We can extend beyond the playing field with our ball-knocker-offer???

[Natchez]

Before I have to brief my team about the WRONG path that I led them down and pay the ultimate price (one million dozen Krispy Kreme donuts), I would like your opinion on rule G04 that states
ROBOT mechanisms used to remove the BONUS BALLS may extend beyond the playing field border as long as they are within the vertical pipe structure surrounding the BALL TEES. If a BONUS BALL is removed from the BALL TEE by a ROBOT that violates this rule, a 25 point penalty will be deducted from that alliance’s final score.
This rule was interpreted by my team to mean that if our "ball-knocker-offer" is extended beyond the side boundary, flexes as it goes by the vertical pipe that frames the 10 point balls, and ultimately knocks off a 10 point ball then we would be penalized 25 points. I have just learned that many teams are using this strategy. I must admit I'm feeling like an idiot because I obviously missed something.

Please let me know what I missed and send all of your extra Krispy Kreme donuts to 555 Pennsylvania Blvd, Houston, TX.

Thanks,
Lucien

[KenWittlief]

your question is a little fuzzy - to get the release ball your robot can only reach through the opening infront of the balls - see the playfield drawings in the manual to see what Im referring to

if you hit the release ball by reaching around the opening, deliberately or by wayward auton mode, the small balls will still fall, but you will get a 25 point penalty

maybe your students saw that happen, and did not realize they also got a penalty?

BTW, your robot can extend out over the sides of the playfield at any point in the game, but if you touch the floor your robot will be disabled for the rest of the match.

if that is the best your bot can do - get the ball from the side and incurre the penalty, I guess thats better than not having the balls drop for 45 seconds? maybe? if you cap the goal thats only a 2.5 ball penalty, right?

[Rich Wong]

Before I have to brief my team about the WRONG path that I led them down and pay the ultimate price (one million dozen Krispy Kreme donuts), I would like your opinion on rule G04 that states

This rule was interpreted by my team to mean that if our "ball-knocker-offer" is extended beyond the side boundary, flexes as it goes by the vertical pipe that frames the 10 point balls, and ultimately knocks off a 10 point ball then we would be penalized 25 points. I have just learned that many teams are using this strategy. I must admit I'm feeling like an idiot because I obviously missed something.

Please let me know what I missed and send all of your extra Krispy Kreme donuts to 555 Pennsylvania Blvd, Houston, TX.

Thanks,
Lucien
From your description, it sounds ok, as long as the flexible appendage does not touch the outside of the field; carpet, supports, or a volunteer. Lol
But if the “appendage” hits the ball from the outside of the tee frame, a 25 point penalty will be given.

I will send you my address for the KKs.
;)

[Yan Wang]

I think it's illegal and should cost 25pts. You're definitely extending outside the field and not within the constraints of the bars that contain the 10pt balls.

To respond to someone's question above. The issue is whether or not it is legal for a robot to extend a flexible device outside the boundaries of the field and drive alongside the field to the 10pt ball. The flexible device would bend at the vertical frame that contains the balls and would thus 'flap' into a ball. I definitely think this is illegal... having anything outside the field is bad. I think FIRST's rule clearly says that the only time you may legally extend outside the field during autonomous is when your extension is within the frame that holds the bonus balls. Otherwise, it's a safety hazard and will cost you 25 points. Team 254's autonomous video does something very similar to what I described above. I'm not sure whether it extends outside the field though.

[KenWittlief]

oh wait - I see what you mean

your asking if the restriction is only the vertical pipes?

can you reach over the opening as long as you are between the vertical pipes when you hit the ball?

oooooh that is interesting - what do they mean by the vertical pipe structure? does that include the horizontal pipes?!

[KenWittlief]

I think FIRST's rule clearly says that the only time you may legally extend outside the field during autonomous is when your extension is within the frame...

no! it doesnt say that!

it says you get the penalty ONLY if you get the release ball that way.

other wise if someones auton mode went off a little, and poked at the ball outside the bars, then they would get a 25 point penalty

but its ok for your bot to extend outside the field borders in driver mode as long as you dont touch the floor, or reach into the drivers area

so why would you incurred a 25 point penalty for doing that in auton mode?

that would be unnecessarily strict and would be a double strike against a team whos auton missed the ball by a few feet - the balls dont fall AND they get a 25 point penalty! :ahh:

[Aidan F. Browne]

You may only remove a Bonus Ball by using a mechanism that protrudes through the Ball Tee Frame - not around it. (i.e., not from the left, right, or top)

The intent of this is twofold - as a safety rule and to protect the fragile components of the tee frame (sensors and lights).

:)

Aidan

[Kris Verdeyen]

it says you get the penalty ONLY if you get the release ball that way.
No, it says that you get the penalty if:

If a BONUS BALL is removed from the BALL TEE by a ROBOT that violates this rule

where "this rule" means:

ROBOT mechanisms used to remove the BONUS BALLS may extend beyond the playing field border as long as they are within the vertical pipe structure surrounding the BALL TEES.

That means that, if your mechanism that knocks the ball off extends past the field border while not within the pipe structure, you are in violation. If a robot violates the rule, then knocks the ball off, that's a penalty. It might not have been the way that it's been called, but this is the way that it's been written.

[KenWittlief]

If a BONUS BALL is removed

thats what I said

if the ball IS REMOVED (then you get the penalty)

not just if you extend past the field border

you are reading more into it than it says

[Chris Hibner]

You may only remove a Bonus Ball by using a mechanism that protrudes through the Ball Tee Frame - not around it. (i.e., not from the left, right, or top)

The intent of this is twofold - as a safety rule and to protect the fragile components of the tee frame (sensors and lights).

:)

Aidan

Aidan,

Here's where the rule is fuzzy to me, and I would like your "insider" interpretation.

(BTW, I have seen this happen at competitions this year):

A robot starts heading toward the 10 pt bonus ball. The robot extends a small flexible arm off of the side of it's robot. This arm extends beyond the field boundaries. As the robot drives by the Vertical Pipe Structure (VPS), the VPS causes the flexible arm to bend (forcing the arm to go out of the way of the VPS). Once the robot clears the VPS, the flexible arm snaps back and then removes the bonus ball (now the arm is within the VPS).

Here is why the rule is fuzzy:

Rule: "ROBOT mechanisms used to remove the BONUS BALLS may extend beyond the playing field border as long as they are within the vertical pipe structure surrounding the BALL TEES. If a BONUS BALL is removed from the BALL TEE by a ROBOT that violates this rule, a 25 point penalty will be deducted from that alliance’s final score. "

1) The mechanism does extend beyond the playing field border (outside of the vertical pipe structure).
2) The mechanism is used to remove the bonus ball.
(here's the tricky part)
3) When the bonus ball is being removed, the mechanism is within the vertical pipe structure.

Here is what is not clear: The rule states that the mechanism may not extend beyone the playing field border unless it is within the vertical pipe structure. Does that mean: a) it can NEVER extend beyond the field border; or b) it can extend beyond the field border, just as long as it is within the vertical pipe structure while removing the ball.

Lastly, does the mechanism I describe above violate the rule of not designing a mechanism to purposely react off of the playing field border (because this mechanism uses the vertical pipe structure to deflect the little flexible arm.

To be honest, if teams use the flexible arm mechanism, I don't care all that much, but I would like to know your opinion.

[Kris Verdeyen]

you are reading more into it than it says

Not to beat a dead horse, but, I already have my bat out and everything, so here goes....

As it's written:
ROBOT mechanisms used to remove the BONUS BALLS may extend beyond the playing field border as long as they are within the vertical pipe structure surrounding the BALL TEES. If a BONUS BALL is removed from the BALL TEE by a ROBOT that violates this rule, a 25 point penalty will be deducted from that alliance’s final score.

As it should be written, if the intent is what Ken (and others) have said:
ROBOT mechanisms used to remove the BONUS BALLS may extend beyond the playing field border as long as they are within the vertical pipe structure surrounding the BALL TEES. If a BONUS BALL is removed from the BALL TEE by a ROBOT while it is violating this rule, a 25 point penalty will be deducted from that alliance’s final score.

As it should be written, if the intent is what Lucien and I think:
ROBOT mechanisms used to remove the BONUS BALLS may extend beyond the playing field border as long as they are within the vertical pipe structure surrounding the BALL TEES. If a BONUS BALL is removed from the BALL TEE by a ROBOT that has violated this rule, a 25 point penalty will be deducted from that alliance’s final score.

At the very least, this requires some clarification - it's starting to look like the tape measure controvery from two years ago - where a cheap, light, simple and obvious solution (curb feelers, in this case) that was apparently outlawed by the rules (causing teams to turn to expensive, heavy, and complicated solutions) turned out to be legal after all.

[KenWittlief]

so then by your definition, if any part of my robot extends out of the field in my first match, then I get the release ball with that same part in the second match, I get the penalty, because that part extended at some point in the past, so my robot 'has violated the rule'

so everytime I get the release ball in every match after match 1, i get a 25 point penalty, even if i reach through the opening.

it should say, if the party of the first part builds a machine, mechanism, device.....

I think this thread has gone to the lawyers- as the game was demo'd at the kickoff the intent was clear, you have to reach through, you cant reach around.

[Kris Verdeyen]

so then by your definition, if any part of my robot extends out of the field in my first match, then I get the release ball with that same part in the second match, I get the penalty, because that part extended at some point in the past.

Nope, not gonna bite.


I think this thread has gone to the lawyers- as the game was demo'd at the kickoff the intent was clear, you have to reach through, you cant reach around.

And the reasoning behind that rule is one of safety - if the people on the sidelines are expecting robots to come through the hole in the side of the field, then they can just avoid that part of the field. But now, we can have the curb feeler that conks every one of the judges, refs, and field resetters on the head on the way to the ball, and then folds back and gets the ball too. Even if it is following the letter of the rule (which is what the ruling will probably be if there is one), the intent is being violated.

[Yan Wang]

I completely agree with Kris. The reason there is a 'cage' around the bonus balls is for the protection of the referees and volunteers. Although some of those 'flappy' mechanisms aren't dangerous, they still violate the rules by extending outside of the field. There shouldn't be an exception to the rule. If your robot breaks the plane of the ball corral by just an inch, you lose points. Robots that extend outside the field while attempting to remove a bonus ball should be penalized, regardless of whether it was accidental or intentional.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Robots that extend outside the field while attempting to remove a bonus ball should be penalized, regardless of whether it was accidental or intentional.

There's a subtle point here - if the team extends beyond the border while attempting to hit the ball and misses the cage (accidental), then they are already penalized by not having their balls drop. But, if a team extends beyond the field and also gets the balls to drop, they are benefitting their position through the breaking of a rule, which is forbidden, so the extra penalty is warrented.

[ngreen]

How I interpret the rules in this case is that you could have something that stuck past the field border retracted before the pvc frame and then extend again to knock off the bonus ball.

The knocking the ball off without being inside the frame is where the 25 point penalty would apply. Very obvious.

Also, the first example of sticking an arm that was pushed back by the frame and then extended again to hit the bonus ball would be illegal. You can not react off of the field border or any other part of the field except the lip of the mobile goal and the hanging bar. I would say this would warrant a penalty of some sort but not the 25 pt penalty since you knock the ball within the frame. But I think it would merit a DQ.

Play within the framework of the game. There are many hardworking volunteers, cameramen and referees working on the sideline who won't be prepared for such a device and their safety is a sake.

[Mr. Van]

Uh, the proof is in...

What's happened at the two weekends of regionals we've already had? Have "flapping" ball-knockers been penalized?

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599

[ngreen]

Uh, the proof is in...

What's happened at the two weekends of regionals we've already had? Have "flapping" ball-knockers been penalized?

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599

I haven't seen one in the 3 1/2 regionals I've watched. At least not one that reacts off the playing field. But I believe they should be penalized if they do.

I don't think I've seen someone get the 25 point penalty for knocking ball off without being in the ball tee framework either.

Actually...to be truthful. I haven't seen a lot of things happen in autonomous mode.

[KenWittlief]

comeon people, be serious!

there is a barrier around the playfield that keeps spectataors and the judges away, the only ones who stand close to the field are the refs

in the driver mode part of the game your robot CAN EXTEND out past the edge of the field as long as it doesnt touch the ground - you could have your ten foot arm hanging out OFF the field and no violation or penalty occurs unless you touch the floor

if this were a safety issue then as soon as your bot extended past the field border the refs would do what they do for ALL the safety issues - they would turn your bot off

or you would get -25 points as soon as a tiewrap broke the plane of the side of the field - this is absurd

the idea is you have to get the balls by reaching through the opening -watch the refs while the game is playing - they wont stand anywhere near the bots - they know better

ive seen the refs standing on the edge of the corral looking to see if a bot breaks the plane of the opening - I have never seen a ref sighting alone the edge of the playfield to see if a tiewrap breaks the plane of the field edge outside the release ball opening.

[ngreen]

comeon people, be serious!

there is a barrier around the playfield that keeps spectataors and the judges away, the only ones who stand close to the field are the refs

in the driver mode part of the game your robot CAN EXTEND out past the edge of the field as long as it doesnt touch the ground - you could have your ten foot arm hanging our over the field and no violation or penalty occurs

if this were a safety issue then as soon as your bot extended past the field border the refs would do what they do for ALL the safety issues - they would turn your bot off

or you would get -25 points as soon as a tiewrap broke the plane of the side of the field - this is absurd

the idea is you have to get the balls by reaching through the opening -watch the refs while the game is playing - they wont stand anywhere near the bots - they know better

ive seen the refs standing on the edge of the corral looking to see if a bot breaks the plane of the opening - I have never seen a ref sighting alone the edge of the playfield to see if a tiewrap breaks the plane of the field edge outside the release ball opening.

Ken,

I completely understand all of this. I'm only talking about the first example being illegal because the robot reacts off the playing field, the framework of the ball tee.

You can extend a reasonable amount outside the playing field without a problem at all, as long as you don't touch the carpet.

If the extension out of the field was unreasonable you would immediately be DQed for the safety of the judges, announcers, and, of course, VIPs.

And there are other people close to the playing field during match other than refs. This includes cameramen and Dean Kamen at St. Louis.

[KenWittlief]

id be really surprized if they called you for 'reacting' off the field with a little stick on a spring

Ive always understood 'reacting' off the field to mean bracing yourself or pushing your ROBOT off the boarder - using the border or field componets to help your WHOLE bot move or hold position

not that you are not allowed to touch or feel or sense the edge of the field - that would also rule out contact switches that close when they touch the field edge

has any one used a stick or flapper like that? I would have to look at the drawings for the placement of the balls on the tee, I dont think the geometry is right - I think the balls are too far back and by the time the flapper was released by the PVC it would miss the ball.

no - I just checked the drawings - it would work very nicely - the ball is right up to the plane of the opening

darn - now I wish I had thought of that :^)

[ChrisH]

Uh, the proof is in...

What's happened at the two weekends of regionals we've already had? Have "flapping" ball-knockers been penalized?

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599

No, that is not the proof. The proof is what is written, just like you can't go 90 mph down the freeway just because you saw somebody else do it and they got away with it.

I have heard that these devices were fairly common in Portland and I saw at least one in AZ. They were not penalized. But this was apparently not the case at other regionals. So do we follow the two that allowed them or the ten that didn't have them?

As we can see from this discussion, there are various ways of interpreting the rule in question. The teams that built them did so in good faith that they had the right interpretation. They, and the refs at two regionals, might have been mistaken. If so let's get a correct interpretation and go on. If these teams have to take the possibility of a penalty into account when using these devices then so be it.

If they are to be allowed, then excuse me but I think I have to go down to the shop and dig out that fiberglass rod I saw last week. ;)

Let's just not sit around crying "Cheater" about an honest mistake.

[Mr. Van]

No, that is not the proof. The proof is what is written

Ah, Chris - I see your point. Of course, we should adhere to the rules as they are stated, but as they are stated, people seem to be confused. I just thought that two weeks of regional might shed some clairification on this. You mention that most regionals did not allow the "flapping ball-knockers", which suggests (merely suggests) a likely "right interpretation" of the rules.

No cries of "Cheater" here at all. Just seeking answers.

And CONGRATS to team 330 for their fantastic success in Phoenix!

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599

[KenWittlief]

I took Chris post just the opposite - that he saw bots using them at two regionals with no penalites, and at the other ones nobody had them at all (ie. nobody else THOUGHT of the idea)

which is it Chris? is there any indication that anyone was penalized for using them?

[Paul H]

We have whips that do that, and in all of our autonomous modes at VCU (90% of the matches, all the way through the finals), we did not get penalized.

From their video, it looks like MOE has one too. You can see it sticking out as they drive around.

[Natchez]

Posted by Paul H
We have whips that do that

Paul & Buzz, congratulations on your win at VCU. Can you give us some insight into Buzz' discussions about the rules and how you came to your conclusions? Before posing the question to FIRST through the Q&A system, I'd like for the FIRST community to understand the legal/illegal logic.

Much respect,
Lucien

[Yan Wang]

If you post the question to FIRST Q&A this late in the season, they will say that it is OK because they wouldn't want to be the ones to say, "Hey, our refs and students didn't understand this part of the rules and played 2 weeks of regionals without knowing it."

I just think it's obvious that by making a cage around the balls, FIRST wants you to only knock down the balls by going IN that cage through the front of it. Ken, I don't think it's that other teams didn't think of such a simple idea with a flapper (I know I did), it's that we realized the obvious - that it is illegal by the rules and by common sense. Then again, you were the one to argue that extending into the corral by an inch shouldn't be penalized ;)

[Dr.Bot]

Paul & Buzz, congratulations on your win at VCU. Can you give us some insight into Buzz' discussions about the rules and how you came to your conclusions? Before posing the question to FIRST through the Q&A system, I'd like for the FIRST community to understand the legal/illegal logic.

Much respect,
Lucien


Hey Lucien - I think you should dig out that fiberglass rod, and also your check book - them 1 meg of Krispy Kremes is gonna be expensive.
I can't believe that touching the cage as part of triggering the ball is worthy of a DQ or 25 point penalty. I think "reaching around or over" means reaching around or over" Hitting the cage with your robot while attempting to trigger the balls is not a penalty unless the collision is violent enough to damage the field. I think that is a refs decision.

No 25 point penalty was called at PNW. Several robots had mechanisms that
touched the cage while trying to go for balls, none of them reached around or over. I think the head refs should take a look at this thread and express the final word.

[gburlison]

Well it seems to me the only part of this is that is still unanswered is:

What constitutes reacting off the field?

We assumed that a flexible rod that is deflected by the frame around the 10 point balls would violate the rule about reacting off the field. If this is not the case then I think that FIRST needs to rewrite this rule to be more clear.

[Alan Anderson]

Well it seems to me the only part of this is that is still unanswered is:

What constitutes reacting off the field?
From the competition manual, Section 4.4.2 "Safety":

<G04> If a ROBOT goes out-of-bounds (outside the playing field) to the point where it has to apply force to any out-of-bounds surface to rejoin play, its control system will be disabled and the ROBOT will be disabled. For purposes of this rule, the BONUS BALLS and BALL TEE are considered part of the playing field.

The term "reacting off the field" is not in the rule. No other rule I saw mentions "out-of-bounds". It's pretty clear to me that there's nothing wrong with brushing against any part of the field or its surroundings (as long as you don't go poking into the ball chute).

[KenWittlief]

Hey Alan is right! Kudos to you!

this whole arguement has been based on a rule from last year.

I have all the manual pdf and update pdf files in one directory, and with the lastest version of adobe you can search them all at once.

the word 'reacting' does not appear in any of them

the word 'react' appears 6 times - but none of them refer to reacting with the field

in fact, the following statement from the rules makes it clear that anything that is ok in normal/driver mode is ok in auton mode - and in driver mode your bot IS allowed to extend past and touch the sides for the field, as long as you dont touch the floor. From the manual:

AUTONOMOUS PERIOD - During this 15-second period, the ROBOTS operate and react only to sensor inputs and to commands programmed by the team into the onboard robot control system. Human control of the ROBOT will not be possible during this time. During this period, ROBOTS may perform any activities that would be permissible when operated under human control. All ROBOT operation and safety rules applicable during the operator control period are also applicable during this period.

Hey Alan - next time there is a dispute about the rules Im gonna give you a ring :^)

[Paul H]

Paul & Buzz, congratulations on your win at VCU. Can you give us some insight into Buzz' discussions about the rules and how you came to your conclusions? Before posing the question to FIRST through the Q&A system, I'd like for the FIRST community to understand the legal/illegal logic.

Much respect,
Lucien

Our team, The Killer Bees, interpreted it to mean reaching around the "cage" and hitting the ball from the back. Who knows, though, with all of the Autonomous work the programmers have been doing since VCU, the whips may only open inside of the ball cage now anyways.

[Dr.Bot]

Hey Alan is right! Kudos to you!




Hey Alan - next time there is a dispute about the rules Im gonna give you a ring :^)


Dear Ken;

Thanks for the kudos.

As Much as I like to get praise (I am already a legend in my own mind!) I have to stress these are my opinions only - I am not representing REP, NASA or FIRST or team 254 when making them.

"My opinions when frankly expressed are like pins and onions. I often get stuck with them and end up crying."

[KenWittlief]

Alan Anderson was right too

maybe even more right :^)

[Natchez]

Thanks everyone for your input! After reviewing this issue with my team where we used this thread as a guide, we feel that the rule, without question, prohibits our use of "bonus ball feelers." Please understand that this is strictly our interpretation and recognize that those who interpret the rule differently may be correct.

Since we acknowledge that the bonus-ball-feeling robots will be quicker to the bonus balls, we have altered our strategy to meet these neighbors as quickly as we can. This should make for some exciting collisions at mid field.

Thanks again & full steam ahead,
Lucien

[Andy Baker]

Looking at all of this, I see it as legal. Heck, it's a pretty good idea with regard to simplicity and being very effective.

Sure, the ball-knocker-offer is extending outside of the field, but it is not applying force to the floor. Also, it is only going about 1 foot outside of the field, so it is not a safety hazard.

If the ball-knocker-offer reaches around the vertical pipe and knocks off the 10 point ball, then it is illegal, of course, but that is not what is being debated.

Since there is no rule that says robots cannot contact or react against the pipe surrounding the ball tees, I see this as legal. Of course, that is just my opinion. Maybe I am missing something.

Andy B.