Immediate and necessary rule change!


#43

first option doesn’t change the “zones”. It is basically a pinning call against the “virtual wall” that is the center line.

Second option has potential options to exploit it somehow?


#44

How about:

  1. Revise G9 and G10 to specify that if an alliance has a second or more robot forced across the line by the opposing alliance, they are given a 5s count to have any number of robots cross back to their side in compliance with the one defensive robot ruling.
    A 5s count will not begin If more than robot is blocked from returning.

This takes C8 out of the equation I believe.


#45

How would this address violations of G10 though? I think the clause stating that as long as the robot returns immediately (up to 5 seconds) is essentially the same when considering that if the robot pushed over is being continuously blocked from returning by the defensive robot then it’s pretty obvious it should be C8. Also, what would happen if an alliance pins both the first defensive robot and the one they pushed over on their side? Constant fouls for the entire rest of the match? Thoughts?


#46

@ oleitersdorf, to provide a dissenting opinion to @Fields, I like this verbiage but would go even further, proposing that they add a rule that prohibits the action of forcing another robot to cross the line.

I completely disagree unless this results in zero penalty points assessed to the offensive robot. It’s fine to interfere with scoring. It’s not fine to cause the other team to be penalized for something against their will.


#47

I’m totally behind this idea and would spread the letter to all Israeli teams as soon as we come up with a revision there’s enough agreement about!


#48

I agree that that would be the best and would rid of the problem completely; however, I see a smaller likelihood of that being implemented given the significant backlash it could cause for teams just trying to do defense within the rules. Do you not think that this clause would be sufficient in ending the problem:

1 (preferred). Revise G9 and G10 to specify that if a robot crosses the line and immediately attempts to cross back (as defined by a specific time interval, such as 5 seconds), then no fouls are granted. This wouldn’t result in debatable C8 violations and would remove the incentive for intentionally forcing an opponent robot across the line. In case the scoring robot is pinned across the line by an opponent defending robot and cannot return immediately, then this would be a clearer violation of C8 by the defending robot.

?


#49

I think they only thing I would change is “robot crosses the line and immediately attempts to cross back” to “robot is forced to cross the line and immediately attempts to cross back”


#50

So how about this version?

To whom it may concern,

We believe that the current rules for FIRST Deep Space are allowing for certain teams to gain a competitive advantage while violating one of FIRST’s core tenets, Gracious Professionalism. In this instance, a defender from Alliance A (on Alliance B’s side of the field) can force a robot from Alliance B attempting to place in the cargo-bay to cross over to Alliance A’s side, resulting in either G9 (if Alliance B already has a defender on A’s side) or G10 fouls (if the robot being pushed is extended while scoring). This incident has occurred to us and others, resulting in the robots being pushed being penalized significantly while the robots pushing are recognizing this strategy as a way of earning quick and easy points. See one of many examples in ISR District 4 Finals 3 here: https://clips.twitch.tv/RacyCoweringChimpanzeeChocolateRain .

We believe that C8 should’ve prevented this from occurring; however, due to the wording of the rule (“ Strategies clearly aimed ”) it is hard for REFEREES to distinguish between whether the pushing robot was attempting to push the cargo-placing robot away from the cargo bay (as a legal defensive move) or as an intentional strategy to force fouls. Due to the lack of certainty with regards to the intent of the defending robot, the referees tend to side with the defenders and grant the robot being pushed penalties with accordance to G9/G10. We believe that this rewards robots that do intentionally inflict fouls on the opponent alliance, allowing for robots “ to gain by doing others harm ”.

This is wrong, this is gamebreaking, and this encourages behavior in the FRC competition that we believe directly contradicts FIRST’s mission. Upon excessive debate on Chief Delphi, we believe that we may have reached multiple potential compromises (in order of most preferred to least) for a rule change, and would appreciate it if you could consider them or implement your own.

  1. Revise G9 and G10 to specify that if a robot is forced to cross the line and immediately attempts to cross back (as defined by a specific time interval, such as 5 seconds), then no fouls are granted. This wouldn’t result in debatable C8 violations and would remove the incentive for intentionally forcing an opponent robot across the line. In case the scoring robot is pinned across the line by an opponent defending robot and cannot return immediately, then this would be a clearer violation of C8 by the defending robot.
  2. Revise G9 and G10 to require the robot to be completely beyond the line, not only bumpers. Therefore, if the robot is pushed fully over the line by an opponent defender, it could be clearer that the defending robot was intending to force a foul and not just push the scoring robot away from the cargo bay. Conversely, if a defending robot is only attempting to push the scoring robot away from the cargo bay (as should be allowed with FIRST defense rules), then the scoring robot wouldn’t cross the line completely and no fouls would be caused.
  3. Instruct the REFEREES to be less hesitant with regards to handing out C8 violations. This could result in legitimate defensive teams receiving fouls when they’re attempting to push scoring-robots away from the cargo, which is why we would recommend the other two options instead (while this is still a viable option if you don’t want to announce a rule change this late in the season).

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXX


#51

In all honesty, I see little to no chance that FIRST will fix this no matter what the language of the letter. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong.


#52

That kept in mind, even if FIRST does not respond just the awareness it may create (with @Tomker spreading the word to other Israeli teams) could serve to mitigate the issue. In addition, I still hope FIRST will recognize the letter and act accordingly.


#53

Apparently the interpretation varies by event.


#54

Cross posted from the other thread:
Honestly, I think all the drama would disappear if they simply redefined the position of the cargo lines. Make the red cargo line colinear with the center of the red cargo ship and the blue cargo line colinear with the center of the blue cargo ship. Then the whole defender excuse of “we were just trying to keep them from scoring” goes away. It becomes blatantly obvious that a defender is trying to push across the line to force a penalty, not to prevent them from scoring. Plus, it allows a bit more defensive action in the center of the field, which is kind of fun.

The root cause of this fiasco is the close proximity of an offensive scoring spot to a line that shouldn’t be crossed. The solution is simple. Move the line.


#55

There’s no rule against being on the opponent’s side in the end game. Just don’t hit a rocket. In which case, it can’t be a C8 because the opponent won’t be penalized.


#56

So do you think we can all agree on this version and start having teams send it out to FIRST?

To whom it may concern,

We believe that the current rules for FIRST Deep Space are allowing for certain teams to gain a competitive advantage while violating one of FIRST’s core tenets, Gracious Professionalism. In this instance, a defender from Alliance A (on Alliance B’s side of the field) can force a robot from Alliance B attempting to place in the cargo-bay to cross over to Alliance A’s side, resulting in either G9 (if Alliance B already has a defender on A’s side) or G10 fouls (if the robot being pushed is extended while scoring). This incident has occurred to us and others, resulting in the robots being pushed being penalized significantly while the robots pushing are recognizing this strategy as a way of earning quick and easy points. See one of many examples in ISR District 4 Finals 3 here: https://clips.twitch.tv/RacyCoweringChimpanzeeChocolateRain .

We believe that C8 should’ve prevented this from occurring; however, due to the wording of the rule (“ Strategies clearly aimed ”) it is hard for REFEREES to distinguish between whether the pushing robot was attempting to push the cargo-placing robot away from the cargo bay (as a legal defensive move) or as an intentional strategy to force fouls. Due to the lack of certainty with regards to the intent of the defending robot, the referees tend to side with the defenders and grant the robot being pushed penalties with accordance to G9/G10. We believe that this rewards robots that do intentionally inflict fouls on the opponent alliance, allowing for robots “ to gain by doing others harm ”.

This is wrong, this is gamebreaking, and this encourages behavior in the FRC competition that we believe directly contradicts FIRST’s mission. Upon excessive debate on Chief Delphi, we believe that we may have reached multiple potential compromises (in order of most preferred to least) for a rule change, and would appreciate it if you could consider them or implement your own.

  1. Revise G9 and G10 to specify that if a robot is forced to cross the line and immediately attempts to cross back (as defined by a specific time interval, such as 5 seconds), then no fouls are granted. This wouldn’t result in debatable C8 violations and would remove the incentive for intentionally forcing an opponent robot across the line. In case the scoring robot is pinned across the line by an opponent defending robot and cannot return immediately, then this would be a clearer violation of C8 by the defending robot.
  2. Revise G9 and G10 to require the robot to be completely beyond the line, not only bumpers. Therefore, if the robot is pushed fully over the line by an opponent defender, it could be clearer that the defending robot was intending to force a foul and not just push the scoring robot away from the cargo bay. Conversely, if a defending robot is only attempting to push the scoring robot away from the cargo bay (as should be allowed with FIRST defense rules), then the scoring robot wouldn’t cross the line completely and no fouls would be caused.
  3. Instruct the REFEREES to be less hesitant with regards to handing out C8 violations. This could result in legitimate defensive teams receiving fouls when they’re attempting to push scoring-robots away from the cargo, which is why we would recommend the other two options instead (while this is still a viable option if you don’t want to announce a rule change this late in the season).

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXX


#57

This looks great to me.
Its very encouraging to see this moving forward.
Avi


#58

I think it is generally more effective and important to focus on the requirements and principles you believe the rules should have (and the deficiencies of the current rules relative to those requirements), than it is to focus on suggesting new rules directly.

You have to reach consensus on the problems before you can implement a solution.


#59

Can’t say I would agree to this as it removes an actual defensive strategy.

The act of pushing an offensive robot to your side does more than simply stop them from scoring and you can employ it without the intent of drawing a foul. The secondary and I would say could be the primary reason for using this tactic is to give your offense a clean field.

I don’t have to take your best scorer, just your WORST defender. With that bot on my side, now your BEST defender has to stay on your side and we have a better advantage to outscore you.


#60

That’s an interesting approach to the problem, what do we think of the following requirements and principles?

  1. Remove the incentive, foul points against the scoring robot, for defending robots to push scoring robots across the line.
  2. Maintain the principle of defense in FIRST Deep Space by still allowing defending robots to push scoring robots away from the scoring positions, perhaps even across the line.
  3. Minimize the subjectiveness associated with the manner (due to C8’s “intention” clause) to allow for more consistent and understandable decisions by REFEREES.

#61

If statement 1 is implemented, then there would be no problem with this defensive strategy as G9 would not be invoked regardless (as there would only be one robot on the opponent side).


#62

You can push the one robot, but not two. That is why a 5s count will not begin until at least one robot is free.
The clause “that as long as the robot return immediately” only focuses on the one robot. This is an alliance cooperative action. Either said bot returns or the defender returns in their place.

I think we’re thinking the same thing, but viewing the wording differently.