Unscheduled Team Update: 3-20-2014

[Steven Donow]

http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/Updates/0#term 177

Section 3.2.6: ROBOT-ROBOT Interaction
The rule change to G27 attempts to discourage ROBOT to ROBOT damage, while still allowing defensive play. On the FIELD, we want to encourage FRC Teams to work with their ALLIANCE partners to demonstrate their technical prowess and game play skills. While pushing and bumping are reasonable game play efforts, anything that resembles intentionally damaging behavior is not. Additionally, the change to G27 enables Referees to issue penalties for causing opponent ROBOT damage, even if not strategic or intentional.

The blue box in G28 is being modified to reflect the fact that it is possible for contact between two extended elements to result in a penalty, if the conditions of G27 are otherwise met.

G27

Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage, destruction or inhibition of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment,damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed.

Violation: FOUL. If strategic, TECHNICAL FOUL. and Potential YELLOW CARD

For example, use of a wedge-like MECHANISM to flip ROBOTS would be considered a violation of G27.

MECHANISMS outside the FRAME PERIMETER are particularly susceptible to causing such damage and drawing this penalty and/or penalties associated with violations of G28. Teams are encouraged to be cautious in their use of such appendages when engaging in ROBOT to ROBOT MATCH play.

G28 (Blue Box only)

High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. Generally, ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

Not sure how I feel about this yet...seems like too much room for judgement calls...

[Joseph Smith]

Room for judgement calls is exactly what this game needs. The refs are much better suited watching robot-robot interaction and determining if a robot is ramming with intent to damage than watching lines on the carpet and invisible planes. This rule change will probably add a bit of protection to scoring robots, which should make the game more fun to watch.

[Anthony Galea]

So, does this rule out ramming completely, or just ramming to cause damage? Because wouldn't ramming be considered normal defense?

[Jared Russell]

In principle, I like that they are trying to remove the BattleBots element of this game.

In practice, they just added a bunch more things that the already-overworked referees need to be watching for.

[JohnFogarty]

Just when I thought there might be less fouls, this happens.

[M. Lillis]

What problem does this solve? Defense is the nature of Aerial Assist. Now we have to be cautious about crossing the field at high speed to play defense on a team (setting a pick, persay).

[Andrew Schreiber]

Guess this is the latest episode of Twitch plays GDC.

[Thad House]

Wow I wonder what caused this to come not on a Tuesday? Something must have happened. I'm not really sure what I think about this.

[Woolly]

I don't know that I'm a fan of this update.
If you hit a robot that's predisposed to fall apart at the slightest contact, and you break any part of said robot, it's a penalty. There's been several times where we've hit a robot at low speed and the radio has gone flying out of the other robot.

Does this mean the ref has to make a judgement call about whether the opposing robot wasn't built to handle the game play of Aerial Assist, or is it a situation where the penalty is automatic, and if a robot consistently leaves parts on the field they get a technical?

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

Just when I thought there might be less fouls, this happens.

Yeah, I see this causing a bit more harm than good. I can see fouls being called for light defensive play now.

Also, isn't one of the primary ways to defend shots (and distinguish between the best scorers and the good scorers) to ram them right before they take the shot?

The post does say bumping is reasonable, but there's some gray area between that and when it becomes "aggressive ramming."

[Jay O'Donnell]

I agree with the fact that teams with appendages should be wary of fouls for this, but aggressive ramming? Seriously? If your team can't handle tough defense, you didn't design correctly for this years game.

[Chris is me]

Just what this game needed: another subjective, hard to enforce rule worth so many points in penalties it will decide regionals.

Does anyone have any idea what aggressive ramming is or when it becomes aggressive vs normal? Anyone?

If this were "ramming appendages outside the Bumper Zone" I'd bite and say okay, not perfect but fair. Bumper to bumper contact counting as ramming is just unnecessary.

[who716]

I don't like this one at all

[Matt_Boehm_329]

Good! No penalty for contact between two appendages was a silly silly rule because I could easily see teams taking advantage of that loophole with the amount of rule lawyering that goes on.

Edit: To compare it to a sport, I assume it would be called like checking in hockey. Charging is called but regular checks not. In hockey its 3+ strides going into a check, here it may be crossing more than two zones or something. It also rules out a team building a "ball intake device" in name only and using it to damage other teams' ball intakes. The explicit allowance for penalty free impacts in g28 I felt was too confusing when preceded by g27

[45Auto]

Worst update ever to the worst game in my nine years of being a FIRST mentor and drive coach.

I've already gone through one regional full of subjective calls. Lots of video out there of violations by one alliance not being called while identical play by the other alliance results in penalties. Not the ref's fault, they're human, no two people will see or interpret subjective events the same way.

Not like we have enough judgement call gray areas already that the refs have to make instant decisions on (did the kid's pinky really cross the invisible line? Is that enough that we call it or not? Is a robot "close enough" that we think it should be a 50 point or 20 point foul?), now the ref's have to decide if a robot is "high speed", "aggressive", "repeated ramming" or even playing "strategically".

On top of that, I'm now responsible for damage to the opponents robot from a legal hit?

Is high speed 6 FPS? 8 FPS? 10 FPS? Who knows?

What is "aggressive ramming"? Can anyone describe "non-aggressive" ramming for me so I at least have some idea of how to try to play this despicable game?

How do you do ANYTHING that is not "strategic" for an automatic tech foul and yellow card?

Our general plan (strategy) in our first regional was to play defense when not inbounding, then scoring the over-the-truss shot from our alliance partner. Now if we play any kind of defense we have to be low speed, non-aggressive, no repeated (more than once is repeated) ramming, AND it cannot be "strategic" without getting a penalty. How the heck do you play without following a general plan to achieve your goal???

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategic

stra·te·gic
adjective \strə-ˈtē-jik\

: of or relating to a general plan that is created to achieve a goal in war, politics, etc., usually over a long period of time

We built our robot to be strong and fast so we could play defense when we don't have the ball. Reinforced tank-drive kit-bot chassis with 6 cim, 2 speed transmissions.

Based on the way calls were going, our first 25 seconds of play in the 2nd final at Arkansas would have resulted in 3 or 4 tech fouls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA5J...ature=youtu.be

Our robot (2992) is the tall blue one at the top of the screen on the blue side of the field.

After autonomous, we reverse downfield to play defense. The red robot coming downfield rams us on our side of the field (0:20) (or did we ram it? Who knows? Aggressive High-Speed Ramming penalty for us because they die?), but gets shoved backwards into the wall and dies. Oops, penalty on us for damaging their robot. Maybe we should have run away? Someone should have told me.

Immediately after that collision, we cross the field and ram another red robot (0:22) that is playing defense on our inbounder/truss teammate. Was it a high-speed ram? Again, who knows? Do the refs like us or not? We shove it across the field sideways to free our teammate. Uh-oh, looks like "strategic" play to me.

About all I can think of now is to just accept our penalties with gracious professionalism, tell the seniors that we hope they had a good time, and hope it gets better next year for the underclassmen.