Section 3.2.6: ROBOT-ROBOT Interaction
*The rule change to G27 attempts to discourage ROBOT to ROBOT damage, while still allowing defensive play. On the FIELD, we want to encourage FRC Teams to work with their ALLIANCE partners to demonstrate their technical prowess and game play skills. While pushing and bumping are reasonable game play efforts, anything that resembles intentionally damaging behavior is not. Additionally, the change to G27 enables Referees to issue penalties for causing opponent ROBOT damage, even if not strategic or intentional.
The blue box in G28 is being modified to reflect the fact that it is possible for contact between two extended elements to result in a penalty, if the conditions of G27 are otherwise met. *
G27
Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage, destruction or inhibition of** opponent** ROBOTS via actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment,[strike]damage[/strike], tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed.
Violation: **FOUL. If strategic, **TECHNICAL FOUL. and Potential YELLOW CARD
For example, use of a wedge-like MECHANISM to flip ROBOTS would be considered a violation of G27.
**
MECHANISMS outside the FRAME PERIMETER are particularly susceptible to causing such damage and drawing this penalty and/or penalties associated with violations of G28. Teams are encouraged to be cautious in their use of such appendages when engaging in ROBOT to ROBOT MATCH play*.*
G28 (Blue Box only)
High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. Generally, ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; [strike]no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements. [/strike]
Not sure how I feel about this yet…seems like too much room for judgement calls…
Room for judgement calls is exactly what this game needs. The refs are much better suited watching robot-robot interaction and determining if a robot is ramming with intent to damage than watching lines on the carpet and invisible planes. This rule change will probably add a bit of protection to scoring robots, which should make the game more fun to watch.
What problem does this solve? Defense is the nature of Aerial Assist. Now we have to be cautious about crossing the field at high speed to play defense on a team (setting a pick, persay).
100% agree. The predecessing versions of G27 have been watered down too much in the last few years, so it’s nice to see some strengthening of the rule prohibiting Non-Gracious Professional strategies.
Additionally I’ve heard that officials may be focusing more on robot actions than human violations, but that could just be wishful interpretation…
Yeah, I see this causing a bit more harm than good. I can see fouls being called for light defensive play now.
Also, isn’t one of the primary ways to defend shots (and distinguish between the best scorers and the good scorers) to ram them right before they take the shot?
The post does say bumping is reasonable, but there’s some gray area between that and when it becomes “aggressive ramming.”
I agree with the fact that teams with appendages should be wary of fouls for this, but aggressive ramming? Seriously? If your team can’t handle tough defense, you didn’t design correctly for this years game.
Sounds like you better stay away from robots that have dangling parts.
If your robot is robust and collides with a struggling robot, something will fall off. You could easily get called for damage regardless of intent.
I don’t know that I’m a fan of this update.
If you hit a robot that’s predisposed to fall apart at the slightest contact, and you break any part of said robot, it’s a penalty. There’s been several times where we’ve hit a robot at low speed and the radio has gone flying out of the other robot.
Does this mean the ref has to make a judgement call about whether the opposing robot wasn’t built to handle the game play of Aerial Assist, or is it a situation where the penalty is automatic, and if a robot consistently leaves parts on the field they get a technical?
Just what this game needed: another subjective, hard to enforce rule worth so many points in penalties it will decide regionals.
Does anyone have any idea what aggressive ramming is or when it becomes aggressive vs normal? Anyone?
If this were “ramming appendages outside the Bumper Zone” I’d bite and say okay, not perfect but fair. Bumper to bumper contact counting as ramming is just unnecessary.
“Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage, destruction or inhibition of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment, damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed.”
Is defense legal? Any effective defense inhibits a robot. Most defenders use “strategies” or “game play” that result in “inhibition of opponent ROBOTS” by “ramming”. All defense is “repeated”; very rarely does a defending team only “ram” another robot only once. “Aggressive” is a subjective term, but I’d argue that all defense is aggressive. “Ramming” as opposed to pushing is also very subjective, especially if you collide with another team that’s moving quickly. If this type of foul is called often, then I anticipate many upset teams and inconsistent refereeing.
EDIT: I feel this is quite a bit unfair to teams who, unlike the GDC, realized that in a full open field with no protected areas ramming and high speed collisions would happen a lot, and decided to build incredibly strong and robust robots with the ability to ram teams if they need to. I know there are teams who wouldn’t have built their robot if the rule was like this.
Anything the already overburdened refs manage to have time to watch between their other million things to do. Sorry guys, hope you all brought your second and third pairs of eyes.