Immediate and necessary rule change!


#63

I see your argument; how about we revise “and immediately attempts to cross back” to “and one of the robots from the alliance forced to cross the line immediately attempts to cross back”?


#64

So what 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 agreed on specific guidelines for which the game should adhere to in order to be in accordance with the core tenet of Gracious Professionalism:

  1. Remove the incentive of 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.

In addition, we have come up with the following proposals (in order of most preferred to least) that adhere to these guidelines and could be implemented to solve the problem. We would appreciate it if you could consider them or implement those your own.

  1. Revise G9 and G10 to specify that if a robot is forced to cross the line and one of the robots from the alliance forced to cross the line 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 — or at least establish a baseline between them as, as it stands, some referees are extremely hesitant and others extremely decisive with regards to what is considered a C8 violation in this case. 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

Getting longer than I expected but it may still work.


#65

And this, kids, is why you build a drive system that can’t be pushed across the field involuntarily.

TBH, any team that decided to go with omni, mecanum, or any other kind of low-friction wheels this year really should have expected this. If you build a robot that can be pushed, don’t be surprised if you get pushed places you don’t want to be.


#66

It’s easier to change C8 to this:

“Actions that cause an opponent to commit a rule violation will result in no foul.”

You could go further and say that repeated or strategic such actions will escalate to a yellow card, but I think you could just as easily omit that and let rule C1 cover that situation.


#67

Honestly, you could come up with a million different rule changes to solve this issue, and they would each probably result in a different problem. I think the guidelines that we established are sufficient in dealing with the issue, and I currently see no problem with the solutions we proposed (especially #1).


#68

I suggest changing this to “We have been victims of or witnessed this event occurring[…]”
Many of the teams in this thread who wish to see this changed have not yet actually had it happen to their robot. Changing that language would allow for a honest signature on the letter for those teams.

Additionally, I would just remove all the explicit suggestions on rules fixes. Let the GDC come up with their preferred method of fixing it now that the letter lays out the problem and defines why we view it as an issue.


#69

If anything, I think this clause has the best chances of getting implemented as it would happen behind the scenes and FIRST wouldn’t need to explain a rule change this late to anyone.

Sure, good catch.

I do think that proposing ideas could help the process, what are your thoughts?


#70

I think different people who want to sign this letter are going to have different preferred solutions, and leaving it off the letter allows or more people to engage with it. Just my $0.02


#71

+1^.

I think Good Guy Frank can fix problems in his program. What we can do is point out what we see, and that we view it as a problem, and why we view it that way. Frank has a staff, and the GDC, to help with finding the right fix.


#72

Good points, so how about this?

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). We have been victims of or witnessed this event occurring, and have seen 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 agreed on specific guidelines for which the game should adhere to in order to be in accordance with the core tenet of Gracious Professionalism:

  1. Remove the incentive of 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.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXX


#73

I think there’s no harm in suggesting fixes - they don’t have to be used. Leaving it “up to them” is how we got the rule as it is. Clearly they could use some input.


#74

I see both of your perspectives, so I would just say to include the suggestions in the letter and anyone that wants to can remove them in the letter that they send (if they strongly object to the three proposed solutions). What do you think?


#75

Imo C8 is made to be subjective and unless there is overwhelming evidence which supports no other conclusion that causing their opponents to commit a foul was their intention it is never called. I don’t see how you can change this. I agree for the majority of the rest of the message.


#76

So can we all agree on the following message? If you really want to, you can exclude the potential solutions part.

FIRST’s email is FIRSTRoboticsCompetition@firstinspires.org

Would appreciate it if you could send the request out to more teams and have them email FIRST as well (as suggested by @Tomker) .

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). We have been victims of or witnessed this event occurring, and have seen 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 game breaking, 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 agreed on specific guidelines for which the game should adhere to in order to be in accordance with the core tenet of Gracious Professionalism:

  1. Remove the incentive of 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.

In addition, we have come up with the following proposals (in order of most preferred to least) that adhere to these guidelines and could be implemented to solve the problem. We would appreciate it if you could consider them or implement those your own.

  1. Revise G9 and G10 to specify that if a robot is forced to cross the line and one of the robots from the alliance forced to cross the line 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 — or at least establish a baseline between them as, as it stands, some referees are extremely hesitant and others extremely decisive with regards to what is considered a C8 violation in this case. 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


#77

You can make ambiguity a no-call either way. Currently the rule forces a foul on either one team or the other when it happens.


#78

I believe that this just adds to the strategy of the game. Reading the manual carefully to find every way you can possibly score points and avoid fouls has always been a part of FRC. The defense/offence balance this year really is exciting and it will make the difference in driver skill even more apparent.


#79

I still have no issue with actual actions taken to defend. I feel like you do, that it’s important for the game to be exciting.

However, I don’t think the team getting pushed should be penalized. They are already not able to score. Why does defense deserve points? It is already removing points from the other team.

A No Call in this situation is the best thing that can happen imo.


#80

I agree completely, which is echoed in the first two guidelines established in the letter: don’t penalize the team getting pushed but still allow the defensive teams to push: essentially a No Call.


#81

And if they are looking for ideas, they know where to look on CD.


#82

Sure, it adds strategy.

Its just not good ones.