G12 and "extra scrutiny"

According to SG12 primarily defensive teams are supposed to receive “extra scrutiny” with regards to driving in a manner that is “potentially causing damage.” I’ve seen full power ramming into the back of a robot at the driver load, mangling mobile goal intakes, kamikaze autonomous, etc. that are actually causing damage (not just potentially) and not even being warned. IMO the refs need to be more proactive on this and should not be waiting until damage actually occurs (hence the term “potentially causing”).

IMO people need to build their robots to withstand interaction. I noticed the OP forgot to quote this part of SG12 “A Team should design its Robot such that it is not easily tipped over or damaged by minor contact.”

If the contact is just bumping into a robot, that seems pretty minor to me. It is not like we are seeing robots that are designed to knock pieces of a well build robot off like we see in battle bots.

I agree with this. Generally, if a robot ramming you breaks your robot, that’s on you. But, if they have an arm that is pulling up your wires or bashing your robot, that is on them.

All VEX games are meant to primarily offensive. While robots should not be easily damaged, the position that a defensive team’s robot is not responsible for the damage they cause is not surprising considering the lack of enforcement I’ve seen. The option to play primarily defensive is supposed to come with additional liability (extra scrutiny) that since you are causing greater and more intense robot interactions, you also assume greater consideration for the potential damage your strategic choice produces. Both posts are affirmation that this is not being made clear.

Lmao that robot was pretty dank after I saw my mogo intake bent 90 degrees xD

Actually, this position is not surprising considering the only mention of violations for damaging robots is

And the same rule, as other posters have mentioned, states that some damage may occur as a result of normal match play. No part of my robot can be broken after even a full match of vigorous pushing and ramming (at least no part that will be exposed to pushing and ramming; as stated, using a manipulator to damage is entirely different).

“Supposed” to come with additional liability? Liability is not the same as scrutiny. Additional scrutiny means that extra attention will be paid to solely defensive robots to look for rule violations, not that the rules are any different for solely defensive robots. The point is “not being made clear” because it is not a valid interpretation of the rules.

Note: I do not have a defensive bot this season.

+1
(This forum really needs react buttons)

+100000

I am with @Aponthis and @ILoveBots and others who have properly understood the rules. Some people think that “extra scrutiny” means defense is against the rules or should be against the rules. Defense is a thing. Nearly every game that is primarily offensive also has an important element of defense. Even though the rules favor offense in basketball, for example, defense is still allowed and there is still such a thing as an offensive foul. If it is close, it will go against the defense, but you can still play defense and not all contact goes against the defense.

Build your robot to withstand interaction. Plan your strategy accordingly. The best combination in this game will ultimately be a very good offensive robot with a very good defensive robot.

I have yet to see a defensive robot that makes this accurate in my opinion, but maybe you have. I have my own opinion about what the best pairing at Worlds will be, but it involves two offensive robots. :slight_smile:

I have seen a few. If you can eliminate two or more of the other alliance’s mogos and prevent them from loading from the auto-loader, and you have a good offensive robot on the other side, given the fact that two robots cannot work together to block off any section of the field, you should be able to win. Most defensive robots also have the ability to either score in auton or disrupt the scoring of the other alliance, which ever is best under the circumstances. With this in mind, if you are going against two offensive robots, you should be able to win auton most of the time. Going against two defensive robots you will nearly always win.

I have seen a cagebot that can control 3 mogos while blocking the auto-loader. Even if it is only two, the other alliance will have to stack pretty high. The cage bot can also score mogos very quickly. If the offensive robot brings a mogo with a stack of 4 or 5 cones to the defensive robot, when the other robots are away, it can quickly score them in any zone and come back to defend.

I am not saying this combo cannot be beat, but with good driving from both robots, it would be tough to beat.

Yeaaaah if your build quality is bad, don’t expect it to last in an “offensive game”. As I’ve heard many people say:
“Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.”

To take it a step further, teams could literally crash test their robot by ramming it into various immovable objects for like five minutes and seeing what comes loose. That way, you can find out what your weak points are and how long it would take to fix them on-the-fly if you can’t find a permanent fix before the comp. Obviously you wouldn’t do this less than a week before the competition.

That’s not what I’m saying, nor am I saying defense is not a perfectly legal strategy.

There’s also this…

This seems to imply otherwise…

At times rules are applied differently (two offensive robots would be evaluated differently than defense/offense interactions…)

There’s also this from a prior GDC QA post

Another rule that differs for solely defensive robots.

I knew this would be an unpopular post because it tries to find the middle ground between there should be no defense and those choosing solely defense do so without any responsibility regardless of how reckless their tactics may be. So I’d did not expect to really get agreement from either side. G12 seems to me to say (my paraphrase): game rules are written from the perspective that this game was intended to be offensive. If you play defense you do so with the understanding that your tactics will be more closely scrutinized for behaviors are relevant under G12 including those that are reckless (according to Dictionary.com means)

. Recklessness does not require intent to damage be present just negligence.

It seems I may be reading this from a different bias and filter than other’s posting here.
I have asked the GDC for clarification, for now we may have to agree to disagree.

@reflxshn Those are great points, and I agree.

So, in other words, defenders should be very careful.

You are right, I did forget the difference in judgement calls for offensive and defensive robots when making that absolute statement. But, the rules do not change for solely defensive robots in regard to damage, which we are discussing. They call for additional scrutiny with regard to the same rules, not different rules.

Yep, two defensive robots are never a good pairing.

A defensive robot should never be allowed access to more than two mobile goals. Their opponents were caught sleeping, apparently. Against a defensive robot, you need to secure the two nearer mobile goals in autonomous.

Just somewhat careful. Reckless is completely without care/concern and I believe pretty obvious in a few (not most) defensive teams. For example, I’ve seen strategic defensive autonomous that methodically maneuver into a zone blocking position and I’ve seen “motor[portX]=127;” as an autonomous…