Talk to the FRA

[anukhet]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Problem with that is that deducting half a point for odd numbers is complicated, also what if the 'offender' has no points?
How about a fixed number of points deducted, say 3? Then they would have to fight back the deficit.

Due to noise levels and lack of being able to see a timekeeper through other heads, bodies and low light levels, there should be a clear 5 second countdown from the official timekeeper over the PA - as far as I remember Stu did that for Roaming Robots events but I'm not sure about Robots Live or Robochallenge.

[razerdave]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Taking half the points, I think that would be slightly harsh, taking it from one of the more important criteria (Aggression and Damage are the highest IMHO) would be a little fairer. And as Karoline says we need a timer to dictate the length of the holds/pins.

As for odd numbers, I'd just round it up to the nearest whole number, and if they had no score, then yeah, take away a set amount.

[widow_twanky]

Re: Talk to the FRA

To be honest I'm not too bothered about major or even minor updates to the judging rules but the problem is that if you try and make it complicated by deducting points then it has the potential to become difficult to implement.

Everyone in this sport is big enough to understand the rules and to understand a five second countdown as karoline has suggested. That being the case if they don't comply then the simple sanction is disqualification.

That may seem harsh but it's no different to being overweight and not being allowed to compete. This rule has been implemented rigorously this year, it was annoying for Dantomkia to have to dump all its gas and to strip off body panels from Hydra at Barnsley and I know Jonno wasn't happy about having to dump most of Rippers gas but that was the rules and you live with it. That extra five/ten seconds could cause damage from which a robot cannot recover from or actually allow a crusher to penetrate some particularly tough material or another six or seven hits from an axe meaning that they win the fight outright.

I'm not against different sanctions, I'm just against an overcomplicated rule set which is difficult to fathom.

Mind you, the incident which springs to mind is Kan Opener against Wedgehog when KO had gripped Wedgehog and had released them and just continued to push them into the pit whilst still in the jaws. Anyone not stood next to Andy when he was showing Geoff the controls to prove he had actually released it would have thought he hadn't.

Andy

[razerdave]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Wedgehog ? Do you mean Kronic ?

[widow_twanky]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Wedgehog ? Do you mean Kronic ?

No, I mean Edgehog

Andy

[RogueTwoRobots]

Re: Talk to the FRA

there should be a clear 5 second countdown from the official timekeeper over the PA

A good idea, although making sure it can be distinguished from the other countdowns may be important. Just as an example, I recall one fight (think it was a three-way at last year's FW champs) where everyone could hear a 10 second countdown through the PA and the robots stopped fighting after it thinking that was the battle-ending countdown, but it was actually the immobilisation countdown for one of the robots.
As long as the roboteers know who/what the countdown is for then it should be fine. Same goes for the audience; with two countdowns in place already we just don't want them getting confused as to which one is which.

[grant_ploughbot]

Re: Talk to the FRA

I have always been under the impression that it was instant disqualification if a robot was deliberatly pinned for more than 30s? And seperation if the robots are physically stuck together and unable to be released.
The other rules I think have always been fairly good from the start. The countdown for pinning should be done by the competitor in my view (I count as I crush with Tiberius), and thats how robot wars was aswell. It keeps things simple and doesnt confuse other roboteers.

Its the Pit rules that seem to confuse people. Some people use the 30second rule for the pit, and others dont. Robo Challenge events consist mainly of 1 on 1 fights, and when someone goes down the pit they are out. Its not so bad if you have multiple robots in the arena, and you not just watching 2 robots doing nothing for atleast 30s before the fight is won - For us it leads to a very boring spectacle and my personal view is that if your down the pit your out. The same as being out the arena.

The way the actual fights are judged is in the end down to the 3 judges - and aslong as their points system is made clear before the event I dont think theres a problem (as has been done so far).

[RogueTwoRobots]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Yeah the pit situation has certainly caused some confusion previously. I too have worked on the principle that if you go in the pit you are out. This was mainly through the fact that the pit in Robot Wars was so deep that if you went in it there was pretty much no way out. It had been talked about being possible (Rex and his spike for example) but never actually done.

It causes more of a problem now because the pits are smaller and more shallow so a flip or an axe swing from an upturned robot can be enough to throw the robot back onto the main arena floor. Perhaps the best thing to do is announce at each event, such as during the driver's briefing, what the conditions of being pitted are. My personal view is that for competition fights, if you end up in the pit you are out (doesn't need to be so stringent for whiteboards obviously). If a robot was pushed in, then it deserves to lose because its opponent was more aggressive and made the attack. If a robot drives in, it deserves to lose because of poor control. The pit is an obstacle after all, roboteers should be doing their best to avoid it. If a robot is sitting on the pit when it descends, then hard luck but it should still count as a loss because you need to be aware of the fighting environment at all times in order to avoid these things and be a winner.

My tuppence worth anyway, just some random Friday morning rambling

[swanaldo]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Over complicating judging or what.

try and keep it simple guys or your heading for a big arguement on the day about rules. Next the judges will be having to resort to film footage to sort stuff out.

A fight can be obvious at times who has won. But a close fight where it needs judging should be discussed by judges as simple as possible. There shouldnt be an amount of points for this and that. Its all about the fight and how they percieved it. there will always be dodgy desisions made but really the judges desision is final. dodgy desisions sometimes make this sport good. keep it interesting. keep it fun.

just 1 more....

if your pitted your out. thats how it should be exept in white boards. in competition if one is pitted they lose...BUT...could keep going for the crowds.

so what have we learnt today boys and girls.......SIMPLICITY.

[geoff]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Over complicating judging or what.

try and keep it simple guys or your heading for a big arguement on the day about rules. Next the judges will be having to resort to film footage to sort stuff out.

A fight can be obvious at times who has won. But a close fight where it needs judging should be discussed by judges as simple as possible. There shouldnt be an amount of points for this and that. Its all about the fight and how they percieved it. there will always be dodgy desisions made but really the judges desision is final. dodgy desisions sometimes make this sport good. keep it interesting. keep it fun.

just 1 more....

if your pitted your out. thats how it should be exept in white boards. in competition if one is pitted they lose...BUT...could keep going for the crowds.

so what have we learnt today boys and girls.......SIMPLICITY.

You know what, as much as I hate to admit it, the man talks much sense here. Yes, it is useful to have a set of agreed 'guidelines' to cover certain situations, at the end of the day common sense has to prevail. Also right or wrong the judge's desision is final and must be accepted as such by all.

[pressure]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Hi all, one thing has been said that I have been bleating on about for ages and that is there should be two or more judges for competiton fights and on opposite sides of the arena.
It is not possible for one person to watch multiple robots (in featherweights especially) and keep up with how many points each has scored.
A single judge can't be expected to get it right a lot of the time.
As to the judges decision is final what happens if one decides a win that is not based on any of the usual criteria?
For example Pressure lost a competition fight a few years ago because, and I quote, you lost the ability to flip.
Despite the fact that I was thrashing my opponent up to the time the flipper stopped working and then continued to push them all around the arena right up to when cease was called.
There has never been a rule that says you lose if your weapon stops working.
It was definately a subjective decision.
I have also seen, on two occasions, a winning team give the win to the loser becuse the judge got it so wrong!
As to the pit rules, it has been discussed by committee members and EOs with rough agreement.
My veiw, on reflection, is for white boards you have 30 seconds to get out, as with immobilisation.
For competition fights, your in the pit, your out of the competition, regardless of how you previously performed.
That is how it was on Robot Wars.
Mike.

[typhoon_driver]

Re: Talk to the FRA

There has never been a rule that says you lose if your weapon stops working

No but there has always been a rule that says that damage counts. If you're weapon stopped working because of something that went wrong inside the machine in the arena, in my book that's damage. Simple.

I haven't been at a proper competition (ie where the heavyweight or featherweight titles were up for grabs) where there were any less than 3 judges on the panels.

At the end of the day, judging is subjective. Believe me I know, I was at the center of one of a rather interesting final with a large spinning machine where I got booed because the audience decided the decision was wrong (not a pleasant experience). The judges decision is final in my book and if you don't like a decision then that's life. Trying to create points and tallies really isn't very viable because I'd rather a judges eyes were up looking at the fight than down looking at a paper deciding if that was two points or one point of damage.

Try playing poker, then you really know how it feels to have decisions go against you

[pressure]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Hi Gary, for referance Pressure's flipper was not damaged in the fight, it just stopped working, froze possibly.
Almost all event competitions (with a trophy for the winner) and current UK champs fights have one judge.
As to a panel of judges, they all sit next to each other, therefor they have the same perspective, which is why I suggested that they be spread around the arena.
Because of the very nature of some fights I have no problem with decisions when the fight is close-ish.
It's when, for example, the win is given to a bot that gets 6 good flips in the whole fight and another bot that gets 13 (including 6 against the winner) is given third that I find difficult to accept.
Mike.
PS I have given away a win this year and lost UK points because I thought the judges decision was wrong!

[typhoon_driver]

Re: Talk to the FRA

If pneumatics freeze over, it's the same as one of my spinner motors overheating and burning out. Either way I believe that should be counted against you in the competition.

Fair play if you hand over a decision. Personally I stand by judges decisions, good or bad. Not an easy job, but someone has to do it.

[craig_colliass]

Re: Talk to the FRA

I would vote for the getting out of the pit within 30 seconds, I know I have a machine that can do this so I'm not likely to vote against

But I think the environment the robots fight in, helps the machine design to evolve, this means with new machines they will be made taking this into consideration when they are designed. Cherub case in point.