Im wondering if a robot would be penalized for hitting an opponent’s robot going over a bump, and flipping it, would be cause for a penalty. G36 says that strategies aimed at flipping over robots is a cause for a yellow, but then g37 states that high speed collisions and bumper to bumper interaction is legal. If a robot flipped another while it was vulnerable on the bump, would a ref call a penalty even if it was a bumper to bumper hit?
That actually came up in one of our strategizing sessions yesterday, so I’m glad you asked this.
What we decided (which may be wrong) is that if you accidentally flip another robot over while making legal contact between the two robots, then it is completely legal.
Although if this is your strategy, or you contact them above or below the bumpers, then it is illegal.
I interpreted G36 as it being intended to remove robot mechanisms or stratagies designed to flip other robots…
I’t would really be up to the Ref’ to decide if you intentionally “gave a flipper to the throat” (sorry, I had to put this in here, my football coach always says this to the defensive line) LOL:D
Seek clarification on the Q&A, but in the “Aim High” game, there was a 30 degree ramp leading up to a platform, and there was a LOT of “vigorous interaction” between robots on and around the platform. If you made legal contact with another robot on or around the platform… and they tipped over… that was their problem.
Not that you would tip them intentionally, or cheer when it happened, but you didn’t have to worry about being called for tipping.
“Previous year’s rules do not apply to this game, etc. etc.”
Jason
That’s what I thought, but then how is a ref going to tell the difference between a hit designed to flip a robot and a hit designed to stop a robot? I wouldn’t think they would leave such an arbitrary decision to a ref. And g37 also says interaction outside the bumpers is legal on the ramps.
sighs Well they at least they’re going to accomplish their goal of making it similar to mainstream sports. I think this year will leave more than a few teams unhappy with referee decisions.
EDIT: Thanks jason, that’s what Im hoping they’ll do this year. Obviously a flipping spatula is not legal, but I didn’t want to either not block for fear of penalties, or have a game changing penalty for blocking, and flipping another.
There is no rule that says that a defending robot must clear
a path for an offensive robot to use in crossing a barrier.
It is a precarious crossing, crossing on top of another robot
would be done at your own risk.
A defending robot that “hits” a robot that is crossing,
causing it to be up-ended, will be something that is left
to the referees. In Aim High, the precarious spot was
the high value scoring position, and it was a real war
there for good reasons. I don’t think that you have
that justification with the barrier crossings in this game.
Eugene
So, with the photos of robots with 6, 8 (or 10 or 12 or …) wheels “down” being posted more and more, I got to thinking about this issue again.
These “low clearance” robots hang out a considerable distance as they traverse the bump. This brings up several questions:
-
If a “low clearance” bot goes over the bump and comes down on top of another bot on the other side of the bump, is there a penalty? <G38>
-
If a “low clearance” bot is extended (hanging out over the edge) of the bump and another bot comes up underneath it moving in the opposite direction, it is likely that the “low clearance” bot will be flipped. Is this a penalty? <G36>
-
Does the answer to either question change based on “intention”? (How will a ref know?)
-
Is the bump a true “anything goes” zone?
From what I understand - a “low clearance” robot runs a substantial risk of driving on top of another robot, which violates <G38b> - so they’ve got to be real careful going over a “defended” bump.
On the other hand, they run the risk of being flipped by an aggressive defender, possibly making a defender guilty of violating <G36> which would suggest that blocking a “low clearance” bot is a very dangerous strategy.
Humm…
-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox
I would be very interested in seeing any clarification about this. For any robots designed to deny a particular zone from opponents, specifically, from opponents who cannot travel through the tunnel, this could be a really tricky situation to be in.
When an 8 wheel drive come over the bump trying to get into the zone you are defending, do you:
- Get to the top of the bump first and deny them that position,
- climb the bump at the same time as your opponents and hope to make bumper and bumper contact only,
- push them while half their base is sticking out at the top of the bump,
- Sit on the incline on the your side of the bump such that when their robot cross over, they will land on your robot,
- wait until their robot stabilize on top of the bump before climbing and pushing,
- or wait for your opponent to cross the peak and begin climbing down on your side before you start pushing.
I can see option 3 is being closed to violating G36, but option 4 might be acceptable to people.
Bear in mind all of these will happen within a split second, making it hard to tell what actually happened. What’s the difference between climbing up your side of the bump, getting your front 2 wheels at the top, sit there, versus climbing up your side of the bump, get your front 2 wheels at the top, and begin pushing when the other robot gets there?
This option may be very likely to get you flipped over on your back or sitting up on top of the robot you were trying to defend.
Even if all the contact remains bumper-to-bumper, the climbing robot will bu pushing up at a considerable angle on the robot sitting up on top of the bump.
Did anyone ever submit a question to have this clarified on the Q&A system?
The following is my opinion and not that of a FIRST referee:
1> Maybe
2> Maybe
3> Not so much intention, but how flagrent it is
4> Most likely it will be the wild west. Expect contact, expect contact outside the bumperzone, and expect to get rolled if you are not careful about where and when you cross.
Again my opinions here:
1> will get the defending bot rolled
2> Best scenario, and the least likely to happen in the heat of competition
3> Most likely defense and most likely to roll the crossing robot
4> Least likely to happen because it’ll be the most likely to damage the defending bot
5> Won’t happen
6> Give up the advantage? won’t happen.
Considering the options, anyone building to cross the bumps should be prepared to have to right themselves or figure out how to cross and avoid defense.
I know this isn’t what you wanted to hear, but I suggest you design for ‘vigorous interaction’ with other robots.
Refs, FTAs and LRIs are the most highly trained volunteers in the competition. After seeing a few matches they will most certainly know.
I bet your answer contains the words “that would not be in the spirit of the FRC”.
Maybe, but it could also contain words that deal with a high center of gravity or not having a righting mechanism. Really depends on who pushes, when they pushed and how it appears to the referees. As I found out while reffing, it is very difficult to judge intent.
yeah… if it is done by accident and no more than once, then it is ok… but if it seems intentional and you have been warned than you will get a red card…
oh one thing i forgot to mention… you will only get a red card if it is the contact damaged the other robot
This is illegal under rule <G36>
ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: YELLOW CARD
Yes, but how can you tell the difference between a robot that is trying to tip another robot and a robot that is just trying to prevent another from crossing the bump and entering a different zone?
Simple, as Al stated earlier repeated purposeful offenses are easily detected by trained field hands and refs, not to mention all the other teams that are watching you and realizing they don’t want to be associated with teams participating in such actions. There’s also the matter of Gracious Professionalism and honor that should prevent teams from performing such blatant rule violations.
Here is the key of the issue.
Let’s say the opponent is designed such that it is very difficult to trip their robot over, on or off the bump. Let’s say their robot was tipped over after engaging in a pushing match with your robot on the bump. Is it considered a penalty if:
- The tipping resulted from accidental contacts between the two robots.
- The tipping resulted from bumper to bumper interactions between the two robots.
- The tipping resulted from aggressive maneuvers from your robot.
Ok, second scenario.
Let’s say the opponent is designed such that it is very easy to tip their robot over on the bump (a slight touch would do). Let’s say their robot was tipped over after engaging in a pushing match with your robot on the bump. Is it considered a penalty if:
- The tipping resulted from accidental contacts between the two robots.
- The tipping resulted from bumper to bumper interactions between the two robots.
- The tipping resulted from aggressive maneuvers from your robot.
To me, the opponent must bear some responsibility in designing their robot such that when they are crossing the bump, they cannot be tipped easily. Otherwise, no one will dare doing any sort of defense on the bump. If any actions that lead to a tipped robot also lead to a penalty, regardless of the situation, I am just going to let the opponent cross the bump.
Agreed.
I don’t think it should matter if the other robot tipped or if the other robot broke. If your robot was agressively intending to break or tip another robot, it should be a penalty, regardless of the result.
As an analogy, in football penalties are not thrown when a player get hurts but when an illegal hit occured. It doesn’t matter if the QB suffers a concusion, a helmet to helmet hit results in a 15 yard penalty. Bringing this idea back to the first word, it doesn’t matter if the other robot breaks or tips, contact outside the bumperzone or contact with intent to damage results in a penalty.
(Although, I’m tempted to build a robot that is super tipy to teams would be afraid to get even close to me 
)
There is no merit to the differences between these scenarios, for this argument, strategy aimed at tipping your opponents are illegal and incur a yellow card under the violation of rule <G36>. The differences you’ve presented are whether or not the opponents robot is properly engineered to be as stable as possible or it is easily tippable. In the cases of accidental collisions it would be accidental and would incur no penalty. Although it does not matter whether the interaction was within the legal bumper zone or it was not purposefully tipping you opponents is an illegal action. Also aggressive actions would be considered purposeful and will incur a penalty.
For the actions you’ve presented on playing defense to a robot on a bump the best action, on your part, would be to stand in the opposing robots way, and push back with your robot as fit to prevent their forward movement. With this you should be able to prevent tipping on both sides, and if tipping does occur, in my opinion under these circumstances it would be considered accidental and therefore legal.