an evil, desperate, ramp strategy

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by MattB703

Pushing a robot to keep it off the platform is legitimate defense. Intentionally tipping a robot to keep it off the ramp is a penalty. It will be up to the ref to judge your intent.

My advise - don't purposely tip anyone over.

Any team planning to use this "slight nudge" strategy as a defensive mechanism has already decided to put the referee into a judgement call decision. You might as well start writing your complaints now, cause some of these judgements will go against you.

Robots don't stop on a dime. I don't care if you don't have your hands on the joystick at the moment of impact. If the forward momentum of your robot is the last bit of energy needed for that robot to tip over, you should be penalized, regardless of how slight the impact is, or how "tipsy" the other robot is. You have chosen a strategy that splits hairs over a rule concerning the intentional tipping of robots. As Beth has stated above, many would find this strategy to be Anti-GP.

Maybe next years KOP should have air-bag sensors, so we can measure just how much force was applied to a robot that tipped over. If the air-bag goes off, you get DQ'd -- guess what, it no longer becomes a judgement call!

There are so many other potential strategies that are defensive in nature and aren't Anti-GP, that I don't see the purpose for this particular one. Why is the strategy to wait on their platform? A high CG robot is logically going to be shooting for the high goal at the end of the match. You will have at least a half field-length to block and hinder their approach to the ramp. Why would you waste your time sitting on their ramp for a potentially disasterous strategy? No, there are way too many other strategies that can be employed at the end game, than to take a chance on something as risky as this.

[dhitchco]

Ok,
So if I'm the blue alliance, and there is one or more of the three "redabots" on top of MY platform (the one closest to my blue driver stations), then my blue alliance gets points even if my own three bluebots don't get onto the platform; correct?

Therefore, It make sense to defend (but not pin) any redabots on the blue platform at the end of the match.

Just because I can't climb and be king of my own (blue) hill doesn't mean that I'm about to let any redabot "stragglers" from getting down off of my hill; correct? Just don't pin them up onto your platform. You can "touch" the redabot on the blue platform and that redabot still counts for the blue alliance.


I guess it begs the question of why any alliance would want to park any of their bots on top of YOUR platform?

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by dhitchco

Ok,
So if I'm the blue alliance, and there is one or more of the three "redabots" on top of MY platform (the one closest to my blue driver stations), then my blue alliance gets points even if my own three bluebots don't get onto the platform; correct?

Therefore, It make sense to defend (but not pin) any redabots on the blue platform at the end of the match.

Just because I can't climb and be king of my own (blue) hill doesn't mean that I'm about to let any redabot "stragglers" from getting down off of my hill; correct? Just don't pin them up onto your platform.

Why not pin? It's allowed on the platform.

You can "touch" the redabot on the blue platform and that redabot still counts for the blue alliance.

Don't even have to be touching. Redabot could have gone up there under it's own power and then stalled - still counts for the blue alliance.

I guess it begs the question of why any alliance would want to park any of their bots on top of YOUR platform?

Maybe because then you're only about 2 feet from the center goal?

[dhitchco]

Good catch by Gary,

so it is indeed legal to "pin" and contain any robot while it is on the platform. It's only illegal ti "pin" while both robots are on the carpeted field (per <G24>)

So, if your the blue alliance and any one of the redabots is on YOUR platform (the one closest to your blue driving station) then it coulds as 5 points for YOUR blue alliance as long as you can hold them up on the platform.

Hmmmm, I think that their ability of charging DOWN the ramp is stronger than your bluebot ability to keep them up on the platform.....

[Alekat]

Originally Posted by dhitchco

Hmmmm, I think that their ability of charging DOWN the ramp is stronger than your bluebot ability to keep them up on the platform.....

Normally I would say the uphill advantage would just about finish any robot trying to pin you on the alliance platform. But remember the top of the platform is made out of plastic (polyethylene?) while the pinning robot would be on carpet. I think it comes down to drive train more than anything, since they are both equally likely to be on the diamond plate.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dhitchco

It's only illegal ti "pin" while both robots are on the carpeted field (per <G24>)

You are allowed to pin on the floor any time you choose. However, if you pin for more than ten seconds, a ref will tell you to back off. If you don't, it's one flag for every ten seconds until you back off three feet. If you back off three feet, then repin the other robot, the count starts over. (<G24> again)

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Any team planning to use this "slight nudge" strategy as a defensive mechanism has already decided to put the referee into a judgement call decision. You might as well start writing your complaints now, cause some of these judgements will go against you.

Robots don't stop on a dime. I don't care if you don't have your hands on the joystick at the moment of impact. If the forward momentum of your robot is the last bit of energy needed for that robot to tip over, you should be penalized, regardless of how slight the impact is, or how "tipsy" the other robot is. You have chosen a strategy that splits hairs over a rule concerning the intentional tipping of robots. As Beth has stated above, many would find this strategy to be Anti-GP.

Maybe next years KOP should have air-bag sensors, so we can measure just how much force was applied to a robot that tipped over. If the air-bag goes off, you get DQ'd -- guess what, it no longer becomes a judgement call!

There are so many other potential strategies that are defensive in nature and aren't Anti-GP, that I don't see the purpose for this particular one. Why is the strategy to wait on their platform? A high CG robot is logically going to be shooting for the high goal at the end of the match. You will have at least a half field-length to block and hinder their approach to the ramp. Why would you waste your time sitting on their ramp for a potentially disasterous strategy? No, there are way too many other strategies that can be employed at the end game, than to take a chance on something as risky as this.

Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree ...

In this year's game it is legal to push, shove, bump, and even "low speed" ram another robot. In fact, based on the new bumper rules this type of defensive strategy seems to be almost encouraged. There will definitely be some struggles for control of the platform/ramp, and there will definitely be some robots tipping over as a result. It is not illegal for a bot to defend its position, or to keep, or move, another robot off of the ramp. You can't expect a team to just allow their opponents to do whatever they want ... that is called defense ... and REQUIRED by each alliance for at least 40 seconds of each match.

Just because a robot tips as a result of the ramp battle it does not mean the other alliance should be penalized. As I stated in my post above (and this IS only my opinion - open to modification ONLY by my head referees interpretation of the rules) I would not be inclined to penalize a team unless there was clear and unmistakable intent to do harm.

[Sachiel7]

So if in field actions can be non-GP, why not strap a buzzsaw onto your robot and just finish off the other alliance quickly?
GP is and always has been a large part of your interactions on the field.
Yes, I expect alot of defensive plays, and that's 100% OK, but be considerate of the other bots. Just as the Rules state, Strategies aimed at the destruction of other robots is not permitted. If you have a defensive strategy and you think it could potentially damage an opposing robot, its not a good idea.
Also, I think you were misinterpreting my desription of the spinbot. The ideas I've been hearing from teams is a robot that spins very fast in-place (like a spinbot in battlebots) such that if you were to try and move them, your robot would become damaged. This violates GP, and also goes to show that GP should play a role in a teams strategy on the field. Spinning in place is not a design strategy, or an off field interaction, it takes place on the field, and would violate the concept of GP.
Do unto other bots as you would have them do to you...

[George1902]

Originally Posted by Sachiel7

So if in field actions can be non-GP, why not strap a buzzsaw onto your robot and just finish off the other alliance quickly?

To use Stu's words, a buzzsaw shows unmistakable intent to do harm.

Originally Posted by Sachiel7

Just as the Rules state, Strategies aimed at the destruction of other robots is not permitted. If you have a defensive strategy and you think it could potentially damage an opposing robot, its not a good idea.

You said it yourself, the rule prohibits "strategies aimed at the destruction of other robots," not "strategies that could potentially damage" other robots.

The difference is clear.

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Sachiel7

So if in field actions can be non-GP, why not strap a buzzsaw onto your robot and just finish off the other alliance quickly?

Because that is against the rules...

<G22> Intentional ROBOT - ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tippingover, or entanglement of ROBOTs are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed.

Originally Posted by Sachiel7

... GP is and always has been a large part of your interactions on the field. Yes, I expect alot of defensive plays, and that's 100% OK, but be considerate of the other bots. Just as the Rules state, Strategies aimed at the destruction of other robots is not permitted. If you have a defensive strategy and you think it could potentially damage an opposing robot, its not a good idea...

Sorry ... but I just can't agree ...
Just because a defensive strategy "could potentially damage another robot" does NOT mean that strategy is "aimed slolely at the destruction ..." of other robots. MOST defensive strategies will have the "potential" to damage another bot.

Originally Posted by Sachiel7

... Also, I think you were misinterpreting my desription of the spinbot. The ideas I've been hearing from teams is a robot that spins very fast in-place (like a spinbot in battlebots) such that if you were to try and move them, your robot would become damaged. This violates GP, and also goes to show that GP should play a role in a teams strategy on the field. Spinning in place is not a design strategy, or an off field interaction, it takes place on the field, and would violate the concept of GP.
Do unto other bots as you would have them do to you...

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I have not commented on the "spin-bot" concept. However I would say there is nothing wrong with that strategy. Think about the fact that while on defense you only have two robots defending against three offensive robots. If you want to sit in front of a corner goal and spin then you are leaving your partner defensive robot to defend the other two scoring options without your help. I would just stay away - go to the other corner goal to score - to avoid potential damage to my offensive robot. Of course, it would be another story entirely if you pursued another bot while spinning ... I would view that as intent to cause harm, and thus worthy of a DQ.

Again I will say, I believe we should always "play to win", WITHIN THE RULES while on the field. If our team happened to damage another robot during a match I would be the first one to offer my services to help with repairs. That's competition AND GP. And if our actions drew a penalty in the view of the referees, then so be it ... That's also part of the game.

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree ...

In this year's game it is legal to push, shove, bump, and even "low speed" ram another robot. In fact, based on the new bumper rules this type of defensive strategy seems to be almost encouraged. There will definitely be some struggles for control of the platform/ramp, and there will definitely be some robots tipping over as a result. It is not illegal for a bot to defend its position, or to keep, or move, another robot off of the ramp. You can't expect a team to just allow their opponents to do whatever they want ... that is called defense ... and REQUIRED by each alliance for at least 40 seconds of each match.

Just because a robot tips as a result of the ramp battle it does not mean the other alliance should be penalized. As I stated in my post above (and this IS only my opinion - open to modification ONLY by my head referees interpretation of the rules) I would not be inclined to penalize a team unless there was clear and unmistakable intent to do harm.

Stu, I understand your interpretation of the rules, but you are correct, we have a disagreement here. If a robot "sits" on their opponents platform and waits for the "tipsy" opponent to fully cross the field before it interacts with it, I consider that "intent". The offending robot has knowingly selected a strategy at which the tipsy robot is most vulnerable to tip over. If this isn't the "sole" intent of the strategy, why wait on the platform?

If, however, a robot is on the field and continually harrassing the tipsy bot, as the tipsy bot tries to return to its' platform, the intent is to stop the "tipsy" bot, not to select a point at which it is most vulnerable to tipping. Provided that all other contact is within the rules, I would not consider this strategy as "solely aimed at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTs".

The fact that the rule allows interaction between robots, and that tipping over may occur during this interaction, doesn't preclude the fact that strategies solely designed to cause tipping aren't still illegal. I fully expect a number of bots to tip during legal battles for mounting the ramp, but for a bot to solely sit and sandbag on the ramp with the intent to tip an opponent as it mounts, I still view as a violation.

As I said previously, this is a strategy of "splitting hairs" over a rule, and they are forcing the referees into a judgement call. Look at the vehement posts from previous years concerning "judgement calls". There are times when the FIRST community doesn't always sound like the FIRST community.

Maybe Carnack should predict that this will be the first major "ticked-off" post of the robot season, once Regionals begin.

For everyone's reference, here is <G22>:

Originally Posted by Chapter 4, Rev. C

<G22> Intentional ROBOT - ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping
over, or entanglement of ROBOTs are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not
allowed. However, AIM HIGH is a highly interactive game, and some appropriate contact is allowed
subject to the following guidelines:
• Rule <R35> in Section 5.3.4 establishes ROBOT BUMPER ZONEs. Any contact within this zone
is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed long distance ramming. If two ROBOTs
choose not to use bumpers, and they contact such that simultaneous contact occurs both in and out of
the BUMPER ZONE, then this contact is considered within the BUMPER ZONE.
• Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable, and the offending ROBOT will
be assessed a 5-point penalty, and may be disqualified from the match if the offense is particularly
egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT. Incidental contact will not be
penalized. Contact outside the BUMPER ZONE that is a result of tipping caused by contact within
the BUMPER ZONE will be considered incidental contact.
• If a ROBOT extends outside of its 28 inch by 38 inch starting footprint, it is responsible for the
extension’s contact with other ROBOTs and must not use the extension to contact other ROBOTs
outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Likewise, other ROBOTs will not be responsible for contact with
the extension outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Again, incidental contact will not be penalized.

[Stu Bloom]

I believe the central issue surrounding this entire debate is - how do you determine "intent"? For any action on the field that is clearly covered by the written rules it is obvious those rules should apply. Unfortunately it would be impossible for the GDC and rules committee to foresee every circumstance of this (or any) game, and even if they could there would still be some issues subject to interpretation. I am not, nor do I know of anyone who is, capable of reading another's mind, so in those cases we can only make our best judgment based on what we observe (in current AND prior matches). It is unfortunate that some judgment calls (that IMO should reflect the Head Ref's interpretation of the rules) will always have to be made. AND the GP thing to do is to go along with the call and NOT whine and complain that it was unfair (Believe me, all of us referees are doing the best job we can).

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Stu, I understand your interpretation of the rules, but you are correct, we have a disagreement here. If a robot "sits" on their opponents platform and waits for the "tipsy" opponent to fully cross the field before it interacts with it, I consider that "intent". The offending robot has knowingly selected a strategy at which the tipsy robot is most vulnerable to tip over. If this isn't the "sole" intent of the strategy, why wait on the platform? ...

Bill, let me address your scenario, first from an engineering perspective. If a team is utilizing a strategy that includes ascending the ramp and their robot is "tipsy" then IMHO their robot has a design flaw.

Now, to address the strategy - If my team's strategy includes defending our position on the platform/ramp AND trying to keep other robots off then I think we have a valid reason for waiting on the platform then defending our position when challenged. I do not believe that I can envision every strategy that a team could pursue in this game, but I DO know of at least one (and I suspect there are more) that would require a robot to remain on the opponents platform and keep other bots from ascending. (Our team DOES have such a strategy in our arsenal, but I am not at liberty to divulge the details). Don't forget that the opponents platform is also a great place to park and lob balls into the 3-point goal.

[Matt Torrisi]

hmmm well i personally am in favor of defence. but dont go knocking people over. thats bad karma and bad taste, just get in their way of going up the ramp in the first place.

i had to tell my team, the ramp is great but stoping the other guys is better. considure this situation: your team has 3 bots on your ramp, theirs has 3 bots on theirs. what happens? they cancel each other out! dont get me wrong, you will get a nice load of points, but you wont go ahead. instead, go ahead and push them ONTO your ramp, or just stop them from going onto theirs.

we built our frame with a 6.5 inch clearence to make it up the ramp, with 4 all wheel cim-dewalt transmission drive, so we SHOULD be able to make it up, only we could do a freaking backflip... so i might be doing defence myself.

[Taylor_Ratliff]

lol, i got pwned! see what happens when you skim the rules? I mistook "either" for "their"

[Wetzel]

I suppose that I should add that the refs do track things that skim close to the rules involving ramming and tipping. If a team gets close, they get warned and a note made of that warning. If they do it again, they are under closer watch and are more likely to get themselves hit with a penalty.

Wetzel