A lesson learned for Atlanta.
So far in this thread, I hear alot of whining, and not enough chatter about how to improve, how to make this game better.
I think this game is getting better as it progresses, still not the best FIRST has mad…by far. But its becoming a little better to watch. I actually saw a QF match this weekend that had half the rack full. I was astonished.
…speaking of which:
It seemed to me that /EDIT/ QUARTER final play was more fun to watch than final play.
The matches weren’t blown out either. As you said Corey, there were many tubes on the rack from both alliances.
interesting…
Are you talking about any regional inparticular or just overall?
Teams are missing (understimating) the value of automomous. The true value of the keeper is NOT 2 points. Look at the match a different way (backwards rather than forwards). Evaluate the keeper’s worth by looking at tube positions at the END of the match. The keeper is an incremental tube scored in a row. Without it, an alliance would have one fewer tubes creating the exponential score. Example: At the conclusion of a match an alliance with a row of 6 including a keeper would score 64. Without the keeper, 32. The keeper value is actually 2^n - (2^(n-1)), where “n” is the series number of tubes in the keeper’s row.
With more and more defense being played, and with more strategic placement of tubes and spoilers, the incremental exponential value of a keeper will be much more important than its 2 point illusion.
One thing we realized at SVR this year is that it is not possible to win a match if there is only one scoring robot on your alliance and the other alliance has a ramp bot. That was the case with us a lot. After we racked up 290 points in the first match of the regional with team 100, they just double or sometimes triple teamed us so we couldnt score then got 60 points for ramps. Our alliance did great trying to keep the opposing alliance away from us but 3 robots coming at us is to much to defend against. one thing I did notice about rough defense was in the first round of quarter finals we attempted to score and 190 pushed us into the rack and ended up spinning the rack about 90 degrees. I was heated and insisted it was a pinning penalty because I couldn’t move but I went to the head ref and asked him to clarify. He said that as long as we have a keeper in our possession the other alliance could pin us against the rack as long as they wanted. I thought it was a wrong call but I didnt argue and ended up having to drop many ringers in the match to follow im order to get 190 to stop pinning us… We lost, but props to 190, that was the most intense defense I have ever experienced in 3 years of driving.
This is correct, as per <G39>. Our alliance received a pinning penalty during the elimination rounds that was announced in such a way as to make it seem like it was illegal to pin a robot that was not carrying a game piece against the rack. I had a long conversation with the head ref. to ensure that both he and I were understanding the rule correctly and, after that, was satisfied that he was calling <G39> correctly.
thanks for the compliment. It might pain you to know that our driver was actually holding back on the defense to avoid penalties. Back on the east coast, it can get MUCH more intense. Just come to New Jersey or Connecticut sometime to see what I mean.
I don’t, however, agree with the ref’s explanation. Rule <G39> is a little ambiguous as to WHO exactly is immune, but the way I read it was “you may pin another robot between you and the rack if you are attempting to hang a ringer” as opposed to “you may be pinned if you are attempting to hang a ringer”, as the refs called it. Maybe this should be clarified on the Q&A about exactly which robot is immune…
Specifcly UTC, congrats btw. I saw most of that regional via webcast but I think the same is true for midwest; I am not sure how far in to elims I started watching matches there though. I am waiting for archived webcast of some more regionals before I make a couple of week 4 Boston predictions based on many things, including what happened at UTC primarily because of their relative location.
Don’t get it twisted, we expected heavy defense, who didnt. We also expected the same protection from the rules, just as any other team. Not saying the refs were wrong, it jus felt as though everyone wanted us to push back…and when we did, we were the only ones who were doin <G35> and/or <G39> and i will speak for myself, when i didnt know using a different strategy means being shut out.
When he says “Shut out” I believe he was saying it in the sense of the alliance having a final score of 0.
Seen
Here: http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=1342
and
Here: http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=1344
Edit: I would also like to know what matches your team keeps bringing up where things were “not called”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burkechrs1 http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif](http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=600871#post600871)
He said that as long as we have a keeper in our possession the other alliance could pin us against the rack as long as they wanted. I thought it was a wrong call but I didnt argue and ended up having to drop many ringers in the match to follow im order to get 190 to stop pinning us…
I’m not quite sure I understand everyone’s position as stated above. Madison, could you please clarify what part of burkechrs1’s statement you believe is “correct”? As much as I’d love for the defense to be able to pin ringer-possessing offensive bots to the rack all day without penalty, I believe the opposite is actually the rule:
From G39:
Note that a ROBOT attempting to HANG a GAME PIECE
[LEFT]on the RACK will be immune from a "pinning" violation as long as it is clear that the ROBOT is continuing to attempt to HANG the GAME PIECE.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]To be immune is to be incapable of receiving something “bad”. I believe the OFFENSIVE robot will be “immune” from receiving a penalty if it pins the defensive bot to the rack while attempting to score. I do not believe the converse is true. People think the rule is ambiguous, but I think it is clear. This is one area where the GDC is helpin’ out the offensive guys, and the rule makes very good sense.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Yes, I do stick up for Dave and the GDC when it is warranted, which is most of the time.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]I just want to make sure everyone is clear on this, so…[/LEFT]
[LEFT](Sorry for the big type but it’s necessary - there’s only one place to turn to for the true interpretation. I PM’d him requesting a reply, but I wanted all thread readers to notice this particular post.)[/LEFT]
DAVE COULD YOU PLEASE CLEAR THE INTENT OF <G39> UP FOR EVERYONE?
To think that the refs at UTC called things differently when 25 was on the field then when they weren’t is just being a poor sport. There is no massive conspiracy to prevent 25 from winning. From the description in this thread, nobody violated <G35> OR <G39>. Incidental contact outside the bumper zones (such as arms contacting each other while one team play defense). It is especially permitted here:
Extension to extension contact between two ROBOTS with appendages outside the 28-
inch by 38-inch starting footprint will generally not be penalized.
If the other team had used it’s arm to grapple or latch onto your game piece, it would have violated the rules. If the other teams used it’s arm to purposely damage yours, it would have violated the rules. If the other team used it’s arm to tip yours, it would have violated the rules. If the other teams used their arm (and arm alone, not movement from the base resulting in contact with the arms) to hit your robot, it may or may not be against the rules. Otherwise most arm-to-arm contact will be permitted, especially by refs at a regional like UTC.
As for <G39>, the wording is ambiguous as to who receives protection from the pinning rule while scoring, the scoring team, or the defensive team, but it appears that refs are ruling that the team playing defense can pin as long as they wish legally. No rules violation there either.
From what I have heard in this thread, no rules were violated. When I watch the video, I may or may not change my mind.
Woah! How is the rule ambiguous? It is clear that the rule is intended to allow an OFFENSIVE robot trying to score a ringer to pin a DEFENSIVE robot against the rack while trying to score. So you are saying that a ringer robot trying to score can be pinned against the rack for an indefinite period of time? If this is true, then I am zip tying my arm down and pinning every single offensive robot against the rack at Champs.
C’mon guys, the rule is clear:
…Note that a ROBOT attempting to HANG a GAME PIECE on the RACK will be immune from a “pinning” violation as long as it is clear that the ROBOT is continuing to attempt to HANG the GAME PIECE.
It says the ROBOT attempting the HANG is immune to the violation, not the ROBOT defending the hang is immune. Whoever interpreted it any other way is just plain wrong.
I am entering a Q&A tonight.
I agree with you Paul…I thought it was pretty clear.
so if team A is trying to hang a ringer and team B pins them against the rack for more than 10 seconds then there is no penalty or are u saying if team b is pinned against the rack as long as team A is trying to score there is no penalty?
The second of the two. If a robot gets in between you and the rack while you’re trying to score, then if you pin them while attempting to score for over ten seconds, you are not penalized (my interpretation).
You’re right – I’m just a bit braindead today.
We (2104) were fortunate to be picked by the 25, 176 alliance at UTC, knowing we had a crippled drive train, and are grateful for that. Up until the finals, the strategy of 25 & 176 scoring then ramping on us worked well. During the 1st final round, 25 was double-teamed and had difficulty scoring - a great strategy by the winning alliance. I wish we (2104) had done a better job making our drive-train work so we could have done some body-guarding, as our alliance was essentially playing 2v3. Even without any help from us, 25 did a brilliant last 10-second spoiler then missed ramping by 1/2 a second. During the 2nd final round, they changed strategy to just hold down the opponents score, then ramp for the win. During the 3rd final round they used the same strategy and our alliance was unlucky in the ramping. I didn’t see anything unfair or overly aggressive in the matches. What did we learn? I love FIRST and we’ll do a better/smarter job next year!
I am completey suprised with so few Auto-modes. The auto-mode is SOOO important this year. Probably only 1 step lower in importance from Aim High. Seriously, having keepers on the rack before robots can play the defense game is like going twice to begin a game of Tic-Tac-Toe.
And it’s not like it’s a difficult auto-mode either. Tripple Play was difficult, Aim High was easy, Rn’R is between. I am suprised that no robots take a ringer by the side and run toward the spider legs to hook the keeper on the side.
I think the high defense is a result of the low auto-modes.