Disabling a robot

[rich2202]

G20 is clear: "ROBOTS must be in compliance with Section 4.6 BUMPER Rules throughout the MATCH. Violation: DISABLED"

Apparently the standard at Championships is that Dragging Bumpers are compliant.

I can appreciate that hanging fabric is still ok, but there were times when I saw a bumper with one end detached, and they still allowed the robot to play. I know for a fact that the Head Ref knew, and chose not to disable the robot. Apparently the only time they will disable is if the bumper becomes fully detached.

IMHO, I think G20 should be clarified that partially detached bumpers that touch the ground is disable. I also think it should include batteries. I saw dragging batteries. Those are hazards because the wire could get clipped and short the battery causing an explosion, or the case could get punchured and start leaking acid.

[cgmv123]

BUMPERS touching the ground are not within the BUMPER ZONE and thus not compliant with BUMPER rules. That should be an automatic disable per G20.

[dmaciel10123]

I feel like the bumper rules were strongly enforced through inspection this year but not so much on the field. I've seen matches where an entire bumper fell off the the bot continued to be enabled for the rest of the match.

[Peyton Yeung]

I feel like the bumper rules were strongly enforced through inspection this year but not so much on the field. I've seen matches where an entire bumper fell off the the bot continued to be enabled for the rest of the match.

Really? I reffed 2 events this season and it seemed that this year more robots were disabled due to bumber issues than last year.

[cadandcookies]

Really? I reffed 2 events this season and it seemed that this year more robots were disabled due to bumber issues than last year.

At the North Star Regional we had a robot play an entire match in elimination rounds with a bumper slid halfway out the side of the robot (the bumper was literally shifted about a foot over laterally along their chassis).

[Abhishek R]

I didn't see too many occurrences of bumper failures because I didn't watch many matches but in one of our matches a robot was disabled when one of its bumpers came loose and was hanging from its side.

[Gregor]

Really? I reffed 2 events this season and it seemed that this year more robots were disabled due to bumber issues than last year.

That's because this is the first year it warrented a disable. There was no rule on it before.

[BBray_T1296]

This is not a new thing either

last year in Dallas at elims, we rammed a robot so hard that all 4 of their bumpers fell off in one single impact (it wasn't really that hard, full speed yes, but more due to poor mounting [ie zipties]). The then completely unprotected kitbot continued playing defense for the remainder of the match.

I fail to understand why we "have" to have bumpers on our robot, but apparently we actually don't?

[asid61]

This is not a new thing either

last year in Dallas at elims, we rammed a robot so hard that all 4 of their bumpers fell off in one single impact (it wasn't really that hard, full speed yes, but more due to poor mounting [ie zipties]). The then completely unprotected kitbot continued playing defense for the remainder of the match.

I fail to understand why we "have" to have bumpers on our robot, but apparently we actually don't?

If they had no bumpers, that crash might have broken something. Think like an airbag.

[Navid Shafa]

I've seen matches where an entire bumper fell off the the bot continued to be enabled for the rest of the match.Really? I reffed 2 events this season and it seemed that this year more robots were disabled due to bumber issues than last year.

That's exactly the problem. It varies a lot from event to event. I have to agree with David. I also saw plenty of robots drive without bumpers this season. I understand wanting to let a team play that is barely out of compliance, but as soon as they cause an on-field infraction like this, there is little room for judgement. If the bumper is laying on the floor, impeding traffic, or getting pulled up into another robot's drive train, then it would be crazy not to disable them.

[Doug Frisk]

That's exactly the problem. It varies a lot from event to event. I have to agree with David. I also saw plenty of robots drive without bumpers this season. I understand wanting to let a team play that is barely out of compliance, but as soon as they cause an on-field infraction like this, there is little room for judgement. If the bumper is laying on the floor, impeding traffic, or getting pulled up into another robot's drive train, then it would be crazy not to disable them.

The issue is that it's at the Referee's discretion as to when to disable a robot, but apart from running over and smacking the E-Stop the ref cannot disable a robot by himself he has to have the scorekeeper disable it.

Not to mention, the head ref is watching the whole field and may be concentrating on other things leaving a robot to run without bumpers for a while.

I did disable a couple of robots for bumper violations this year at the direction of the head ref.

I do know that it's been suggested that a disable button be added to the head ref panel so the ref can disable a robot directly.

[audietron]

In North Star, bumpers fell off very often during qualification matches. I never saw any robots being disabled but usually it never impeded traffic or affected a match. I would say as long as the bumper is still on (relatively) it should be swayed to let them play but if it happens more then once, disable the robot. This is one of the judgement calls I would be for.

[dmaciel10123]

I should also add that I feel very strongly about this because my team lost the finals at the Pine Tree District event while an opposing robot was driving without bumpers. I just feel that if inspection is going to be so strict as to hold up every team during alliance selections (such as they did in Hartford) because the bumper is 1/8 of an inch too low, the referees should also be compelled to call it when it occurs and disable the robot.

[Jon Stratis]

There's a fine line between enforcing the rules and letting the games actually play out. It doesn't do anyone any good if a team is constantly being disabled for an issue - it penalizes their alliance members and discourages the students.

Personally, I loved having more robots disabled for issues on the field than we've seen in the past - do that for a few years and I think we'll see some drastic improvements in areas that typically get very little attention from teams (bumpers!).

That said, one of my biggest challenges as an LRI this year was in begging leniency from the head refs for a match or two while a team worked on a fix. Not everything can be fixed in the short period between matches, and from my perspective so long as safety isn't impacted I want to see the team's play while they get a fix in place, not sit there disabled match after match because they haven't had enough time to fix it yet.

[dmaciel10123]

There's a fine line between enforcing the rules and letting the games actually play out. It doesn't do anyone any good if a team is constantly being disabled for an issue - it penalizes their alliance members and discourages the students.

The rule is in place to encourage teams to take care of their bumpers, and alliance members should be willing to help fix them if there is anything wrong.

Personally, I loved having more robots disabled for issues on the field than we've seen in the past - do that for a few years and I think we'll see some drastic improvements in areas that typically get very little attention from teams (bumpers!).

I personally didn't see many disabled, which upset me.

That said, one of my biggest challenges as an LRI this year was in begging leniency from the head refs for a match or two while a team worked on a fix. Not everything can be fixed in the short period between matches, and from my perspective so long as safety isn't impacted I want to see the team's play while they get a fix in place, not sit there disabled match after match because they haven't had enough time to fix it yet.

Also a good point. In my team's first event our winch bent and we needed a minimum 30 to 45 minute period for the repair, which we didn't get until the end of the day. I also spent about 20 minutes behind inspection at the Hartford event trying to raise the bumpers 1/8 of an inch to pass.

There's a lot that went wrong and right this year, hopefully next year will be greatly improved.

[rich2202]

Personally, I loved having more robots disabled for issues on the field than we've seen in the past - do that for a few years and I think we'll see some drastic improvements in areas that typically get very little attention from teams (bumpers!).

I think field disables should be limited to safety issues, such as bumpers and battery. Other than that, the foul points can adjust, and let the game play out.

That said, one of my biggest challenges as an LRI this year was in begging leniency from the head refs for a match or two while a team worked on a fix.

That is why I believe in 2 levels of passing inspection. If you pass a Safety inspection, then you can compete only in the Qualifying Matches. If you pass Safety and Compliance, that would be equivalent to the current Pass, and you can que in the filler line, and participate in Alliance Selection and Elimination Matches.

I don't see the harm in allowing a safe robot to compete. The kids worked their hardest to build the robot. Let them see how it performs.

[Jon Stratis]

I think field disables should be limited to safety issues, such as bumpers and battery. Other than that, the foul points can adjust, and let the game play out.



That is why I believe in 2 levels of passing inspection. If you pass a Safety inspection, then you can compete only in the Qualifying Matches. If you pass Safety and Compliance, that would be equivalent to the current Pass, and you can que in the filler line, and participate in Alliance Selection and Elimination Matches.

I don't see the harm in allowing a safe robot to compete. The kids worked their hardest to build the robot. Let them see how it performs.

What about a team that passes safety inspection, does great on the field during qualifications, gets picked by another team, then finds out they have to change something that's illegal, causing their performance on the field to tank? Is it fair to their alliance members, who would have picked someone else if they had known? Is it fair to the team themselves to ruin their eliminations by not getting the full inspection through at the start of the event?

[Andrew Schreiber]

I should also add that I feel very strongly about this because my team lost the finals at the Pine Tree District event while an opposing robot was driving without bumpers.

Which match was this? I don't recall it happening in F3 (I recall 133 entangling 125 with the surgical tubing after a cross field ram). I just watched F1 and didn't see it. And you won F2... Soooo

[dmaciel10123]

Which match was this? I don't recall it happening in F3 (I recall 133 entangling 125 with the surgical tubing after a cross field ram). I just watched F1 and didn't see it. And you won F2... Soooo

In F3, 663 (I think that was their number) had a bumper that fell off. Their bumpers were constructed to cover the corners only, and one corner fell off.

[Andrew Schreiber]

In F3, 663 (I think that was their number) had a bumper that fell off. Their bumpers were constructed to cover the corners only, and one corner fell off.

Ah, that's why I didn't see it. Thanks for refreshing my memory. I was also on the opposite side of the field from where they tended to play.

[StevenB]

I was scorekeeper in Arkansas, and disabled a handful of robots for bumper issues over the course of the weekend.

The rule is in place to encourage teams to take care of their bumpers, and alliance members should be willing to help fix them if there is anything wrong.

The problem is that this rule hurts the teams that need the most help. I and my two siblings (all of us volunteers) spent several hours with a team on Thursday night helping them build legal bumpers so they could pass inspection and play on Friday. Unfortunately, their blue bumper covers weren't stuck on very well, and came part way off at some point, causing them to be disabled. The bumpers were still functionally intact, and there was no practical reason - safety, damage, or otherwise - to disable them.

The rule as I understand it is to penalize robots who lose a whole bumper segment, preventing them from leaving a large item on the field and continuing to mix it up with other robots. I see no reason to disable a robot because their cloth sags a little bit, and I hope this rule will change next year to reflect that. Making the penalties stricter will not help teams do better (G40, anyone?), it just punishes those who are already struggling.

[dmaciel10123]

I was scorekeeper in Arkansas, and disabled a handful of robots for bumper issues over the course of the weekend.



The problem is that this rule hurts the teams that need the most help. I and my two siblings (all of us volunteers) spent several hours with a team on Thursday night helping them build legal bumpers so they could pass inspection and play on Friday. Unfortunately, their blue bumper covers weren't stuck on very well, and came part way off at some point, causing them to be disabled. The bumpers were still functionally intact, and there was no practical reason - safety, damage, or otherwise - to disable them.

The rule as I understand it is to penalize robots who lose a whole bumper segment, preventing them from leaving a large item on the field and continuing to mix it up with other robots. I see no reason to disable a robot because their cloth sags a little bit, and I hope this rule will change next year to reflect that. Making the penalties stricter will not help teams do better (G40, anyone?), it just punishes those who are already struggling.

I understand how if a part of cloth is under the 2 inches then it shouldn't be disabled, and I'm pretty sure that by Worlds that was the general consensus. But some events didn't seem to share the same idea, and didn't disable robots who were missing or dragging bumpers, batteries, or other parts that weren't supposed to be dragged around. I also understand that it's hard to make a rule against this that couldn't be misinterpreted.

Hopefully next year any rule like this will be much more clarified and less "open to interpretation" as this one was.

Also, a quick question. If a robot's bumper fell off, and the opposing team questioned why the robot wasn't disabled, is the referee allowed to say "It's my call and I didn't see any risks", even if the missing bumper made it terrifying to even go near the bot?

[cadandcookies]

Also, a quick question. If a robot's bumper fell off, and the opposing team questioned why the robot wasn't disabled, is the referee allowed to say "It's my call and I didn't see any risks", even if the missing bumper made it terrifying to even go near the bot?

The head referee's rulings are final and not in any way up for debate. If it was the head ref that told you that (even if it's the wrong call), you have to live with it. You might be able to discuss their reasons with them, but it really depends on the person. Some unfortunately just aren't willing to discuss much with teams.

[EricH]

As I recall, the way it was called at L.A. was this: If the INTENT of the bumper rule--protection of the corners, ID of the team and alliance, etc.-- was met, without unduly endangering the other alliance, then no disable was issued. Thus, if a team had half of a side bumper dragging on the floor, but turned in such a way that they kept that bumper over their corner, they would be allowed to finish the match; after the match, of course, they'd be sent off to fix their bumpers, probably along with one of their friendly neighborhood inspectors.

On a few occasions, a robot was disabled for bumper violations.

[rich2202]

What about a team that passes safety inspection, does great on the field during qualifications, gets picked by another team, then finds out they have to change something that's illegal, causing their performance on the field to tank?

A robot that has not passed compliance cannot participate in alliance selection. Maybe set the deadline for passing compliance in order to participate in Alliance Selection as the 2nd to last qualification match for that robot.

How about giving the team 0 Qualification Match Points for any match they played while non-compliant. That would keep their rankings low, and the teams that scout would have fair warning that they are potentially buying an unknown robot.