Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Take a closer look at flipping. It is kinda silly that a team is allowed to ram and flip another team at will but if they go near the tower in the last 20 seconds it is a yellow card.

Allow 2 defensive robots in the other alliances zone if and only if one of the robots is tipped over. Having a flipped robot is enough of a penalty.

We have had more problems scoring against robots tipped near a goal than against robots defending against us.

Teams really need to take into account CoG when designing and building, their is no reason to add a rule that benefits teams that designed poorly and have robots prone to flipping without the ability to right themselves.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

We have had more problems scoring against robots tipped near a goal than against robots defending against us.

Teams really need to take into account CoG when designing and building, their is no reason to add a rule that benefits teams that designed poorly and have robots prone to flipping without the ability to right themselves.

I agree, if a robot is tippy it is one thing. If a robot is rammed repeatedly it is an entirely different thing. I know 397 has no CG issues (it is ~5 inches off the ground and we never flipped) but that didn't stop people from trying. At one point in time we were vertical and another team kept pushing. THAT is trying to tip. Being hit once and rolling over because your CG is 25" in the air is another thing entirely and it is clear to any observer when a team is being way too aggressive.

Edit to Wayne:Rule G19 clearly states that the penalty and a yellow card are to be called for any ball outed from the field intentionally. I merely replaced the yellow card with giving the opponent a better chance to score the ball.

[jmiller48167]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Rule G19 clearly states that the penalty and a yellow card are to be called for any ball outed from the field intentionally. I merely replaced the yellow card with giving the opponent a better chance to score the ball.

In the 6 events I attended I don't recall this ever being called. Do you have a specific event where it was enforced.

I think it should be enforced due to being hit while sitting field side for reset.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by jmiller48167

In the 6 events I attended I don't recall this ever being called. Do you have a specific event where it was enforced.

I think it should be enforced due to being hit while sitting field side for reset.

No, it was never called to my knowledge.

[StevenB]

I'd like to chime in, having seen some rule modifications at BattleCry this weekend.

BC had a large box in the middle zone around each tower, in which robots were allowed to expand to finale volume. I think this eliminated a few unnecessary penalties, but didn't have any major effects. As XaulZan11 jokingly alluded, no one (I hope!) is going to rebuild their robot to violate the spirit of the rule just because the letter has changed.

Incursion penalties for driving over balls were rarely called at BC, although this was due to the referee's choice, not a specifically announced rule modification. In general I felt that this was a good thing, since accidentally driving over balls was common.

I would suggest that penalties not be called for robots which exceed the allowable volume because a chain falls off or other part of the robot breaks and drags around outside the frame perimeter. In my opinion, the penalty just adds insult to injury and doesn't improve game play.