controversial opinion?

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 7/15/99 10:57 AM MST

I posted an opinion that I assumed would be fairly controversial. However, I think it was too buried away for anyone to see it. I’m curious how other people feel on this issue though so please read…

The theory of a robot in the corner becoming more secure by raising it’s center of gravity way up high is flawed. A robot should have to take certain precautions to make that a less fragile position. Perhaps FIRST should have made it possible to latch on to the field border. Then they wouldn’t have had to outlaw tipping. All I’m saying is that there are ways to allow robots to stay upright on their own merit, instead of giving them a ‘get out of jail free’ card. You know what I mean?

What do you guys think?

-Daniel

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Other on team #126, No, from what team I haven’t decided yet and I don’t know how I will!.

Posted on 7/15/99 1:54 PM MST

In Reply to: controversial opinion? posted by Daniel on 7/15/99 10:57 AM MST:

Personally, I was standing right on that edge of the field waiting to play when that match happened. I feel the refs were completely right in the call they made. You guys were unnecessarily rough. Now I’m a fan of rough and tumble play- sure, an instigator of a lot of it in many matches, however there is a line and a difference.
Example- in regionals and in Rumble we played in elimination matches against Team #177, an awesome robot. In almost all of the six matches we played, including the two at Rumble, they used their arm to try and block our basket from raising. Perfectly legal. Difference was we were on the move, at the puck, trying to triple, drag the puck and raise. We were in the heat of battle and asking to be hit hard. They broke our basket once and did some damage the other time- but I commend them on their tough robot and great driving. That was part of the match. In you guys case, 178 wasn’t doing anything, they were just raising their basket. And fine if you want to rest your arm on top, but you guys were pushing and pushing down to the extreme.
I think you would have been fine provided you just held your arm on top or if they started fighting back- but in that situation, there was no other call for the refs to make.

Posted by Kate.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 7/15/99 2:01 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: controversial opinion? posted by colleen on 7/15/99 1:54 PM MST:

: I think you would have been fine provided you just held your arm on top or if they started fighting back- but in that situation, there was no other call for the refs to make.

If I’m remembering correctly (from seeing the match and previously posted messages) GRT was trying to just hold down the basket… The refs told them to back off… It’s after they had backed off per order of the refs that they had problems getting back over the basket to hold it down… Though, I could be remembering wrong… It’s possible with my lack of sleep cuz of my 30hrs/week of volunteering and working at least 20 in addition to that… Talk to you all later…

-KATE-

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Other on team #126, No, from what team I haven’t decided yet and I don’t know how I will!.

Posted on 7/15/99 2:44 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: controversial opinion? posted by Kate on 7/15/99 2:01 PM MST:

As Dan said in one of his other posts… it’s all about your intentions… and although sometimes those are hard to interpret, you can say it’s usually obvious.
There are matches we clamped on to the puck and moved and swung it around. Our intention: to keep other robots off. One match, Quincy was in the process of getting on and we tipped them using the puck. It was clear, however, that our intention was to keep them off, theirs was to get on and the result was them falling over.
In GRTs match, I understand their intention was not to tip #178, I personally think that was pretty clear. But as Dan also stated, their intention was to make their motors back drive, to push their tower back down which can be interpreted as intentionally trying to damage the robot. I don’t see real fault in 178 being tipped, I see it in the fact that you weren’t just trying to keep their basket from raising, you were trying to push it back down a way it didn’t go. The refs saw the potential damage and made the call. You kept going after and their robot was bound to break. That was your intention that I think everyone who I was standing around watching with realized as well.

There’s a line between rough play and overboard (we felt the wrath of Naval Undersea in 1997 as, in the semi’s of the regionals)

I wish we had gotten a chance to play you guys…

Posted by Doug Fischer.

Student on team #41, Warriors, from Watchung Hills and Cordis.

Posted on 7/15/99 3:04 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: controversial opinion? posted by colleen on 7/15/99 1:54 PM MST:

I was at rumble w/o my team and i feel you have a valid point. However, i felt that the DQ of 192 was a bad desicion, becasue of its inconsistency with the rest of the day’s calls. Several other teams did similar things and were not even penalized. I felt that either they all should have been DQ’d or none of them because plenty of teams tipped each ohter in the course of some very physical matches. Other teams certainly made similar plays and to just pin a DQ on one of those teams in the quarterfinals was unfair, either it should have been called all day, or not at all.
Doug Fischer

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 7/15/99 3:08 PM MST

In Reply to: controversial opinion? posted by Daniel on 7/15/99 10:57 AM MST:

Let me try this again cuz I think you guys missed my point. I am not disputing the call of the refs. Under the current rules I think everything they said was correct. I’m being a little more revolutionary then that…

I feel that the theory the anti-tipping rule is based on is flawed. I feel students shouldn’t be encouraged to build an unstable robot. Maybe an additional change would need to be made, such as allowing robots to grab onto the field boarder. But in the end, I feel robots should have to stay off the ground on their own merit. And trust me, robots can and will.

So lets not talk about my team’s match. I’ve talked about that plenty in another thread. I’m talking about the future now. As I said before, robot’s shouldn’t get a “get out of jail free” card whenever they make their robot vulnerable. I think we’re still a little too squeamish.

-Daniel

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 7/15/99 3:20 PM MST

In Reply to: controversial opinion? posted by Daniel on 7/15/99 10:57 AM MST:

I gotta disagree with you on this one, Daniel.

2 reasons:

First of all, the robot in the corner is in a position that they don’t want anything to do with the puck, therefore, they are giving up on scoring 3x. Also, they are not helping try to insure the puck control doubler. All in all, the team raising floppies in the corner is playing very conservative by ONLY wanting to lift floppies, and giving up alot of 3x points.

Secondly, clamping onto the rail would help some, but not enough to be kept from being tipped or MAJORLY damaged. This year, if a 'bot was tipped, not too much damage was done (at least most of the time it was easily repairable). If these 'bots were clamped onto the rail, and then a 'bot like TKO, 177, GRT, or 68 came over to purposely tip their basket, they would no longer have an operating lift mechanism. PVC pipe would break, aluminum angle would bend,… you get the picture. All it would take is a 11 or 12 foot arm to get a 45 degree angle on a 8 foot high basket. If the team with the long arm had some good traction (45), they could be tearing apart good lift mechanisms all day long.

To insure against that, FIRST would have to either raise the outside rail, or make the perimiter of the field like a cage… oooohhh, yeah, a CAGE MATCH!!!

Whaddya think?
Andy B.

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 7/15/99 4:26 PM MST

In Reply to: Do you really wanna clamp onto the rail? posted by Andy Baker on 7/15/99 3:20 PM MST:

Good point. That part was just an idea…my general issue was the problem that led me to that idea. Do you have any other ways to fix the problem of vaulnerability leading to security? I still can’t quite agree with how a robot can get itself into a position where people aren’t allowed to try to take it’s points away…does this make any sence?

-Daniel

Posted by Dodd Stacy.

Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 7/15/99 10:20 PM MST

In Reply to: No…I don’t…anymore =) posted by Daniel on 7/15/99 4:26 PM MST:

Daniel,

The rules do not confer an air-tight security on vulnerable robots with their floppy lifts raised. They just require a defensive robot to execute his attack carefully and with good timing. Here’s one example that applies to an opponent sitting against the rail and raised: wait till the final 10 seconds, drive up next to him and (gently and carefully) push his lifter laterally just enough to get the floppies in the basket to break the plane of the court boundary. Perfectly legal, no damage. By the way, those are zero point floppies, not one pointers.

Here’s another. Drive up beside your opponent, reach up and over his basket, and pluck his floppies out and drop them.

There are others - be creative.

The rules don’t absolutely prevent your objective of taking away points, but they do recognize the increased liklihood of damage when 4 foot tall robots tangle 8 or 10 feet in the air. And you may have to endow your robot with some special capabilities to take advantage of the limited legal opportunities to take away points. Nobody said it was supposed to be easy!

Dodd

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 7/15/99 10:28 PM MST

In Reply to: No…I don’t…anymore =) posted by Daniel on 7/15/99 4:26 PM MST:

My guess is this:

FIRST let teams score this way (and will in the future a similar way, I assume) to level the playing field between teams.

Much like the addition of the Human Player years ago, FIRST tries to give rookie teams, and teams with minimal resources, a fighting chance to at least score points.

Remember the thoughts of some of those rookie teams 192 was up against at the NASA Ames Regional? You guys were playing within the rules, and they still claimed foul (at least that’s what I heard). Don’t get me wrong, you guys were doing the right thing, in my opinion (just look at us :-)).

Anyway, my take is that a team should have some sort of way to score some points in a conservative way. That way, they are not shut out every match.

Andy B.

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 7/15/99 11:20 PM MST

In Reply to: Makes sense… not really, but it evens things out posted by Andy Baker on 7/15/99 10:28 PM MST:

Good point. I feel better about that one now…

So while we’re on a roll, lets go on to the next issue. I don’t feel any ‘rule’ should be based on intent. Intent is hard to judge. Is there any other way to make an anti-tipping rule without judging on intent? Perhaps we can figure out a better solution…

Brainstorm time.
-Daniel

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 7/19/99 11:56 PM MST

In Reply to: and now for some more! posted by Daniel on 7/15/99 11:20 PM MST:

: I don’t feel any ‘rule’ should be based on intent. Intent is hard to judge.

: Is there any other way to make an anti-tipping rule without judging on intent?
: Daniel

Hmmm. OK. Let’s look at other sports and see when and why fouls are called:

Football:
Using hands illegally: facemasking, holding, swatting, pass interference
Blocking and tackling inproperly: clipping, tripping, spearing, QB protection
Some of these actions can be legal in certain areas of the field.
(like clipping can happen within the line of scrimmage zone, and a DB can
hand-check a receiver within 5 yards of LOS.)

Basketball:
Using hands illegally: reaching in, hand checking, etc.
Not Having correct defensive position: Blocking, tripping
Unsportmanlike stuff: Elbowing, hitting, etc.
AGAIN, some of these actions are more ‘legal’ under the basket (a specific location)
(like reaching in, elbowing, and more allowances in general)

Baseball:
Major contact can only take place between opposing players
at the plate… again, it depends on the location

Hockey and Soccer:
More contact seems to occur as they get closer to the goal…
again with the location.

OK, getting back to this year’s competition. The rules about tipping
depended on location. They expected the contact to be rougher around
the puck… so if you were there, you shoulda expected contact. If you
were in the corner, trying to raise floppies, you were the same as being
‘at the top of the key’ or ‘in the secondary’ or ‘at second base’ or
‘at midfield’… places that less contact occurs in other sports.

Does this correlation make sense? Or is it just too late on a Monday
night?

Andy B.