Is it legal to have a device that holds on to or wraps around an opponents bumpers? Like in last years game they said we could expand up to 9 feet so could we have an arm that is wide enough to form a “U” around another robot to pin it?
I don’t know the specific rule that bans it, but I’m going to say “absolutely not”
Dan might not know it, but I looked it up. All rules are 2011 versions, but may have been around longer. Emphasis mine.
<G48> Strategies aimed at the destruction, attachment, damage, tipping or entanglement of ROBOTS, MINIBOTS, or HOSTBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: PENALTY plus YELLOW CARD
Entanglement is because you’re risking doing just that, attachment is because that is what you’re talking about.
You would also be risking <G48-B>, damaging contact inside the Frame Perimeter (Penalty plus possible Yellow Card). <G50>, pinning, does not apply, surprisingly enough, due to field elements being specified in <G50>.
So, minimum of 1 penalty 1 YC the first time you use it; the second time, it’s 1 penalty 1 Red Card (second yellow card). Assuming that you don’t damage your opponent inside their frame perimeter, of course.
And all this is independent of your ability to fit into the size rule.
I would file this under, “If you do it week one there will be a rule by week 2.”
FIRST has a tendency to dislike pure defensive strategies because they make the game unwatchable by outsiders. The rules for the last few years have been very specific about disallowing any game breaking defensive strategies. This was because in 2006 it was legal to tip your opponents on the ramp which made it easy for defensive specialists to win events.
Peter,
From 2006 “The Game”
<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, in many cases, robots are capable of tipping someone but refrain from doing so. If an aggressor drives against one of these types of robots and the robot stops moving but the aggressor tips over as a result, it is the fault of the aggressor.
To remind those on the fringe, an arm of the type you describe makes a wonderful fulcrum and would allow most robots on the field to simply push against your arm when extended. If it is as long as you suggest, the advantage lies with your opponent and it is possible for them to spin you around or otherwise disable your strategy. Correctly carried out, an opponent can simply lift your robot off it’s wheels and prevent any action on your part.
I was specifically referring to the loophole above exploited by many teams that pretty much allowed any interaction on the ramp. Teams would push a robot up the ramp and back away allowing the robot to fall over. Pushing a robot driving up the ramp over backwards was also frequently done. Both were never called for penalties all season because it was a difficult judgement to make as to whether or not it was intentional. Also the maximum penalty for tipping a robot also from <G22> was 5 pts. As a trade off was nothing compared to knocking a robot out of the match. This was the specific reason yellow and red cards were eventually introduced.
Only thing is you were pushing up you alliance partner right?
Not necessarily.
I saw many instances in 2006 where teams who were on offense would “escort” the defensive robot in front of the ramp, up the ramp. They would then back away and let gravity take over.
The same could be said for a defensive robot coming from behind an offensive robot, push them up the ramp, back away, let gravity take over.
Exhibit A:
-Brando
It was never intentional on our part, however last year our claw at the LA regional had an opening small enough that we could latch on onto other robots bumpers and hold on quite tight. Our driver did this a few times and I don’t think we were ever penalized for it though.
I do believe you should have been. This seems like a cut and dry case of “strategies designed to entangle another robot”. Which, as ericH pointed out, was against the rules.
If it was unintentional, and designed to pick up tubes instead of bumpers, then I’m inclined to disagree. However, a “fix-it” warning should probably have been issued after the first couple of times.
Defense is an awesome part of every game. FIRST may not like them but, last year team 3553 was one of two really well design defensive bots and world championships. Also I do not believe defensive bots make the game any less watchable. Unless the defensive bot is so amazing at its task as to shut down all scoring. Such a bot would be awesome to see in action, because they are going to win everything.
It was never obvious that we did it, our driver says that it happened a few times when we were trying to grab a tube and a defender got in the way.
I’m not saying I agree with this. I’m saying I can read between the lines of the rules. There has been a clear move to try to make the games primarily offensive via penalties and DQs starting in 2008. Part of it is trying to balance offense and defense. Part of it is watching high scoring games where a lot is going on is good for the theoretical outside spectator.
Most of you probably weren’t around for 2003 which was a purely defensive game. It was horrible. The game was so bad no one wanted to watch it and lives in infamy as the worst game we’ve ever had.
2006 on the other hand was great because everyone had to play offense and defense which made for a great game flow.
Peter,
I cannot agree. While some teams did dominate that year, 16 for instance, defensive strategies extended to different areas. There were some great robot designs and some interesting strategies that were employed that other teams had never conceived. Driving under the bar instead of going over the ramp for instance. A sweeping arm employed from the ground instead of the ramp during auto. 2003 was an exciting game to watch if the robots on the field actually played the game. While it doesn’t rank very high for me because the human player had so little impact, I wouldn’t put it near the bottom. ( I like games where the human player has some impact which preserves team involvement should a robot break, tip over or get caught in a field element.)
BTW I am a little biased since 2003 was our first Champs win. However, there were many teams which we feared facing in finals matches.
Second worst game we’ve ever had. The 1 worst game was pure, 100% offense. 2001 had a 4v0 against the clock. 2003 wasn’t bad… except that any stack of more than one container became an instant target. (And the “how high is the stack” and “does the paper slide” discussions…)
For a game like aim high, would it be legal to construct a robot that attached to its alliance partners in such a way as to completely block off the field?
Do you have a decent video showing this defense?
I’d wager there were 20+ teams capable of equally effective defense (if not better), without having a special defense purposed system (but were too busy playing offense).