been called.

Even more prevalent than "accidental" tipping was getting jammed into the goals. If you can believe it, it was actually a defensive strategy discussed by certain teams to wait near the bump until a ball was herded into the goal, then charge the team that herded it in and ram them so hard that they would become stuck, effectively pinning them for the rest of the match. Teams that tried to play defense on robots with high traction by getting between those robots and the goals sometimes ended up with their robot pushed in instead of the ball, effectively neutralizing the entire alliance's defensive capabilities. Maybe the next update should have something to do with this...

I'm sorry, but this post reads to me "Boo Hoo, Someones bot is playing agressive defense and my offensive bot cant score".

We play at GSR where defense is well known and played very hard. Our robot (while playing in the defensive zone) was flipped 4 times, and self righted 3 of those times (seems I remember something about selfrighting from kickoff). Tough defense was played, and those that scored earned those scores (congrats to them).

As far as stuffing a team into the goal, please find the rule number that prohibits that strategy. It sounds to me like your team did not take that 2" lip and memory foam into account when you built your robot. Not the fault of the defending robot.

Bumper to bumper contact is allowed (and even encouraged) within the rules. The higher bumpers this year created a lever arm that made it easier to tip robots. I'll bet you dollars to (Dunkin )donuts that the defending bot wasn't purposely tipping others ... it was just happening with decent contact and high traction wheels.

Your robots are also supposed to be built with "vigorous (sp?) interaction" in mind. If bumper to bumper contact causes damage, then it most likely was not built strong enough. Again, we play at GSR where aggressive defense is always expected.

The above isn't meant to offend anyone (although it probably will) but I get sick and tired of hearing how unfair it is when teams play solid hard-nosed aggressive defense. Build your robot tough, and learn to play when the defense is strong.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I'm sorry, but this post reads to me "Boo Hoo, Someones bot is playing agressive defense and my offensive bot cant score".

We play at GSR where defense is well known and played very hard. Our robot (while playing in the defensive zone) was flipped 4 times, and self righted 3 of those times (seems I remember something about selfrighting from kickoff). Tough defense was played, and those that scored earned those scores (congrats to them).

As far as stuffing a team into the goal, please find the rule number that prohibits that strategy. It sounds to me like your team did not take that 2" lip and memory foam into account when you built your robot. Not the fault of the defending robot.

Bumper to bumper contact is allowed (and even encouraged) within the rules. The higher bumpers this year created a lever arm that made it easier to tip robots. I'll bet you dollars to (Dunkin )donuts that the defending bot wasn't purposely tipping others ... it was just happening with decent contact and high traction wheels.

Your robots are also supposed to be built with "vigorous (sp?) interaction" in mind. If bumper to bumper contact causes damage, then it most likely was not built strong enough. Again, we play at GSR where aggressive defense is always expected.

The above isn't meant to offend anyone (although it probably will) but I get sick and tired of hearing how unfair it is when teams play solid hard-nosed aggressive defense. Build your robot tough, and learn to play when the defense is strong.

I think the point I would like to emphasize again is that we are alway on offense and not defense. Its the defensive team that is complaining about us on offense.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I think the point I would like to emphasize again is that we are alway on offense and not defense. Its the defensive team that is complaining about us on offense.

Point noted (i missed that), but it doesn't change the gist of my post which is to design your robot for the game and for 'vigorous interaction'. If you don't then don't complain when your robot gets stuck or gets damaged. At one poing at GSR we had a robot on our lexan armor, no foul was called, nor did we expect one. It's just part of the game.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Daniel,
Sorry but I disagree. Stuffing an opponent into a goal to take them out of the game and to block a goal is not what I would expect in this competition. The goal is wider than most robots so there is nothing you can design around. You might as well push them over the side of the field border. The effect is the same.
If you know that a robot can be tipped and use that as a strategy then I think that is also wrong. To intentionally go out and tip over robots that are easy (by virtue of their design) is not in the spirit of the competition. I read G36 and G37 as support for this belief.
I want to lose a match to superior robot/driving/strategy. I don't want to lose to a team that has taken out my alliance partners by tipping and/or entanglement.
That being said, humans make mistakes, refs included. They miss calls sometimes, that affect match outcomes. What we see from the stands is not always what they see from the field, up close.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Daniel,
Sorry but I disagree. Stuffing an opponent into a goal to take them out of the game and to block a goal is not what I would expect in this competition. The goal is wider than most robots so there is nothing you can design around. You might as well push them over the side of the field border. The effect is the same.

Unless you can quote a rule that states otherwise then it is a perfectly valid strategy (not saying I agree with the strategy, but ...).

Oh, and you can design around it with either a good drivetrain (that can pull you over a 2" bump) or be wide enough to not go in fully.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

If you know that a robot can be tipped and use that as a strategy then I think that is also wrong. To intentionally go out and tip over robots that are easy (by virtue of their design) is not in the spirit of the competition. I read G36 and G37 as support for this belief.

Agreed, but the real issue is intention. Many robots this year are far easier to tip due to the bumper position, the ramp near the goal, and the bumps. Thus, even without intentionally tipping a robot you can do so.

I instructed my driver to back off if he saw a robot tipping. We tipped one during our regional (sorry 501) and we ourselves were tipped 4 times even though we could go 90* and still come back on to our wheels due to our CG. The game is what it is and robots will tip. Build a self righting mechanism.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I want to lose a match to superior robot/driving/strategy. I don't want to lose to a team that has taken out my alliance partners by tipping and/or entanglement.
That being said, humans make mistakes, refs included. They miss calls sometimes, that affect match outcomes. What we see from the stands is not always what they see from the field, up close.

I don't believe that the refs are missing many calls (unless you count the balls that are staying under robots while they continue to play the game). Field entanglement has never been a penalty (unless it involves field damage), nor is unintentonal tipping.

Would you rather see a game where robots play tiddlywinks and can never touch another robot? do you believe that would be interesting? I don't. A level of interaction is always enjoyable to watch ... as long as teams are playing within the rules.

The above, as usual, is JMHO.

[rwood359]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Daniel,
Sorry but I disagree. Stuffing an opponent into a goal to take them out of the game and to block a goal is not what I would expect in this competition. The goal is wider than most robots so there is nothing you can design around. You might as well push them over the side of the field border. The effect is the same.

The goal is not the same as the side field border. It is key to the offensive team's scoring. In the action being discussed here, the offensive robot is in control of a ball and the defensive robot is parked across the goal. The offensive robot, leading with the ball, attempts to score by pushing the defensive robot. Most often, the defensive robot is forced to pivot and the ball is scored. Sometimes, the defensive robot is pushed into the goal. Well designed robots drive out of the goal. Referees have started pinning counts on the offensive robot. At which time it backs off as required. If the offensive robot is not allowed to touch the defensive robot that is blocking the goal, it is game over for any power design.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I am talking about the robot that is scoring and is forced into the goal and stuck. I have seen this happen more than one where the stuck robot is pushed up on the field border as well as being stuffed into the goal. That leaves only one goal to defend.
Daniel, I think we are in agreement on most points. Tiddlywinks with sewer covers might be pretty interesting though.

[rwood359]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I am talking about the robot that is scoring and is forced into the goal and stuck.

Thanks for the clarification, the discussion has switched ends of the field a couple of times.