Throwing the game.

Competition Rules/Strategy
1

I’m looking at the rules and configuration of this game and am not seeing any reason why a robot on an alliance wouldn’t be able to heavily sway the outcome (throw a game) of a round by “accidentally” knocking over stacks made by the other teammates of said alliance.

At the top of page 3:

Points for the Match are awarded based on the state of the scored objects at the end of the Match 
(with the exception of Coopertition Points, which can be earned at any point during the Match). 
Point values are shown in Table 1-2.
  1. If the majority of score-able points are only counted at the end of the match and
  2. If a robot is low enough in qualifying that they will not be immediately in the playoffs and
  3. Knowing the alliances per match (Released in the AM of each day):

A team could effectively “buy in” to the Playoffs by making a deal with a high-scoring team on the other alliance during a match to throw a game reducing the points collected by another high level team that one would consider a threat.

For instance:

Red Alliance:
Teams A, B, C

Blue alliance:
Teams D, E, F

Blue team alliance member D is a shoe-in for Playoffs.

Red team alliance member A will be able to make the playoffs if they score so and so points in this round.

Red Team alliance member B may or may not be close to qualify, but won’t make it no matter what the outcome score of this round would be.

One team contacts the other in discussion and reaches an agreement that if they prevent team A from succeeding to reach the required score to get them in to playoffs, Team D would select team B for qualifying.

This would prevent Team A from having the initial pick round, and would hope another qualified team would pick them.

G15 says in violation there will be a firm talking to, and potentially a yellow or red card if it happens again. As this tactic would be most effective towards the last qualifying rounds, it really doesn’t matter.

G16 Violation sort of covers this, but 1) It’s up to the head referee to determine disabling and 2) the damage would already be underway, so there would be a loss of points.

Effectively, this could be considered an “Accident”, which would mean a team could get away with being non-GP without being accused of BEING non-GP.

D

2

Sure they could. But this isn’t really any different than previous years, where you had W-L-T, except now the math is a bit trickier, because all the ranking is based off of averages.

And even if you DO throw a match, are you going to completely trust that other team to pick you?

Instead of scheming to screw over your teammates, why don’t we all just try and play our hardest and score as many points as we can?

3

Such teams will be barred from any FIRST events for ever!

… if this was up to me.

4

The blatantly obvious is to display GP. That’s the point of this game.

That said, this is a conceivable “What if” scenario that should possibly be explored.

Ideally, this would allow for a change in the rulesets to cover this before entering the first competition.

D

5

This isn’t a unique situation where throwing a match could upset final rankings.

G15 says in violation there will be a firm talking to, and potentially a yellow or red card if it happens again. As this tactic would be most effective towards the last qualifying rounds, it really doesn’t matter.

While yellow/red cards might technically only apply to that regional, the stigma of getting heavily penalized for actions that go against the spirit of the competition might stick with your team for awhile. FIRST teams have good memories.

I don’t think you were suggesting your team might consider such a thing, and were just worried about others doing so. However, I personally would not be too anxious about this impacting your strategy or events you attend. Just focus on playing a clean game with a smart strategy, and these things tend to self-police.

6

Exactly.

Unless the team gets disqualified from any future FRC events, this wouldn’t bother a team. Especially if they can claim it was all accidental.

This is more of a thought experiment and the questioning of the rules.
And no. Even if I were, this team I mentor for is comprised of amazingly caring students who actually wouldn’t have (and wouldn’t) even considered this.

Personally, I appreciate your outlook. As much as I would prefer everyone have that same optimistic view, in my career, I’m trained to think otherwise. 0

D

7

No high-ranking team that has any chance of doing well in the playoffs would accept this. They’re going to pick whatever robots will help them score the most points (or stop their opponents from scoring the most). They do this through great scouting, good strategy, and a good robot. And playing clean.

And if some team picking in the top 8 would go for this, it’s not like you’re not going anywhere with them anyway, so I wouldn’t even bother.

8

Don’t get me wrong: My team is going to try really hard to win. We are competitive…

HOWEVER, “winning” is neither the focus nor the ultimate goal of FIRST. FIRST is all about Grace and Professionalism. At the same time, the competition cannot be removed. Our society and economy is built around competition. FIRST attempts to address: How can we be competitive with one another, yet retain our Grace and Professionalism?

Sometimes I wonder if these loopholes in our games are left somewhat intentionally to give our teams - under the guidance of mentors - an opportunity to demonstrate such Gracious Professionalism, despite the temptation to clearly violate GP and “win.”

So… I would hope that our community as a whole would reject this potential temptation as a “cheap” way to game the system for a silly trophy. I felt the same way about the Noodle Agreement.

9

How big would the robot have to be to throw the entire game?
It fills the back of large truck :wink:

Kidding…obviously,

If your team makes a habbit out of tossing your alliance mates under the bus (or bus sized robot) I would expect that it will come back to haunt your team later.

10

Sounds like you would “accidently” be removed from pick lists by doing something like this.

11

This. I like this.

I would hope so as well.
The noodle agreement is getting a rule made to prevent this from happening, which brings me to the point of my post: Should there be a rule made/altered to ensure this can’t happen?

On a positive note, I’m loving that the responses tend to lean towards the optimistic side. That gives me good feelings for this season.

D

12

It’s not like it hasn’t happened in the past.

I think this is the 2010 Breakaway match that was “thrown” for seeding advantage.

In this game, your opponents score contributed to your ranking.

13

What would that rule be? Anybody who just starts blatantly knocking over stacks is already in danger of getting a red card.

The great peril of this game is that one little mistake can lose the match. If you haven’t tried it already, knock over a six tote stack with a can on it, and watch in horror how far the can goes. At some point, we’ll see a can fly over the step (adding a six point foul to the already grievous injury), and I’ll bet the other alliance will even use it to score.

Who could tell whether a quarter spin in the wrong direction that knocks over a stack is an accident, or on purpose? Accidents are going to happen, and we’ve all got to keep graciously, professionally cool.

14

That’s one of my points. That makes it exploitable. “I don’t know, I think the drivetrain went out”, or an excuse of that nature, makes it an accident.

This wouldn’t be a tactic a team would take willy nilly. This is something that would be likely to happen towards the end of the qualifying rounds.

So, effectively, not counting the grey stacks until after the match has ended could be the root of the issue.

D

15

There is a big difference between a whole alliance deciding to score for your opponent in a game that rewards all 6 teams for such an action, and one team going rogue to sabotage another as is being discussed here.

16

So, if a team that was on the edge of being a picking team were to receive this offer, would they accept it? Hopefully not. That would violate the code of GP and even then, if the opposing team made the picking, they would most likely choose the robots that fit their strategy best.

17

In 2012 a team that was partnered with 1717 at the Central Valley regional caused over 40 pts in penalties which caused them to barely lose the match (1717’s only loss at that event). Whether it was intentional or not they were (“accidentally”) not picked.

There have been times where teams were accused of doing similar actions, 217 on newton 2013, 973 at cvr 2014, etc. where the team actually had success in elims and it caused many to complain publicly.

In those instances no foul play was ever proven. In your scenario, foul play would be obvious and the outcry would be even greater. You may win that event but teams (and volunteers) will remember it and come to dislike you.

18

Will it, though? There is of course the obvious “Let’s knock these crates over” maneuver when one would just slam in to the crates with intent.

But then there is also what was mentioned earlier; where someone would get close and perhaps sideswipe it. Or the team would say their robot went straight and became unresponsive for a moment (Which is known to happen [many times last season] and the robots were rarely disabled) but afterwards they regained control (just to lose it again?).

A lot of this can be explained away as accidental, and shoot, could very well BE accidental.

So, if one could create stacks and have the points awarded upon completion of said stack and not end of game, wouldn’t that be partially effective? Of course that would then open up the possibility that someone could build a stack, score, destroy the stack and rebuild it, mobius strip.

D

19

Wouldn’t a top ranked team in a regional or at world’s want a teammate who is always effective at what they do, instead of being just partially effective?

20

To its core, FIRST Robotics is founded on the Honor System. How do I know teams stop work on February 17th, that their systems were not built before January 3rd, that their robot truly is under budget restrictions, etc? I don’t.
But I have faith in them, as they do with us.
I have an inherent trust in every team attending FIRST events, as I presume they would have for me.
Suggesting such a maneuver would be a betrayal of that trust.
If we were in Team B’s position, I wouldn’t trust Team D to follow through on their end of the bargain. If they’re playing dirty pool with Team A, who’s to say they wouldn’t do the same with us?