View Full Version : Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
Mike Soukup
04-03-2005, 10:15
While watching the VCU webcast I believe I heard the following ruling during the first or second match:
"A robot drove into its endzone with a tetra raised above the height of the player station glass, therefore they received a 10 point penalty."
Did I hear that correctly or was it worded differently? Where can I find this rule in the documentation? I need to know the specific rule. Can we not raise a tetra above the height of the player station glass while in the endzone, or can we just not drive into the endzone with a tetra raised that high? Or did I completely misunderstand the ruling?
Ricky Q.
04-03-2005, 10:21
I cannot find that rule anywhere in the manual. Might just be a midunderstanding, or a horrible call.
Dave Campbell
04-03-2005, 10:36
I cannot find that rule anywhere in the manual. Might just be a midunderstanding, or a horrible call.
Mike,
Jeff explained it before the matches, if the robot dangles a tetra above the operators, past the driver station barrier, during the match, it may be disabled and will be penalized. (safety of the operators) Seems that it happened yesterday while trying to score on endzone goals or returning for 10 pt bonus at end.
Kevin Sevcik
04-03-2005, 10:47
This scares and upsets me. There's nothing about this in the rule book at all. There's <S01> which says a robot can be disabled if it is deemed to be operating unsafely. There's nothing there about a penalty. Was this an on the spot decision? Is this going to be enforced at all regionals? Will FIRST send out an email blast notifying teams of this new penalty? Can Wetzel or someone at VCU get us an answer on this?
I really don't like last minute changes to rules like this.....
The official word is that if a robot is in the end zone with a tetra over the player station, then it will be disabled as a safety precaution. After Thursday, it was determined that this is necessary.
There is no penalty assessed.
Wetzel
Dave Campbell
04-03-2005, 10:56
After discussing with co-advisor, he said he only heard about the disable on the webcast, not a penalty. I can not verify the penalty. Sorry for the rushed answer. Thx for the clarification Wetzel.
Kevin Sevcik
04-03-2005, 11:02
Thanks for the quick update Wetzel. Sorry about flying off the handle like that, but a new penalty would be a very odd thing and I was worried.
Mike Soukup
04-03-2005, 11:07
Ok, I may have heard it wrong because I was watching it in the background. I thought he said it was a penalty, but it looks like it's a disable instead.
What exactly is illegal? Raising a tetra above the height of the top of the player station glass while in the endzone? Or does the tetra have to break the plane of the player station glass to be illegal?
What exactly is illegal? Raising a tetra above the height of the top of the player station glass while in the endzone? Or does the tetra have to break the plane of the player station glass to be illegal?
It was made as a warning to teams that there is a safety risk when you come in with a tetra above the height of the player station. The refs will watch and will tell us to disable the unsafe robot. It is a safety issue, and as such, the refs have the discretion to make the call of unsafe.
Wetzel
Tristan Lall
04-03-2005, 11:39
It was made as a warning to teams that there is a safety risk when you come in with a tetra above the height of the player station. The refs will watch and will tell us to disable the unsafe robot. It is a safety issue, and as such, the refs have the discretion to make the call of unsafe.Now, I didn't see the incident in question, but did you (or whoever else was manning the kill switch) wait for the offending robot to move back over the field, before killing it? We can't know what the robot would do, if turned off--it might drop the tetra. This is certainly an unenviable position to be in, because if the safety-oblivious driver doesn't move it, the scorekeeper who takes the risk of killing it might himself make quite a mess of whoever's underneath....
Elgin Clock
04-03-2005, 12:27
We can't know what the robot would do, if turned off--it might drop the tetra. This is certainly an unenviable position to be in, because if the safety-oblivious driver doesn't move it, the scorekeeper who takes the risk of killing it might himself make quite a mess of whoever's underneath....I hate to say this.. But I told you so.
And that is a great point. If it is shut down by a field ref, and someone gets hurt cause the robot is designed to let go at the end of a match when power is cut, who is to blame? The players? The field attendant who killed the power?
This is something I predicted a week or two ago, and making the ruling this late in the game (even if it in the best interest of the safety of the players) is just a bad thing to do.
I believe it should be phased into the regionals, and left to the head ref to make the individualized calls, with risk of blame on their part (for if when they do hit the stop, then the tetra drops) since this was obviously not a rule from the manual from the beginning of the season.
I don't want to see anyone getting hurt but the standardization and the conformity of rules are there for a reason.
I see this as unfortunately duplicating the tether ruling in 2002.
I say bring back the ball chute from last year as a safety shield over the players.:rolleyes:
Rick TYler
04-03-2005, 12:33
And that is a great point. If it is shut down by a field ref, and someone gets hurt cause the robot is designed to let go at the end of a match when power is cut, who is to blame? The players? The field attendant who killed the power?
Your teams have all bought hard hats for their drivers and human players, right? I still cannot believe FIRST does not require hard hats (McMaster-Carr, page 1663).
And that is a great point. If it is shut down by a field ref, and someone gets hurt cause the robot is designed to let go at the end of a match when power is cut, who is to blame? The players? The field attendant who killed the power?
This is something I predicted a week or two ago, and making the ruling this late in the game (even if it in the best interest of the safety of the players) is just a bad thing to do.
I believe it should be phased into the regionals, and left to the head ref to make the individualized calls, with risk of blame on their part (for if when they do hit the stop, then the tetra drops) since this was obviously not a rule from the manual from the beginning of the season.
<S01> If at any time the ROBOT operation is deemed unsafe, by the determination of the referees, the ROBOT
This rule has not changed since day one. The announcement by Jeff at the beginning of the day was NOT an official rule change. It was a warning to the teams that the refs would be watching their actions near the player station carefully. This was intended to be a warning to teams that they need to exercise caution at a particular location, that it had shown itself to be a problem.
While you raise valid points about auto release dropping a tetra onto a driver, disabling the robot will create a static situation shortly.
Wetzel
Stu Bloom
04-03-2005, 14:26
Your teams have all bought hard hats for their drivers and human players, right? I still cannot believe FIRST does not require hard hats (McMaster-Carr, page 1663).OUR team wears hard-hats ... with horns ... :yikes:
(See attached mascot)
Kit Gerhart
04-03-2005, 14:34
Ok, I may have heard it wrong because I was watching it in the background. I thought he said it was a penalty, but it looks like it's a disable instead.
What exactly is illegal? Raising a tetra above the height of the top of the player station glass while in the endzone? Or does the tetra have to break the plane of the player station glass to be illegal?
What I heard on the webcast was that the robot "could" be disabled if the bottom of the tetra it held was above the level of the top of the player station window. Unless I missed it, the tetra didn't have to actually be over the window for the robot to be disabled. Is this correct?
Stu Bloom
04-03-2005, 15:03
What I heard on the webcast was that the robot "could" be disabled if the bottom of the tetra it held was above the level of the top of the player station window. Unless I missed it, the tetra didn't have to actually be over the window for the robot to be disabled. Is this correct?
I believe this was addressed above Kit. What I get from the previous discussion is that this is NOT a new, hard and fast rule. But only a heads-up that the referees will be watching for an unsafe condition which would require the enforcement of S01 (a disable), at the referee's discretion.
Kit Gerhart
04-03-2005, 15:08
I believe this was addressed above Kit. What I get from the previous discussion is that this is NOT a new, hard and fast rule. But only a heads-up that the referees will be watching for an unsafe condition which would require the enforcement of S01 (a disable), at the referee's discretion.Thanks for the info. That was my understanding, hence the "could" or "may" be disabled rather than "will" be disabled when the announcements were made at VCU.
I don't belive this issue was ever raised at BAE, or any penaltys or disablements were issued.
'Bots did extend over the player stations with tetras frequently however. I noticed it happening, and wondered if there would be any result of it.
My observations were field attendents quickly getting a hand or two on or near the tetra should it drop and to otherwise keep it from hitting any drivers. Usally, the tetra would spend less then 2 seconds over the station. I did notice at least one tetra being released, although a very quick and attentive field attendent already had a good grip on it it and it never droped or posed an saftey risk. Kudos the the BEA field crew, they were fanstastic about keeping us safe and keeping the field to spec and reset.
In defense of teams that break the player station plane, most incidents seemed to result from the offending bot being rammed or pushed by an opposing 'bot as they attempted to cap on the back goals. If there is an update to the rules specificlly regarding this issue, I wonder how it will be handeled, seeing as how most offenses are beyond the control of the offending team. My hope is that it is left to the refs to call, and field attendents are instructed to be mindful and ready to handle the tetra.
FIRST should think about the playing field and how to better protect drivers. The idea of installing the ball chute isn't a bad one. I guess that hinges on whether or not FIRST kept them.
I always thought that the rule requiring drivers to wear saftey glasses was redundent with half an inch of lexan between us and the field. I sure stand corrected.
-Andy A.
p.s. The spell checker seems to be broken. I appoligize for any poor spelling.
Alex Cormier
05-03-2005, 22:24
Mike,
Jeff explained it before the matches, if the robot dangles a tetra above the operators, past the driver station barrier, during the match, it may be disabled and will be penalized. (safety of the operators) Seems that it happened yesterday while trying to score on endzone goals or returning for 10 pt bonus at end.
wow, every time the martians were on the field that happened in auto and a few tetras almost hit the drivers but the coach caught it on team 326 while they tried to cap a goal. i never once heard that rule enforced at Finger Lakes.
ShadowKnight
06-03-2005, 00:07
The refs never really acted on that "warning" friday morning concerning hassling of cappers in the end zones with teras above the horizontal plane of the plexiglass barrier protecting the operators. It never became an issue again however, which was definately good news.
Concerning what happened at VCU, we were in a practice match with team 401. While they were attempting to cap the center goal in the end zone, I turned to respond to our human player. An opposing team rammed into team 401 at that moment, causing the tetra to come off, falling directly at my head. I looked back in time to register it was there before the point crashed into my safety glasses. It pressed the safety glasses hard enough to cut into my forehead. I don't think I want to experience that again.
But yes, FIRST definately has a reason to make us wear safety glasses behind the lexan, though I must congradulate 401 for their show of gracious professionalism, approaching me after the incident to make sure I was ok and apologize, even though it wasn't really their fault.
I have to question why they dident do a overhang to protect the drives like they have in previous years. Anyone know why?
Bduggan04
06-03-2005, 00:49
I have to question why they dident do a overhang to protect the drives like they have in previous years. Anyone know why?
The overhang was specific to 2004, and even then it was only in the middle of the wall. In most of the years prior to this year, an overhang would have made the game unplayable as objects were thrown over the wall to score. There's no reason you can't take action yourself instead of waiting for FIRST. Buy a hard hat, they're pretty cheap from McMaster.
However, I agree with you that FIRST should take some action on this issue. It may be as simple as requiring hard hats, but a net or something might be even better. Until then teams should exercise caution when lifting tetras high near the players stations. Awareness of this issue could resolve it.
Bharat Nain
06-03-2005, 00:49
I have to question why they dident do a overhang to protect the drives like they have in previous years. Anyone know why?
That is infact a good suggestion although I don't know how much it would cost. I think it would cost considerably less than previous years since the field elements are not so hard to build this year. Another good suggestion is every regional stores 24 or so hard hats/helmets and lets teams use it. Or just make the teams buy some.
geez... flying tetras..
Rick TYler
06-03-2005, 00:57
There's no reason you can't take action yourself instead of waiting for FIRST. Buy a hard hat, they're pretty cheap from McMaster.
Another good suggestion is every regional stores 24 or so hard hats/helmets and lets teams use it. Or just make the teams buy some.
"...And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement."
It is a movement -- the head safety movement. We shall overcome.
- Rick "Safety Zealot" Tyler
Team 1294
Kit Gerhart
06-03-2005, 07:40
The overhang was specific to 2004, and even then it was only in the middle of the wall. In most of the years prior to this year, an overhang would have made the game unplayable as objects were thrown over the wall to score. There's no reason you can't take action yourself instead of waiting for FIRST. Buy a hard hat, they're pretty cheap from McMaster.
However, I agree with you that FIRST should take some action on this issue. It may be as simple as requiring hard hats, but a net or something might be even better. Until then teams should exercise caution when lifting tetras high near the players stations. Awareness of this issue could resolve it.
Since there is a special hazard this year, and since we don't throw balls, tetras, etc. over the wall, having a taller wall would have taken care of this issue. The down side, of course, is that it would have made the fields more expensive and more complicated to assemble.
rocknthehawk
06-03-2005, 14:18
this happened twice to my team while i was driving. while we had our arm extended and raised up, a team would come and slam into us, and push both our arm and the tetra out , once outside next to the drivers station, no penalty, but the tetra did fall off and land inside the goal and in the process knowcked theirs off the top, so we owned that goal, and a second it actually came up and over the top of the drivers station, in that case the ref or field attendent tried grabbing it of our claw (we were yelling not to touch it, we were moving it back across, but i guess he was doing his job), but we recieved no penalties for either one. i know one robot was at least shut off for having their arm touching the ground in the loading zone.
In one of our matches in Sacramento, a team was holding a tetra very high, trying to cap the middle goal against the driver wall, and it kept swinging from over the goal to over the wall. Our driver bumped their robot in an attempt to keep them from capping, but eventually they were able to cap the goal. After the match, the referee came to us and said that if the opposing robot had dropped the tetra over the wall, we would have been disqualified from not just the match, but the regional. Admittedly, it was a poor idea to bump them in such a hazardous situation, but it seems to me that if a robot is endangering the drivers, then they ought to be immediately disabled because of the strong probability that they will come into contact with another robot. During the elimination rounds, a similar situation happened to two other teams, and the tetra actually smacked into the outside of the driver station wall, causing the drivers to let go of the joysticks and reach up to push the tetra and robot back over the wall. Again, the robot was not disabled. A 10 point penalty doesn't seem like a good idea to me (not to mention that it isn't in the rules), but disabling the robot and threatening to DQ would help to keep everyone safe.
I think this problem would be solved by considering what is needed for the player station according to the game. Everybody has a long arm and easily four chip drive system, but we're left with the same open-top, and a little tipsy, player station.
Our arm controller nearly hit himself in the head with a tetra and had to use his hand to push the tetra back over while it was still held by the robot. I was worried about a penalty for some type of interference, but the situation was probably ignored because it was us endangering ourselves.
I think this problem would be solved by considering what is needed for the player station according to the game. Everybody has a long arm and easily four chip drive system, but we're left with the same open-top, and a little tipsy, player station.
Our arm controller nearly hit himself in the head with a tetra and had to use his hand to push the tetra back over while it was still held by the robot. I was worried about a penalty for some type of interference, but the situation was probably ignored because it was us endangering ourselves.
Just to clarify that situation where the tetra almost fell on us behind the player station... The Referee told me that had it been our own doing, he would had us disable for the rest of the match, but since 114 was pushing us into the player station while we were trying to cap, the ref let it go and said it was ok to touch the tetra above our heads for the sake of safety. This is a definite grey area in which refs will have to make some judgement calls. I think stacking on that end center goal is going to be a dangerous situation, especially if robots are getting pushed around. At the same time - it was definitely exciting and fun to watch I'm sure.
Ian Curtis
06-03-2005, 16:00
In the quarterfinals at BAE 1276 was rammed and it caused a tetra to fling wildly over our driver and operator. The ref had his hand right over 1276's E-stop. Luckily we managed to move away from the wall. Why would they shut us down if we weren't the cause of the tetra overhead?
Meandmyself
06-03-2005, 16:43
In the quarterfinals at BAE 1276 was rammed and it caused a tetra to fling wildly over our driver and operator. The ref had his hand right over 1276's E-stop. Luckily we managed to move away from the wall. Why would they shut us down if we weren't the cause of the tetra overhead?
Even if 1276 was not the cause of the unsafe play, shutting down 1276 was a possible solution to the unsafe situation. The ref is trying to stop unsafe play the quickest way possible, not to penalize a team for creating an unsafe condition. That comes later, once people are out of danger.
devicenull
06-03-2005, 19:04
I think, after reading this thread I'm going out and buying a hard hat. The $6 cost from home depot is worth me not getting injured by a tetra. I wouldn't want to see a robot disabled if its over the wall though, its very likely it would drop the tetra. I'm not sure if a penalty is the right way to go. The field should actually have an overhang though, its very dangerous without one.
Jillian B.
06-03-2005, 19:53
Well, they weren't applying that rule at BAE. Several times tetras swung over the driver station. I really wish they'd put some type of covering over the drive station. Maybe like last year's ball release.
I find it ironic how safety has become a primary focus of FIRST this year, yet we have tetras leaving the field. If the robot is disabled, doesn't that mean the tetra can still fall on the drivers...?
Another rule I'd like to see applied is that ANY shoving in loading stations, including that by the same alliance be penalized. Can't say we had that happen to us, but I know it happened to other teams. Any way you look at it, it's a safety hazard.
~ Jill
bombadier337
06-03-2005, 22:31
I really don't like the way this rule was implemented. In our finals alliance, the oppsing team dropped a tetra directly on one of our alliance members. He wasn't disabled before the time ran out, and made it behind the line before 10 seconds was up. We told the refs that according to the rules he was supposed to have been already disabled, but they still gave them the 10 points, and we lost the match because of it.
Salik Syed
07-03-2005, 22:22
I do not believe there is any penalty rule, during the elimination matches we were capping our home row and had our arm fully telescoped, 114 pushed us forward and the tetra was dangling right over my head LOL, it actually game down close enough that me and the mentor pushed it back over the plexiglass with our hands... (just a natural reaction of not wanting to get bashed in the head)...he was screaming pull the arm back... mean while i was just protecting my head.. we just got a warning we would be disabled if that happened again for simple safety reasons NO PENALTY!
Stu Bloom
22-03-2005, 09:47
from here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36285&page=8&pp=15)Seriously, it would have been nice for all team members and the crowd in attendance to know that. You can't honestly expect those drive team kids to communicate that info to everyone on their team - they're already under enough pressure to focus on the game at hand as it is. We talk about wasting bandwidth and posting needless stuff on these forums - all such debate on this topic is needless stuff and would have been eliminated if one simple 30-second announcement was made to everyone in attendance at Boilermaker.
In my opinion, the safety and game-transforming factors involved with robot arms swinging or falling outside the sidelines and tetras dangling over the player station make these issues far too important to leave the associated scoring and penalty decisions in the hands of the individual referee crews. FIRST has taken the initiative to place an even greater emphasis on safety this year, and it seems counter to that initiative if they leave this major safety decision up to each of the regional volunteer staffs. I've got to hope and assume FIRST understands this and is working on a standardized ruling that will be applied across the board and communicated to everyone. But since they have yet to release such a ruling, the severity of the penalties for robots who get a little crazy with their arms can still be debated....
I think a simple warning for placing someone's health and safety at risk is a little too lenient. If I remember correctly, a 10-point penalty was levied against any team last year that dangled a cushy air-filled ball even a little bit over the protective lexan of the player's station. So completely violating that space with a very hard object and striking other players nets only a warning? Oy.
The simplest, safest, and most logical solution to all of this would be to add more protective guarding above the player stations, as Kyle from 365 suggested in another thread. However, the $$$$ and logistics involved with that are probably too great an obstacle to overcome at this point in the season, so.....
A standard set of penalties should be put in place, but FIRST will still have to rely on the fair judgment of the referees to call the penalties when they are warranted. A proposal:
1. The "WARNING" will not come during a match; instead, it will come at the beginning of every competition day when the head ref communicates this rule to everyone in attendance and tells drivers NOT TO DO IT. EVER. Wouldn't that be simple? The refs then would not have to ever keep track of which teams had been warned and which hadn't, making their jobs easier. You're welcome.
2. Much like last year, a 10-point penalty will be levied each time a robot's arm OBVIOUSLY breaks the vertical plane of the operator's station with a tetra. Keep the arms low around the home goals. If the stacks are high there (and they tend not to be), be extra careful. The refs in each player station area should be shouting out each infraction to drive teams as they occur.
3. Any time a robot arm holding a tetra (or tetras) violates the space above a player station to the point where there is an obvious and sustained risk of tetras falling and causing injury to humans or damage to team controls for at least two seconds or more, and the robot operator refuses to comply with referee instructions to back off, in addition to receiving a 10-point penalty, that team will be ordered to back off, out of the opponent's home zone, if applicable, and remove the safety hazard, at which point, it will be disabled for the rest of the match. Failure to comply with this command in a standard amount of time (10 seconds) will result in a DQ. The defensive bots in the area will be instructed by the refs that the offensive team will be disabled, and they should not impede the removal of the offensive team's arm from the area above the player's station.
4. Teams playing defense in the areas around the player stations will be cautioned not to create the dangerous situation described above by actively using their arms to push the offensive robot's arm or tetra(s) into a dangerous position. Failure to comply will result in the defensive team receiving the penalties for whatever infractions were committed by the offensive team's arm. It should be blatantly obvious that the defensive team is ACTIVELY pushing high here - teams who raise their arms vertically to PASSIVELY block an offensive advance should not be penalized - in this case, the offensive team should then recieve the penalties for any infractions that occur.
5. If a defensive robot is playing legal defense by pushing low AND not getting underneath an offensive robot, they will NOT be penalized for the offensive robot's inability to control its arm during this contact. The offensive team must either retract its arm or risk receiving the penalties described above.
6. Robot disablement for safety infractions which occur along the sidelines will proceed as currently called. There will be no point penalties for dangerous situations, but the refs have the power to disable a bot at their discretion. I think falling onto the scorer's table falls into this category. :p If a defensive bot pushing high causes such a dangerous situation to occur along the sidelines, they will be disabled too. Legal, low pushing will not result in disablement of the defensive robot, if it is obvious they aren't continuing to drive their robot under the CG-challenged offensive bot if it begins to destablilize and tip over. Watch out, wedges and low riders. Do not exacerbate an unsafe situation.
7. If a robot's arm or a tetra the robot is carrying ever strikes an operator, human player, coach, ref, field volunteer, or Grandma Baker sitting in the stands, a DQ will immediately be levied against the team whose robot was at fault, based upon the rules outlined above. This is simply unexcusable and must be discouraged with the most severe penalty possible.
It is obvious that at some regionals, robot drivers with tall arms did not feel they needed to exercise the restraint, caution, and control required when entering an area where human safety is an issue, primarily because the penalties weren't severe or as swift enough to worry about. FIRST must be clear, firm, and concise (much more concise that I was, anyway) in communicating and enforcing the penalties related to this issue.
One final thing - a way to eliminate half the potential for penalties is to simply not call any penalties on drivers and teams who are foolish enough to dangle tetras over their own player stations when trying to cap, since their safety is already placed directly in their hands. I don't know how much their alliance partners would like for them to dangle/drop tetras over/onto them during a match, but I'm sure GP would prevail and a lot of interesting discussion would settle any differences following the conclusion of the match....Very good Travis, I like your proposal.
I was a referee at the Great Lakes Regional in Ypsilanti. Our FANTASTIC Head Referee (Ron Webb) was very clear to the teams during each drivers' meeting the mornings before play began. Due to the reports of injuries from the first week of regionals Ron decided that we would be very pro-active in avoiding similar situations, so all teams were told that ANY Tetra breaking the plane above the player station end wall would result in the offending robot being disabled (per rule S01) at the earliest safe opportunity. His clear and consistent message to the teams allowed us to avoid that call throughout the entire competition.
Safety concerns at the field corners are much more difficult to address as there is approximately four feet of low field border (no high wall) along the field ends at each corner. Unfortunately I believe we did have one minor injury when a tetra left the playing field at a corner and struck a human player in the leg.
Stu, Ron was also the head ref at Detroit. He called the same way. Was it good, NO. There is NO penalty in the rules that is given for "breaking the plane". I fully agree that IF there is a safety issue deal with it by clearing the area and shutting down the robot. Once the safety issue has been taken care of allow the teams to resume playing. To shut down a robot is a major "penalty" for which there is no rule. They were getting silly with some refs concentrating on the tetra and the line more than the pushing and ramming that was going on. If they were 1/4" some were being called. This in anyones mind is not a safety issue.
Enforce the rules as written. Don't have refs make their own interpretations. Again shutting down a robot is a big penalty. Not shutting down the team pushing is even worse. FIRST needs to address this situation before it gets worse.
Tristan Lall
22-03-2005, 12:12
Stu, Ron was also the head ref at Detroit. He called the same way. Was it good, NO. There is NO penalty in the rules that is given for "breaking the plane". I fully agree that IF there is a safety issue deal with it by clearing the area and shutting down the robot. Once the safety issue has been taken care of allow the teams to resume playing. To shut down a robot is a major "penalty" for which there is no rule. They were getting silly with some refs concentrating on the tetra and the line more than the pushing and ramming that was going on. If they were 1/4" some were being called. This in anyones mind is not a safety issue.
Enforce the rules as written. Don't have refs make their own interpretations. Again shutting down a robot is a big penalty. Not shutting down the team pushing is even worse. FIRST needs to address this situation before it gets worse.If we grant that the head referee is ultimately responsible for determining whether an action is safe or unsafe, then he is acting according to <S01> by defining the limit of safe actions. By categorically stating that any robot which crosses the plane of the field barrier is unsafe, he is providing a simple guideline by which that determination can be made, on the fly, by an official who doesn't necessarily know how the robot operates, and may not be in a position to rapidly estimate the eventual outcome of the robot's motion. <S01> If at any time the ROBOT operation is deemed unsafe, by the determination of the referees, the ROBOT will be disabled for the remainder of the match. The only deviation from the rules as printed is the additional stipulation that the disabling take place "at the earliest safe opportunity", which addresses the danger of a mechanism releasing a tetra or moving into an unanticipated position when power is cut. This is an absolutely necessary precaution.
Now, if the referee wants to be a little more lenient, and even a little more realistic, he might say that crossing the plane is grounds for disablement, but that each situation will be evaluated on its own merits, and that trivial incursions into that space may be ignored. But I don't see this as anything but a judgment call on the referee's part, given the nature of <S01>--he must make an interpretation in order to enforce the rule as written.
If the referees are strictly concentrating on this plane, rather than on the rest of the field, I don't think they're doing their jobs correctly (unless extra referees have been assigned to this task). Perhaps the referees have decided to be more lenient with regard to robot interaction, and are simply ignoring the pushing and shoving?
Travis Hoffman
22-03-2005, 12:25
They were getting silly with some refs concentrating on the tetra and the line more than the pushing and ramming that was going on.
...
Not shutting down the team pushing is even worse.
Steve:
As far as pushing vs. ramming. What kind of "pushing" did you see? Pushing is very legal, as long as....
A.) it is down low
B.) it has an obvious purpose (i.e. keeping another robot from capping or preventing a robot from getting to a point on the playing field where it obviously wants to go)
and
C.) it doesn't involve getting underneath a robot and lifting them up.
Using your arm to push on a tetra held by another robot up high is also legal, but this type of defense is a much riskier proposition, as repeatedly striking another robot's arm directly up high is not permitted, nor is pushing on their arm directly causing them to tip over.
The rule is very clear in this matter. Maybe I should print out G25 on a banner the size of a freakin' Freightliner and bring it to each competition I attend? It really is a well written rule. Any ref who flags robots for engaging in the above legal activity has grossly misinterpreted that rule.
Now, back to the topic at hand....
To be fair, rules do exist in the rulebook which cover these breaking the plane situations generically, but they are far too vague and leave far too much up to the individual interpretation of each ref crew. The NFL manages all of its refereeing crews so that the rules don't change appreciably from one week to the next. Personal foul rules are well defined. Ripping the head off the QB isn't legal at one week and punishable by death the next. You may see a little variation in the way the penalty is called by different referees, and that is natural - we're all human, but the range of variation is minimal enough not to incite rebellion amongst the teams involved. All this wishy-washiness we're witnessing simply causes people like you, me, and everyone else who's chimed in on this topic to become frustrated by the inconsistency in interpretation from one ref crew to the other. FIRST needs to eliminate this inconsistency as soon as possible by defining SPECIFIC rules that ALL refs must call the same way, preferably before next week's regionals begin. Once and if that occurs, I expect everyone will be their usual GP self, accept whatever ruling FIRST makes, and both play the game AND call the game to the best of their abilities according to the rules we've been given.
Jack Jones
22-03-2005, 13:15
Based on referring at both GLR and Detroit, it's my opinion that the head referee should bear the lion's share in controlling the ramming and tipping. The reason is that six referees have the responsibility to follow their own robot, while the other two have the player station's and human players to watch. It was often the case where a robot will come charging from the other end (BLUE), slow down a little - sometimes - and initiate contact. The ref from that end may get delayed by (take your pick) the cameraman + wires, the human players, auto loader racks and/or humans, the Emcee, etc. and etc. So, even though the RED ref would be inclined to call something - it's not his robot - or maybe his robot isn't involved, but is in the loading station. He does not want to step on the other one's call. By the time the BLUE ref gets there, they both are thinking that the other one didn't think it was ramming - the borderline call ends up not being made.
It is also my opinion that those kinds of things get fixed by working out the mechanics. But it takes all the prep. time just to sort out the rules and the correct penalty for the infractions. It may be the price we pay for having a fresh game every year; how many years has baseball had?
I'd like to see us have a referee camp between ship date and the first competition. No camp - no ref. What we have now is to go with the veterans who volunteer and fill in with anyone who's brave, or dumb, enough to take on the challenge. No comments as to which category I belong, please!
Back on topic: (and for the last time)
I absolutely agree with Tristan. There is no way to precisely predict the consequence when a tetra is allowed to enter the player's area. Breaking the plane is THE RIGHT WAY TO DRAW THE LINE.
If we grant that the head referee is ultimately responsible for determining whether an action is safe or unsafe, then he is acting according to <S01> by defining the limit of safe actions. By categorically stating that any robot which crosses the plane of the field barrier is unsafe, he is providing a simple guideline by which that determination can be made, on the fly, by an official who doesn't necessarily know how the robot operates, and may not be in a position to rapidly estimate the eventual outcome of the robot's motion. <S01> If at any time the ROBOT operation is deemed unsafe, by the determination of the referees, the ROBOT will be disabled for the remainder of the match. The only deviation from the rules as printed is the additional stipulation that the disabling take place "at the earliest safe opportunity", which addresses the danger of a mechanism releasing a tetra or moving into an unanticipated position when power is cut. This is an absolutely necessary precaution.
To determine if something is safe or unsafe one must see what is happening. To predetermine that something is safe or unsafe is not what is stated in the rule. At no time did a ref shut down a robot that almost hit Refs, Field Attendants , Announcers or others if the tetras were not over the players station. Safety would warrant that wouldn't you agree. A robot that is turning slowly and the corner of the tetra "breaks the plane" is called for being unsafe. From regional to regional there are different calls. My issue is not the safety factor, the rules as written or any ref. My issue is that consistency and a uniform rule that spans FIRST is not in effect. Teams that were within the rules at one event are now outside of the rules at another event. Teams have built their robot based on the rules. Now teams that go high can be penalized by refs interpretation. If safety was such a big issue and concern, why is there not overhead protection built into the field.
Last year at the start there was a breaking the plane rule that was out from the beginning. It was published and called uniformly across the regionals. Like it or not it was a rule and it was enforced. I am in full support of it. This year the design/rules team did not deem it necessary to deal with this issue and as of now have also remained quiet. WHY? They changed other rules this year why not this one?
Unless asked, I will not post on this subject here again. My voice has been heard and I have received many positive and a few negative PM's on the issue. I will respond to PM's or if asked a direct question in this thread. Thanks for listening to the ranting. :eek:
Ryan Dognaux
22-03-2005, 14:39
Safety should come before gameplay, no questions asked. If a robot breaks the plane and poses an immediate threat to the operators, that robot needs to be shut down immediately. If a robot is pushing that robot to cause the situation, both robots need to be shut down. A warning isn't harsh enough - sure you could issue a warning, but someone might be seriously hurt by then. If this isn't changed by some of the upcoming regionals and the national competition, I just have a really bad feeling that someone is going to get seriously hurt all because the robot was not shut down when it broke the plane of the player station.
Kit Gerhart
22-03-2005, 14:53
Safety should come before gameplay, no questions asked. If a robot breaks the plane and poses an immediate threat to the operators, that robot needs to be shut down immediately. If a robot is pushing that robot to cause the situation, both robots need to be shut down. A warning isn't harsh enough - sure you could issue a warning, but someone might be seriously hurt by then. If this isn't changed by some of the upcoming regionals and the national competition, I just have a really bad feeling that someone is going to get seriously hurt all because the robot was not shut down when it broke the plane of the player station.
Unfortunately, there is not an easy fix for this problem. The real fix would be for the Lexan player station windows to be about 4 feet taller, but I suspect it is too late, and would be too expensive to make that change at this point.
Shutting down robots with arms dangling tetras over player stations would, in many or most cases, be more dangerous than letting them continue to try to get back over on the playing field side. Most robot arms will back drive and fall if disabled, and some "active grabbers" would drop, rather than hold tetras.
It seems to me that a consistently applied point penalty would be the best solution. The 30 point loading zone penalty makes drivers very careful to avoid opponents' robots in their loading zone. A major point penalty for going over the player stations would have a similar effect IMHO.
It seems to me that a consistently applied point penalty would be the best solution. The 30 point loading zone penalty makes drivers very careful to avoid opponents' robots in their loading zone. A major point penalty for going over the player stations would have a similar effect IMHO.
I think it should be a 20 point penalty, that way we can have the 10, 20 and 30. :)
In our first regional FLR the Martians hit us while capping a goal. The 3 tetra's came off our arm and fell over the payers station wall. I caught them and threw to the side of the field.
At our next regional GLR this penalty was announced by the head ref. and I asked what team would be disabled if a team holding tetras was pushed by another team and broke the plane of the players field. He said that the robot holding the tetras would be disabled. I disagree with his answer, when you are being pushed by another robot you have little control of your robot. I believe the team doing the pushing is the cause and if anyone is to be disabled it should be them.
Daniel Brim
24-03-2005, 13:24
At our next regional GLR this penalty was announced by the head ref. and I asked what team would be disabled if a team holding tetras was pushed by another team and broke the plane of the players field. He said that the robot holding the tetras would be disabled. I disagree with his answer, when you are being pushed by another robot you have little control of your robot. I believe the team doing the pushing is the cause and if anyone is to be disabled it should be them.
But your robot is the one that is directly endangering the safety. It doesn't matter who made the robot be in a dangerous position, but the fact remains that if something isn't done, those three tetras (24 lbs) can come crashing down on your head and cause some serious damage. What would you rather have happen: a concussion or losing a match? Plus, if someone is injured, FIRST might be liable for a lawsuit, which would make everyone losers.
-Daniel
You are pointing out a fundamental flaw in this whole ruling. There is no limit to how high you can raise a tetra and in order to cap the goals all the time (even if there are many tetras already on the goal). Your robot has to be able to raise the tetras higher then the height of the wall. Our robot raises the tetras straight up over the base of the robot, and the only way for us to get tetras to break the plain of the player’s station is if we are tipped by another robot. Thus our design is the safest out there and this safety problem still happened. This is one of those things that got missed in the design of the game, not that it is FISRT's fault. I think everyone would have missed it. But they should correct it by adding protection to the field no matter what it costs before someone gets seriously hurt. They could add lexan or netting over the players heads. It could be placed horizontally or vertically.
nobrakes8
24-03-2005, 13:48
We had a similar situation at UTC, luckily the refs let us play on. We had the arm extended 14 feet in the air and we got pushed into the other team's zone.. I'm not sure why we weren't disabled, maybe because the way we hold the tetra's they felt it wasn't going to fly off.
I know somebody mentioned the fact that some robots let go soon as the power is shut off, but if a team also needs to be under power to keep the arm up 2 things could happen.
1. the arm falls and comes back into the field NOT endangering anybody. Could that team be re-enabled if it's deemed to be safe again? (I'd assume no)
2. What if that arm falls and the tetra hits the top of the driver's station, the tetra could fly off and hurt somebody, wouldn't it be safer to just let the team keep playing?
Jeff Waegelin
24-03-2005, 13:49
In our first regional FLR the Martians hit us while capping a goal. The 3 tetra's came off our arm and fell over the payers station wall. I caught them and threw to the side of the field.
At our next regional GLR this penalty was announced by the head ref. and I asked what team would be disabled if a team holding tetras was pushed by another team and broke the plane of the players field. He said that the robot holding the tetras would be disabled. I disagree with his answer, when you are being pushed by another robot you have little control of your robot. I believe the team doing the pushing is the cause and if anyone is to be disabled it should be them.
I saw a situation very much like this while refereeing at Detroit. We disabled both the robot that put a tetra over the wall and the pushing robot.
devicenull
24-03-2005, 14:13
But your robot is the one that is directly endangering the safety. It doesn't matter who made the robot be in a dangerous position, but the fact remains that if something isn't done, those three tetras (24 lbs) can come crashing down on your head and cause some serious damage. What would you rather have happen: a concussion or losing a match? Plus, if someone is injured, FIRST might be liable for a lawsuit, which would make everyone losers.
-Daniel
I don't believe you could sue them, I beleive thats part of whats covered in that release form everyone has to sign..
I don't believe you could sue them, I beleive thats part of whats covered in that release form everyone has to sign..
You can have people sign releases all day, but they can still sue.
Wetzel
thanks to Wildstang - Team 111 and NASA for providing the webcast to the Midwest Regional.]
Now to the subject at hand:
I was, prior to the first match in the finals at the Midwest Regional, completely undecided on whether or not this rule is an appropriate way to fix the problem. I have come to the conclusion that this rule is ABSOLUTELY NOT an appropriate band-aid for the 'tetras-going-over-the-wall' problem. Here is what happened:
One team on the blue alliance makes the very smart decision to go cap one of the corner goals in red alliance's home row, late in the match. As they are positioning to cap the goal, a blue alliance robot pushes them toward the goal and naturally, toward the wall. Of course, in order to cap the goal, the tetra must be HIGH. And, of course, once they were pushed, the tetra ended up over the wall. They were disabled with something like 10 or 15 seconds left. Thereby preventing them from capping the corner goal, taking away a row for red, and winning the match.
Rather than having a penalty (in the form of disabling the robot) for play that should be perfectly allowable...
MAKE THE WALL TALLER.
-Andrew
P.S. (Just my 2 cents) :D
Watching this thread, I have seen many suggestions about higher walls or nets over the top. Here is what I think about this: 1) If the game involves human players throwing things over the wall, neither a higher wall nor a net is practical. If one is used, the humans should have their own area and hard hats. 2) If the game does not involve throwing objects, a net that directs the objects to the ground in a certain area, like behind the player station, is probably the best choice. A higher wall will only block anything that is lower than its top.
3) Until FIRST decides to do something, which may not happen for who knows how long, just be careful.
In Chicago, the rule was "if you break the plane of the player station wall, you will be disabled." Did I miss something recently? Haven't seen that rule.
Unfortunately, we were disabled for this in an elimination match (along with our partners), and seeing it up close, I don't feel there was a safety issue, which I thought was the intent. The entire tetra was not over the wall (it was tilted downward into the field), and the only part that broke the plane (if that, it may not even have cleared the thickness of the wall) was the endcap, about 1/2" of it - 99% of the tetra was below the wall. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with it. I do agree with possibly disabling if an entire tetra is dangling overhead (after they move away), but I don't agree with barely "breaking the plane" esp in the corner where there is no wall, and no people really in harm's way. In the corner area is a subjective call as to whether or not it broke the plane.
But, it's now in the past....
Kit Gerhart
27-03-2005, 20:47
In Chicago, the rule was "if you break the plane of the player station wall, you will be disabled." Did I miss something recently? Haven't seen that rule.
Unfortunately, we were disabled for this in an elimination match (along with our partners), and seeing it up close, I don't feel there was a safety issue, which I thought was the intent. The entire tetra was not over the wall (it was tilted downward into the field), and the only part that broke the plane (if that, it may not even have cleared the thickness of the wall) was the endcap, about 1/2" of it - 99% of the tetra was below the wall. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with it. I do agree with possibly disabling if an entire tetra is dangling overhead (after they move away), but I don't agree with barely "breaking the plane" esp in the corner where there is no wall, and no people really in harm's way. In the corner area is a subjective call as to whether or not it broke the plane.
But, it's now in the past....
In many, if not most cases, there is more of a safety hazard in disabling a robot which is dangling a tetra over a player station than to let play continue. A number of robots having "active" tetra grabbers will release tetras if disabled, and most robots, including ours, will "backdrive" and allow the tetra holding arm to fall if disabled.
Breaking the plane rule has been used at different regionals for a couple of weeks now - I am not certain that it is written down except for the "safety of the players" wording in some generic rule.
I have witnessed tetras hit drivers and coaches in the head on three different occasions, when they came over the wall inadvertently.
I have seen the arms dangling them over the wall and not hit anyone.
In all honesty, I believe that for the safety of everyone, the robot should be turned off - but again, if the rule is to be enforced it must be clearly communicated to all on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
Given that clear warning, teams can choose to take on the risk and they can avoid the consequences, if they break the rule.
Teams that cause another to break the plane should also be turned off as a matter of fairness.
This has been a rough year with rules and interpretations of the rules - we will all need to be somewhat flexable and alter our strategies appropriately. I would only hope that those that do this, are rewarded and those that choose to push the limits are not.
Well, I got hit in the head at one of our quarterfinal matches at Boilermaker. The tetra that hit me and one of our drivers came flying over the wall. The robot that launched it was not over the wall but was holding it very high near the wall and was hit hard by another robot causing it to fly over the wall. This new rule will never prevent that from happening.
I agree that a safety "roof" should be installed over the player station, or at least everyone in the driver station should be forced to wear hard hats.
Think of it this way: Disabling a robot for causing a safety hazard does not PREVENT the hazard. By the time the robot is disabled the hazard is done. We need to prevent the hazard, rather than just discourage it with disablement.
dhitchco
29-03-2005, 16:20
We're a rookie team and have been to two regionals thus far (Rochester-Finger Lakes and Cleveland-Buckeye). We're off to Toronto this weekend.
At both regionals, we've witnessed tetras outside the palying field on all FOUR sides. Although I didn't see a tetra being dropped from above the playing staion wall, I did see several tetras being "flung" off to the sides of the field. A couple of times, a tetra "broke apart" when being dropped onto a goal (still counted if seated properly) but the loose parts were in and outside the field of play.
Everyone just needs to watch out. For the drivers, hard hats aren't such a bad idea and can be "fun" as well. The team coach standing behind the two drivers can also watch out for flying tetras if such an event were to occur. Call it an "occupational hazard". FIRST can't predict everything that possible "might" happen, so we all need to share the responsibility of safety.
Yes, I agree that if a robot is FLAGRENTLY dangling a tetra over the wall of the driver station, there should be a penalty, but NOT disabled. If a robot is holding a tetra high and gets hit from behind which causes the tetra to fly over the wall, the coaches and field attendants should simply be ON THEIR TOES to watch. That's about all that can be done this year.
In th real world, a lot of stuff just happens.....Be safe; the world is a jungle.
abreu4prez
29-03-2005, 17:57
I was field reset at Pittsburgh and Philly
I saw this happen about 5-6 times, and it was close to happening more times.
The refs assesed no penalties, that I saw, but it was quite scary
dhitchco
04-04-2005, 11:14
As a follow-up to my note on 29-March, we have now attended our 3rd regional (Toronto) this past weekend.
Just prior to this past weekend, FIRST published the OFFICIAL team update #18, which defined a penalty for tetras being over the driver wall. See http://www2.usfirst.org/2005comp/Updates/Team_Update_18.pdf
We did NOT see many of these situations in Toronto, now that an official penalty is in place. Thanks to FIRST for recognizing the problem, and taking the correct action.
I have a suggestion for the "breaking the plane", safety issue for being over the wall.
Why couldn't the rule just read:
"If you blatantly dangle a tetra over the player station, or drop one over the player station, or fling one outside the playing field, you will be assessed 10pt penalty."
In my opinion, that would take away any "marginal judgement call" to be made by a ref, and it would be obvious when a robot should receive a penalty. Then you won't have these cases where you break the plane by 1cm, in a safe manner (yes - clearly safe), and be disabled.
It would be a pretty clear-cut definition of this whole issue and it would be clear to teams and spectators that they broke a rule.
Andy Baker
04-04-2005, 11:50
In Las Vegas, this past weekend "breaking the plane of the alliance station wall" was called like this:
If a team posed a safety hazard in this situation, they were to be given a 10 point penalty and disabled. I was a ref on the "blue" side of the field, and this never was called.
However, teams did "break the plane" with a bit of their robot or a portion of a tetra. Of these cases, none were more than a couple of inches past the plane. Therefore, in each case, we thought that no safety hazard was present. However, whenever this was seen, we told the teams about it and said that if the tetra or arm was farther over the wall, there could be a penalty called. The competing teams heeded this warning and did a good job of keeping the situation safe.
This call simply needs some common sense. If a tetra breaks a plane by 1 cm, as Amy said above, it is not a safety hazard and therefore should not be penalized.
Andy B.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.