PDA

View Full Version : VCU DISQUALIFICATION!


Tomasz Bania
03-04-2006, 01:31 PM
If any of you are watching the webcast, 1 alliance was just disqualified. I didn't exactly catch why they were disqualified, can someone post the reason here?

Thank You,
Tomasz Bania

Tim Delles
03-04-2006, 01:33 PM
They entered the side goal with their robot. Which is a saftey violation (results in a Dq)

Tomasz Bania
03-04-2006, 01:35 PM
ok, thats what I thought I heard, but I didn't think that was a disqualification but rather a disable. Oh well.

Tomasz Bania

P.S. That freaks me out as I might be our teams driver and those bumpers easily go under those goals.

MrBamboo
03-04-2006, 01:36 PM
it seems there are a lot of DQ's with robots entering the corner goal. I have one question about this. If our robot puts down a draw bridge to score but it is outside the goal. and then an opposing alliance's robot pushes us from behind therefore shoving our draw bridge into the corner goal. Does that count as breaking the rule as it was non-intentional?

Nuttyman54
03-04-2006, 01:38 PM
it seems there are a lot of DQ's with robots entering the corner goal. I have one question about this. If our robot puts down a draw bridge to score but it is outside the goal. and then an opposing alliance's robot pushes us from behind therefore shoving our draw bridge into the corner goal. Does that count as breaking the rule as it was non-intentional?

I think so, which is why a number of dumper teams have put devices that keep them from being able to fit through.

It couldn't have been a DQ for the alliance, because they're back for the 2nd match. It would have to have been a disable.

Tim Delles
03-04-2006, 01:43 PM
No it was a dq. the elimnations are best out of 3. So if you get dq one match you can still play the others.

Nuttyman54
03-04-2006, 01:45 PM
Ahh, sorry, i had a different conception of DQ. In this case it just means a 0 score for the match?

Tim Delles
03-04-2006, 01:51 PM
Yeah. A dq is just for the match.

Kevin Sevcik
03-04-2006, 03:09 PM
It's not a safety violation, the rule is G21:
ROBOT Incursion into the Corner Goal - Incidental incursion into the corner goal that occurs as a result of a ROBOT pushing balls into the goal is permitted, not to exceed a distance of approximately 3 inches. Intentional incursion, for example to use a ball gathering mechanism to drop off balls inside the goal, or extending a portion of the ROBOT through the goal opening to activate the ball counting system, will result in disqualification of the offending ROBOT.
Also, the rule specifically says intentional. So if you get pushed in, it can't be intentional. As long as you're not pushed in more than 3 inches, you're okay. I'll check the Q&A real quick to cinfirm this, though.

Kevin Kolodziej
03-04-2006, 03:23 PM
SF 1.1 resulted in a DQ for the red alliance due to incursion in the corner goal during autonomous mode. Was that the correct call? Without seeing what exactly happened, I know its difficult to say, but no where in the rules or Q/A is it stated what happens during autonomous incursion. Typically there is a grace period or some sort of minor penalty and temporary disablement if a team breaks a rule during autonomous and not a DQ. Any idea?

Kev

Thecandyman
03-04-2006, 06:38 PM
In our first match at the Pacific Regional, we got pushed by another robot into a corner box while trying to dump balls in and got a 5 point penalty, but not a DQ. This was not in autonomous mode.

AmyPrib
03-04-2006, 08:05 PM
Actually, I had asked once in the Q/A about incursion into the goal more than 3in... and they said that was a DQ. Didn't give any exceptions for being pushed, etc, which implies that your robot should be designed not to go in more than 3in period. That is a safety violation whether you did it or got pushed.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=387&highlight=incursion

You can bet it's the same in autonomous.


In our first match at the Pacific Regional, we got pushed by another robot into a corner box while trying to dump balls in and got a 5 point penalty, but not a DQ. This was not in autonomous mode.
This is interesting, since a safety violation is 10pts. Nowhere in the rules that I can see does it talk about a 5pt penalty for this regardless of how you got in the corner goal.

Lil' Lavery
03-04-2006, 10:54 PM
414 was well into the corner goal (interesting considering I don't beleive their autonomous had done that before), at least an inch past the 3 in "barrier". They have an unfolding flap and drops to release all the balls into the corner goal, so that's how they managed to get that far in.

Wetzel
03-05-2006, 01:08 AM
SF 1.1 resulted in a DQ for the red alliance due to incursion in the corner goal during autonomous mode. Was that the correct call? Without seeing what exactly happened, I know its difficult to say, but no where in the rules or Q/A is it stated what happens during autonomous incursion. Typically there is a grace period or some sort of minor penalty and temporary disablement if a team breaks a rule during autonomous and not a DQ. Any idea?

Kev
ROBOT Incursion into the Corner Goal - Incidental incursion into the corner goal that occurs as a result of a ROBOT pushing balls into the goal is permitted, not to exceed a distance of approximately 3 inches. Intentional incursion, for example to use a ball gathering mechanism to drop off balls inside the goal, or extending a portion of the ROBOT through the goal opening to activate the ball counting system, will result in disqualification of the offending ROBOT.

It says right there what happens during autonomous mode, which is the same as driver controlled time.

414 was far enough into the goal that they were over the light panel, which happens to be a more than 3 inches inside the goal. At that point they were potentially interfering with the counting system hence the DQ.

Wetzel

Chriszuma
03-05-2006, 04:04 AM
It says right there what happens during autonomous mode, which is the same as driver controlled time.

414 was far enough into the goal that they were over the light panel, which happens to be a more than 3 inches inside the goal. At that point they were potentially interfering with the counting system hence the DQ.

Wetzel
It really seems like they (FIRST) could have designed that system better so they wouldn't have to make such a minefield of disqualifications. I know nobody wants to hear more complaining about first, but this is kind of ridiculous.

Wetzel
03-05-2006, 11:07 AM
It really seems like they (FIRST) could have designed that system better so they wouldn't have to make such a minefield of disqualifications. I know nobody wants to hear more complaining about first, but this is kind of ridiculous.

What is so ridiculous? FIRST made a rule, don't go into the corner goal. They listened last year and said we'll spot you ~3 inches.

What would you have them do better?

Wetzel

nukemknight
03-05-2006, 11:19 AM
It really seems like they (FIRST) could have designed that system better so they wouldn't have to make such a minefield of disqualifications. I know nobody wants to hear more complaining about first, but this is kind of ridiculous.

The scoring system this year is real-time. Once points for robots on platforms are added and any penalties are given, the score is ready to be displayed.

The scoring in the lower goals is counted by a camera (of course with a human back-up in case a robot goes into the goal). There are lights under the goal, with a camera mounted at the top of the player's station. A wire mesh is mounted inside the goal to keep the HP's from reaching over the light (one swipe of a hand across the light and the camera counts 5-7 balls). The 2-3 inch margin teams are given for going into the goals is the space from the outer edge of the goal, to where the camera begins scoring. Anything that crosses that light can be scored by the camera, including a robot.

Lil' Lavery
03-05-2006, 11:22 AM
FIRST designed a system which allows you 3 inches of space, so follow it. Almost every team at VCU didn't have a problem with it, why should it be changed to help the few that don't follow the rules? This isn't by any measure a new rule. It's been in place for the entire season, you should plan accordingly. In 2004 there were similar rules, that didn't even give those 3 inches.

Nuttyman54
03-05-2006, 11:40 AM
It really seems like they (FIRST) could have designed that system better so they wouldn't have to make such a minefield of disqualifications. I know nobody wants to hear more complaining about first, but this is kind of ridiculous.
I don't really think it's a minefield...the only DQ's ive seen so far have been from incursions into the corner goals. The rule has been in place since day 1, so it should be no surprise to teams. I know a number of dumper-bots developed guards to keep them from getting pushed in.

Chriszuma
03-05-2006, 04:02 PM
What is so ridiculous? FIRST made a rule, don't go into the corner goal. They listened last year and said we'll spot you ~3 inches.

What would you have them do better?

Wetzel
All i'm saying is that they should strive to make disqualifications as rare as possible, since they really make the game less spectatorish. What they could have done differently is design the scoring mechanism so that it can't be thrown out of whack by a robot accidentally sticking something in there 3 inches.

Just my 2 cents.

Rombus
03-05-2006, 04:04 PM
It really seems like they (FIRST) could have designed that system better so they wouldn't have to make such a minefield of disqualifications. I know nobody wants to hear more complaining about first, but this is kind of ridiculous.

Personally, i think Triple Play had much more chances for DQ/penaltys than this years game. Who doesnet remember the plexi triangles we had to TOUCH to be able to pickup tetras?

I Saw only one DQ and a small handful of pentalties for the 3 hours i watched on saturday, thats hardly a "Minefield"!

SURVIVORfan44
03-05-2006, 04:24 PM
As far as I know, there were about two teams at VCU that kept being disqualified. Once you see how far those robots went into that goal, you would see how and why they were disqualified. The cameras are extra sensitive. They could pick up anything that passes through the corner goals.

BrianR
03-05-2006, 05:53 PM
The scoring in the lower goals is counted by a camera (of course with a human back-up in case a robot goes into the goal). There are lights under the goal, with a camera mounted at the top of the player's station. A wire mesh is mounted inside the goal to keep the HP's from reaching over the light (one swipe of a hand across the light and the camera counts 5-7 balls). The 2-3 inch margin teams are given for going into the goals is the space from the outer edge of the goal, to where the camera begins scoring. Anything that crosses that light can be scored by the camera, including a robot.

On this note, if anyone has noticed a few extremely high scores posted in the results of the first week regionals. The one case that stands out to me is a score of 11109 at VCU, but if that were a typing error of a score of 109, there were also scores of aver 200, which I find hard to believe given the other scores we saw, even in the finals. I believe that the reason for these errant scores may be robot incursion into the corner goals. I believe that if a robot enters the goal, it will be counted as much more than a simple hand, and thus even a short infraction would greatly inflate scores. This would make FIRST's position on DQing any violators very reasonable, as it would be a major hassle to figure out the right score, and it may not be possible. Thus they are trying to make it as fair for everyone as possible, so that there is no dispute over scores. This is the most equitable process for dealing with this inherent shortcoming in the ball counting technology, and as they clearly published the penalties for goal infraction, it is by no means unfair to DQ any team found in violation of this, especially in light of the problems that it causes in scoring the matches.

George A.
03-05-2006, 06:22 PM
At NJ we actually had a team that accidently waved their hand in front of the camera when they were getting the ball and that resulted in points for their opponents, and incidentally cost them the match.

soap108
03-05-2006, 10:23 PM
As far as I know, there were about two teams at VCU that kept being disqualified. Once you see how far those robots went into that goal, you would see how and why they were disqualified. The cameras are extra sensitive. They could pick up anything that passes through the corner goals.

In Match 75, did 1610 get DQ'd?? It's they only way to explain why first lists them as 6-2-0 instead of 7-1-0.

Wetzel
03-05-2006, 10:30 PM
In Match 75, did 1610 get DQ'd?? It's they only way to explain why first lists them as 6-2-0 instead of 7-1-0.

That is correct.

Wetzel

henryBsick
03-05-2006, 10:32 PM
In Match 75, did 1610 get DQ'd?? It's they only way to explain why first lists them as 6-2-0 instead of 7-1-0.

They may have been dq'd there. I saw a few matche were teams should have been dq'd and weren't. Not only in VCU but in NJ also.
Example:
In match 75 @ VCU when 1137 hit 623 in the side, continued to drive, and eventually flipped 623.

edit:
post's orginal intent was same, but I thought soap108's post meant they didn't get DQ'ed

SURVIVORfan44
03-05-2006, 10:52 PM
In Match 75, did 1610 get DQ'd?? It's they only way to explain why first lists them as 6-2-0 instead of 7-1-0.


Yes, they were disqualified. They may have been ranked #1 if they had not been disqualified. Anyway, that disqualification didn't hurt them at all considering that they won the regional. ;)

soap108
03-05-2006, 11:16 PM
Yes, they were disqualified. They may have been ranked #1 if they had not been disqualified. Anyway, that disqualification didn't hurt them at all considering that they won the regional. ;)

Thanks. I caught it in the video- it looks like the ref raises her arm to signal that they invaded the 1pt scoring zone.

I have noted the following Qualification DQs:
match 32 - team 1093
match 63 - team 1467
match 69 - team 587
match 72 - team 1184
match 75 - team 1610

Its kinda interesting that most happened on Saturday.

KA-108

Greg Young
03-06-2006, 05:30 PM
FIRST designed a system which allows you 3 inches of space, so follow it. Almost every team at VCU didn't have a problem with it, why should it be changed to help the few that don't follow the rules? This isn't by any measure a new rule. It's been in place for the entire season, you should plan accordingly. In 2004 there were similar rules, that didn't even give those 3 inches.

After spending Thursday, Friday, and Saturday standing beside one of the corner goals at VCU I've been wondering how the 3 inch rule is interpreted. The bumpers extend 3-1/2 inches beyond the frame of the robot and end 8-1/2 inches above the floor. The opening of the corner goal is 10 inches high so the bumpers will extend into the goal when the frame of the robot is against the polycarbonate. If the goal starts at the field side of the polycarbonate, the bumpers are 3-1/2 inches into the goal. If the goal starts at the corral side of the polycarbonate then the bumpers extend 3-1/8 inches into the goal.

I could flex the center of the polycarbonate about 3/4 inch with my fingers, so a hit by the corner of a robot would flex it even more. It seems to me that a legal bumper system could easily draw a penalty.

Any refs out there who could tell me how the 3 inches is determined during game play?

Greg

Nuttyman54
03-06-2006, 08:32 PM
Presumably, your bumpers wouldn't be ONLY in the section that could go into the goal. if you've got bumpers the entire front of the robot, then that becomes the effective front of the robot, and you can't extend in.

mrmummert
03-08-2006, 09:46 PM
hello all..

Its odd how they DQed us as our robot is'nt even designed to be able to go under the goal. Look at the robot in VCU pictures and you'll see why.
When we were told about the DQ were questioned it, but did'nt push the issue. So we lived with it. Luckly we won.

I was told that some robots if they hit the goal hard enough were making the camera think that they had passed into the goal...thats the only thing I can think of that might have caused our DQ.

mrmummert
03-08-2006, 09:49 PM
Yes, they were disqualified. They may have been ranked #1 if they had not been disqualified. Anyway, that disqualification didn't hurt them at all considering that they won the regional. ;)


BTW anyone got video of this match....? I'd like to see it

SURVIVORfan44
03-08-2006, 10:38 PM
http://www.soap.circuitrunners.com/2006/movies/virginia/

Try finding the match on this website. Team 108 SOAP provided all the videos of the matches from VCU.

Nuttyman54
03-08-2006, 11:11 PM
Team 108 SOAP provided all the videos of the matches from VCU.

I'm not positive, but i think team 1002 is the host, being the CircuitRunners.

mrmummert
03-08-2006, 11:41 PM
I looked at the video of the match and 540 pushed us into the corner goal.
You can clearly see where the pushed us more than once into the goal.
I'm guessing the DQ came when we were pushed hard and part of our bumper
was forced under the goal. Clearly this was'nt our fault...but thats the way it happened.

nukemknight
03-09-2006, 08:06 AM
On this note, if anyone has noticed a few extremely high scores posted in the results of the first week regionals. The one case that stands out to me is a score of 11109 at VCU, but if that were a typing error of a score of 109, there were also scores of aver 200, which I find hard to believe given the other scores we saw, even in the finals. I believe that the reason for these errant scores may be robot incursion into the corner goals. I believe that if a robot enters the goal, it will be counted as much more than a simple hand, and thus even a short infraction would greatly inflate scores. This would make FIRST's position on DQing any violators very reasonable, as it would be a major hassle to figure out the right score, and it may not be possible. Thus they are trying to make it as fair for everyone as possible, so that there is no dispute over scores. This is the most equitable process for dealing with this inherent shortcoming in the ball counting technology, and as they clearly published the penalties for goal infraction, it is by no means unfair to DQ any team found in violation of this, especially in light of the problems that it causes in scoring the matches.


If a robot enters the goal so far that the camera could see it, it was very obvious to the scoring system. And yes - a robot counted many more times than a hand. This was another reason for real-time scorekeepers at each goal: not just in case the cameras malfunctioned, but in case something entered the goal that shouldn't have been there.

The high scores at VCU were because of camera problems - we restarted the camera software and refocused the cameras and everything worked.