Rules that are [not] getting called at Regionals, the +s and -s [Archive]

Ethulin

05-03-2006, 19:20

So, after just attending the PAC NW regional I would like to talk about what rules people are not seeing getting called, as well as rules you are seeing getting called and that you are impressed with.

This should not become a "flame the referees" thread. It should also not become a "we lost match #XX because of this crap call". It should be "I noticed that rule XX is routinely not being enforced in these situations".

If this thread turns out right it will not only be a useful thread to upcoming teams with regionals but maybe just maybe to the FIRST organization themselves.

Please also put what regional you noticed these things at.

So now I can step off the soap box and talk about the things I noticed.

The good:
PACNW: offsides is being called well

The bad:
PACNW: The remaining balls after the robots are loaded are not in corrals at beginning of match, they are in plastic bins behind player stations
PACNW: In the above situation the remaining balls are not evenly distributed, for example the HPs could have 8 in one bin and 2 in the other
PACNW: Some human players would step out of the alliance zone to throw and were not assessed any penalty
PACNW: 3in intrusion was given a 5pt penalty not a DQ as called for in G21

Observed (not sure good or bad):
Low amount of pining calls
Almost all bot interaction (ramming) was deemed acceptable

Cory

05-03-2006, 19:25

The good:
PACNW: 3in Intrusion is being called well

The 3 inch intrusion was actually called completely wrong, in the instances I witnessed.

I saw teams getting 5 point penalties, and not DQ's like <G21> calls for.

Koko Ed

05-03-2006, 19:29

This should not become a "flame the referees" thread. It should also not become a "we lost match #XX because of this crap call". It should be "I noticed that rule XX is routinely not being enforced in these situations".

If this thread turns out right it will not only be a useful thread to upcoming teams with regionals but maybe just maybe to the FIRST organization themselves.

Well you may not want it to become that but there's a pretty good chance it will, so I would recommend having it moderated so it doesn't become that kind of thread.
The refs are only human and human volunteers at that. I don't want them feeling persecuted and then we have a shortage at competitions because they are tired of being bashed by everyone.

Ethulin

05-03-2006, 19:29

The 3 inch intrusion was actually called completely wrong, in the instances I witnessed.

I saw teams getting 5 point penalties, and not DQ's like <G21> calls for.

After re-reading G21 you are %100 correct. I am changing my post above. When you saw it called incorrectlf Cory was it that they went 3in in and were NOT called or that they were called when they did not go 3in in?

Well you may not want it to become that but there's a pretty good chance it will, so I would recommend having it moderated so it doesn't become that kind of thread.
The refs are only human and human volunteers at that. I don't want them feeling persecuted and then we have a shortage at competitions because they are tired of being bashed by everyone.

I agree. I think however, that this thread should remain upon untill such time as some one DOES harp on a specific referee, a specific call etc. Lets see if CD can remain mature and GP on their own. If we can't I think it should become moderated.

Cory

05-03-2006, 19:32

After re-reading G21 you are %100 correct. I am changing my post above. When you saw it called incorrectlf Cory was it that they went 3in in and were NOT called or that they were called when they did not go 3in in?

The head ref would state that they had gone into the goal more than 3", and as such were receiving a 5 pt penalty.

I didn't get to see many matches other than my own team's, and the matches immediately prior/after my own, but I saw this happen at least 2-3 times. Whether or not it was called this way all weekend, I can't say.

Ethulin

05-03-2006, 19:33

The head ref would state that they had gone into the goal more than 3", and as such were receiving a 5 pt penalty.

I didn't get to see many matches other than my own team's, and the matches immediately prior/after my own, but I saw this happen at least 2-3 times. Whether or not it was called this way all weekend, I can't say.

Ok, I get what you are saying. I thought you meant that not only were they getting the penalty wrong the call was wrong as well. But now I understand. And yes, it was called like this all weekend.

Jeff Rodriguez

05-03-2006, 20:04

Madison

05-03-2006, 20:31

The good:
PACNW: offsides is being called well

Rule G26 states that a 5-pt. penalty is to be assessed for every 5 seconds that a robot remains off sides. Off sides penalties were not ever assessed as such to my knowledge. We made the referrees aware of how that rule reads midday on Friday and they acknowledged that they were in error, but never corrected that error procedurally -- presumably to maintain continuity and fairness to all teams.

Well you may not want it to become that but there's a pretty good chance it will, so I would recommend having it moderated so it doesn't become that kind of thread.

We'll take care of things if it comes to that. Let's give people the benefit of the doubt, please.

Wetzel

05-03-2006, 20:37

The bad:
PACNW: The remaining balls after the robots are loaded are not in corrals at beginning of match, they are in plastic bins behind player stations
PACNW: In the above situation the remaining balls are not evenly distributed, for example the HPs could have 8 in one bin and 2 in the other

We did the same thing at VCU. We found that when the balls moved towards the entrance of the goal, or backwards from normal scoring direction, they would count as multiple balls. When the corral got to just under 20 balls they would be backed up enough to usually cause counting errors so we had field reset volunteers working to try and keep the number of balls in the corral low to prevent miscounting.

Related to that, I saw a few times where a human player would gesture and point at something on the field and stick an arm into the view of the camera. Should have been a DQ by G39.

Wetzel

BoyWithCape195

05-03-2006, 20:41

I noticed that at BAE, many shooters where not shielded anywhere close to what was specified in Team Update # 11 or <S03>. Any one know if there was a reason for this, or was it just the opinion of the robot inspectors?

Ken Loyd

05-03-2006, 20:47

[QUOTE=M. Krass]Rule G26 states that a 5-pt. penalty is to be assessed for every 5 seconds that a robot remains off sides.

In Portland on Saturday the head ref gave a great explanation of Rule 26. He even went so far as to suggest a remedy. If an alliance member is unable to move, some one should push the robot on sides or have another of your robots stay onsides. A "tip of the hat" to the refs in Portland! I felt they did a great job.

Ken

Steve W

05-03-2006, 20:47

i was at NJ and the problem was not with the refs. I believe that they did a great job (yeah even you Stu). The rules that I saw not called were on inspections. <R11,R12> were not enforced. The flag rule was not enforced. The bumper rules were not enforced.

It seems that they were very liberal on all of these rules. I measured one bumper that started 6 1/2" from the floor. There was another that cleared the bumpers on the other bots. I hope that this is standard throughout all regionals. If not then there will be a lot of upset teams that attend second regionals.

I did not see the testing about shooter speed but I was told that it was done. I did however see robots shoot from center field and the ball was going high or rising as it got to the goal. There is nothing in place to enforce ball speed. Even when testing there is no surety that they are running at max speed. As you know, there are no speeders on the streets until there is a radar gun to catch them. If baseballs can be clocked at 110 MPH then why not a Poof ball?

Morgan Gillespie

05-03-2006, 21:30

PACNW: Some human players would step out of the alliance zone to throw and were not assessed any penalty

We were told this rule would not be enforced and people who broke them would only be given a warning. I didn't see anyone take advantage of that so it was all fine.

BoyWithCape195

05-03-2006, 21:33

We were told this rule would not be enforced and people who broke them would only be given a warning. I didn't see anyone take advantage of that so it was all fine.

At BAE, this rule was enforced excessively, I heard many calls on this. The only problem i noticed on Saturday was an incursion missed by a referee, two volunteers caught it and informed said referee.

Kim Masi

05-03-2006, 21:48

I think the refs at BAE in NH did an awesome job with the penalties, they were very strict on human players and the 3" rule. However, I did notice the lack of ramming penalties. Last year, there were lots of penalties for ramming and contact, but I don't think I saw it called once all day Saturday. Also, there were a couple of robots that had an illegal shooter, but were still allowed to compete. They had their shooter completely exposed, with their wheel spinning at high velocities with no shielding. Personally, I think this is really dangerous, and something should have been done.

The Lucas

05-03-2006, 23:22

i was at NJ and the problem was not with the refs. I believe that they did a great job (yeah even you Stu). The rules that I saw not called were on inspections. <R11,R12> were not enforced. The flag rule was not enforced. The bumper rules were not enforced.

<R04> (Wedge Bot Rule) was also not enforced at NJ. I saw at least 2 bots in the elimination rounds whose sides were not within 10 degrees of vertical in the "bumper zone".

I noticed that at BAE, many shooters where not shielded anywhere close to what was specified in Team Update # 11 or <S03>. Any one know if there was a reason for this, or was it just the opinion of the robot inspectors?

It is the opinion of Robot Inspectors. I saw it at NJ also.

Pat Fairbank

05-03-2006, 23:51

Also, there were a couple of robots that had an illegal shooter, but were still allowed to compete. They had their shooter completely exposed, with their wheel spinning at high velocities with no shielding. Personally, I think this is really dangerous, and something should have been done.
Yes. We went to BAE expecting that the inspectors would want us to better shield our shooter, and we hadn't done anything about it up to that point because we wanted to know what they would consider adequate shielding. I was therefore shocked when shielding wasn't even mentioned during the inspection.

There was also a conspicuous lack of shooter speed testing at BAE. I don't even know if they had a testing mechanism on site; I sure didn't spot anything that might have looked like one.

George A.

05-03-2006, 23:55

At NJ off-sides were being called very often...in fact in a few matches allainces were penalized 40 points for being offsides...so if that's 5 pts every 5 seconds...then that's the entire defensive period being offsides.

I noticed also that the muzzle velocity was very fast on some of the bots.

A. Snodgrass

06-03-2006, 00:41

The rule on corner incursions deals both with unintentional and intentional incursions into the corner goals. I did notice that at the PNW regional, most times when a corner goal incursion occured, it could at least be assumed that the robot wasn't entering the goal on purpose.
That being said, a lot of the corner goal incursions occured either because of bendable mechanisms going in or front bumpers going in too far into the goal, sometimes as a result of other robots pushing from behind. I think I would ask though, what do the teams define as "intentional" incursion of the goals beyond the obvious you made your mechanism so it actually goes into the goal and thats how it effectively dumps balls into there.
For reference Im posting the current version of the rule on incursion into the corner goals.
G21- "Incidental incursion into the corner goal that occurs as a result
of a ROBOT pushing balls into the goal is permitted, not to exceed a distance of approximately 3 inches. Intentional incursion, for example to use a ball gathering mechanism to drop off balls inside the goal, or extending a portion of the ROBOT through the goal opening to activate the ball counting system, will result in disqualification of the offending ROBOT." For unintentional incursion, the penalty that was indicated was 5 points.

Jack Jones

06-03-2006, 01:28

From what I could see from the VCU web cast, which admittedly wasn't much, some muzzle velocities were way too fast - I'm talking not even close.
On the one hand, it doesn't bother me because that poofball doesn't have the mass or density to any damage. But if we see it's not enforced, and are at a disadvantage because of it, then we will crank it up. I know we can max our heavy wheel without it all coming loose, but I'm not so sure about the other's.

PS: The thought just occurred to me (and I hope it isn't so) that the velocity and shielding appear to be a pair of CYAs - as is/was the volunteer screening.

Steve W

06-03-2006, 07:58

<R04> (Wedge Bot Rule) was also not enforced at NJ. I saw at least 2 bots in the elimination rounds whose sides were not within 10 degrees of vertical in the "bumper zone".

If you mean the ramps that drop down to release balls they are legal. I had a discussion with one of the refs and I showed him in the rules were these are legal. If the ramp is outside of the footprint of the robot then it is OK as long as they don't make contact with another robot. If they do there can be penalties depending on the infraction.

Swan217

06-03-2006, 08:56

However, I did notice the lack of ramming penalties. Last year, there were lots of penalties for ramming and contact, but I don't think I saw it called once all day Saturday.

I noticed this on the VCU webcast too. I think the reason why they're letting a lot more go is because of the bumpers reducing the damage, but I still don't like all of the ramming. It takes away from the offense and gives a lot more power to the defense. I don't think this should be. They should call the ramming like they've done in previous years, regardless of the bumpers.

KenWittlief

06-03-2006, 10:29

...I still don't like all of the ramming. It takes away from the offense and gives a lot more power to the defense. ....

well...... yeah, thats what defense is, protecting your goal.

If they wanted no defense they could have required the robots to stay on opposite sides of the field.

MikeDubreuil

06-03-2006, 10:41

well...... yeah, thats what defense is, protecting your goal.

If they wanted no defense they could have required the robots to stay on opposite sides of the field.
Point well taken but an important distinction is his comment was that ramming gives an unfair advantage to the defense.

I was at BAE and just about every shooter could be stopped by hitting them. Some shooters have powerful enough drive trains to counteract being pushed. However, the act of starting from 5ft+ away and ramming could stop any shooter from successfully scoring in the center goal. With that being said, without any ramming calls from the refs shooters were being hammered in order to stop their offensive prowess.

Luke

06-03-2006, 10:50

The 3 inch intrusion was actually called completely wrong, in the instances I witnessed.

I saw teams getting 5 point penalties, and not DQ's like <G21> calls for.

I see a flaw with this rule <g21> and the allowed bumper design <r35>.
the bumpers are allow to be 3.5 inch extended out from your robot and if
you are a ball dumper and you put bumpers on the side with your ball loader/unloader you have a piece of your robot that can easily protrude
pass the 3" zone. This is even more if you take the fact that you are
on a ramp. The field's designed buffer zone conflicts with the allowed
robot design making a DQ very harsh under those conditions and really
cramps the style of the ball dumpers because they will be forced to
remove their front bumpers.

Peter Matteson

06-03-2006, 11:04

Point well taken but an important distinction is his comment was that ramming gives an unfair advantage to the defense.

I was under the impression that was intentional in this years game. To make autonomous that much more important in deciding the winner. Auton became theoretically the only time when you would be able to shoot unharassed by opponents and therefore a big scoring advantage after auton could be defended throughout the rest of the game.

ewankoff

06-03-2006, 11:24

I was under the impression that was intentional in this years game. To make autonomous that much more important in deciding the winner. Auton became theoretically the only time when you would be able to shoot unharassed by opponents and therefore a big scoring advantage after auton could be defended throughout the rest of the game.

in the NJ finals some teams tried to block team 25's amazing auto mode and some like spike actually succeded making them miss all 10 balls in atleast 2 or 3 matches

DjAlamose

06-03-2006, 11:30

Hopefully I don’t blow up in this conversation...

There is a HUGE difference between ramming and defending. When ramming you are using excessive force to move something. You are unleashing a greater amount of energy in a single instant than pushing. This can be harmful to robots. That is why bumpers are helpful, they cushion the impact. But it is still not within the spirit of the game to harm a robot, bumpers or not. I am fine with robots pushing robots around. But any contact between two robots that are going more than 2 ft a second, in my book is ramming.

Instance A: Bluebot A charges across the field only to slam into Redbot C who is shooting into the goal. Obvious ramming.

Instance B: Bluebot A is near Redbot C and pushes on Redbot C moving out of aim with the center goal. No ramming (given that the robot moved to Redbot C without going over 2 Ft/sec)

Instance C: Bluebot A charges accorss the field only to slow down right before it reaches Redbot C. No ramming.

Instance D: Bluebot A repeatedly backs up and moves to push Redbot C. No matter what speed Bluebot is traveling it should be considered ramming because the robot backed up and moved back in to "push".

I saw many times through the VCU feed of instance D. Even if the robot only backs up once and moves in again it is not within the rules. (I can't quote a rule right now but i will work on getting it).

Let’s take it out of context of robots and move it to cars. If a car gets into an accident most likely it’s because of a ramming action. But if a car was to push another car (say a car was broke down and another car was helping it along) then there would be no damage to the car being pushed (or very little).

What I think needs to be defined by FIRST is ramming. It is a very open term that can be interpreted by many people in many different ways. I have just given my interpretations of what ramming is.

BoyWithCape195

06-03-2006, 12:11

I remember reading that there could be no HIGH SPEED ramming, meaning that instance D would be perfectly acceptable.

Also see <G22>

Elgin Clock

06-03-2006, 12:16

At BAE, the refs were calling G21 correctly. In fact, the refs at BAE did a great job. There weren't any controversial calls that I can remember.
Everything was being called accurately. Granted, I wasn't watching Human players, I was watching robots.

Same thing in my case watching the NJ regional.
There was absolutely no controversial calls, and penalties were being assigned for the right things, and DQ's were being assigned for the right things as well.

in the NJ finals some teams tried to block team 25's amazing auto mode and some like spike actually succeded making them miss all 10 balls in atleast 2 or 3 matches

But what was really funny, was since 25 missed 10 balls in the finals due to someone interfering with their autonomous shooting in this manner, they still came back after losing autonomous and the bonus, and won the match.

So, don't claim that once you lose autonomous, you will never be able to win the match.. cause it did happen in NJ, and most likely will happen again.

Richard Wallace

06-03-2006, 12:19

... I had a discussion with one of the refs and I showed him in the rules were these are legal. ....Since you are a mentor, how was this not a violation of <G42>?
<G42> Any discussions regarding rules, scores, or penalties must be between the DRIVERs or HUMAN
PLAYERs (pre-college team members) and the head referee.

Cory

06-03-2006, 12:20

For unintentional incursion, the penalty that was indicated was 5 points.

Ashlee, do you know where specifically in the rules it says there's a 5 point penalty for unintentional incursions into the side goal?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I can't find it anywhere. I took it to mean that any time a team went into the goal more than 3", it was automatically assumed to be intentional, and a DQ.

Peter Matteson

06-03-2006, 12:26

I remember reading that there could be no HIGH SPEED ramming, meaning that instance D would be perfectly acceptable.

Also see <G22>

After re-reading <G22> (http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Manual/4-The_Game_Rev_D.pdf) it seems like if you stay inside the bumper zone contact is leagal in almost any instance described so far (reference the first bullet under <G22>).The one clear ramming instance given in the rules is the cross-court shot.

Please take a minute to look at the wording of the rule if you have an issue. Also if you want clarification bring it up at the Drivers meeting on Thurday or Friday where the ref should address it to the whole group.

KenWittlief

06-03-2006, 12:37

There is a HUGE difference between ramming and defending. ... I am fine with robots pushing robots around. But any contact between two robots that are going more than 2 ft a second, in my book is ramming..

2ft/S is 1.3mph!!!

Cars are designed to withstand a 5mph collision (rammed) without damage to their bumpers, and many cars can take 10mph with no structural damage.

FIRST has provided a clear rule book of their own. Using kinetic energy (impulse) is allowed to move an opponents robot.

This has been in the rules since the kickoff meeting. If you want to be able to score during aggressive play, you will need a tracking system that can quickly acquire the goal, lock onto it, tell your driver when to fire, or a system that wont fire if target lock has been lost.

Standing at the freethrow line people can shoot baskets all day long - what is the record now, a couple thousand baskets in a row?

In many ways this game is like football: if the quarterback has the ball and is about to throw it, he's fair game to be 'rammed' to the ground.

• Rule <R35> in Section 5.3.4 establishes ROBOT BUMPER ZONEs. Any contact within this zone is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed long distance ramming.

meaubry

06-03-2006, 12:43

I don't recall the high speed ramming rule NOT applying during the autonomous period - did I miss that?

In my opinion, the argument will rage on because there are as many opinions as there are teams when it comes to defining ramming - and don't expect that the ref's even see this the same way amongst themselves.

So, just ask for as much clarity regarding all aspects of this AT THE DRVERS MEETING, and pay attention to WHAT GETS CALLED.

I, for one dislike robots pushing on each other, but that's probably because I have to fix the thing after it gets broken.

So, there will always be folks that are unhappy with the interpretation and execution of calling or not calling this difficult to measure infraction - but as long as it is being called consistantly AND that every team was clearly communicated with as to what is and what isn't going to be called - that is all we can ask for.

Elgin Clock

06-03-2006, 12:44

I was at BAE and just about every shooter could be stopped by hitting them.

Hmm.. interesting.. Very interesting.

Nice to know. :D

How many of said BAE regional teams are coming to compete against us in Hartford again?

Since you are a mentor, how was this not a violation of <G42>?

He wasn't a mentor at the regional he attended, but was helping with the field crew. If he was a mentor, and brought it up after his team's match, it would be against the rules, but since it was a crew person to crew person discussion, it was perfectly legal.

I know cause it was at NJ.

BoyWithCape195

06-03-2006, 12:51

Elgin Clock

06-03-2006, 12:57

At BAE, the incursion rule was not called if a robot came up behind a team dispensing and caused a part of their robot to enter the goal past the 3"

Hmm.. can you say loophole? lol Looks like since someone else pushed them into the goal, they were not assessed the penalty? Or.. who was assessed the penalty? The robot being pushed into the goal, or the robot pushing the robot into the goal.

I would penalize the robot pushing the other team into the goal for the simple fact that if red is being pushed into a red goal by a blue bot, the driver for the blue bot is at maximum 20 feet away from the robot behind the player's station wall and knows exactly what they are doing, and should be penalized in the name of a safety violation.

If they were across the field, and pushing, then it would be hard for them to see what they were doing and I would hesitate to give anyone a penalty.

BoyWithCape195

06-03-2006, 13:02

Hmm.. can you say loophole? lol Looks like since someone else pushed them into the goal, they were not assessed the penalty? Or.. who was assessed the penalty? The robot being pushed into the goal, or the robot pushing the robot into the goal.

I would penalize the robot pushing the other team into the goal for the simple fact that if red is being pushed into a red goal by a blue bot, the driver for the blue bot is at maximum 20 feet away from the robot behind the player's station wall and knows exactly what they are doing, and should be penalized in the name of a safety violation.

If they were across the field, and pushing, then it would be hard for them to see what they were doing and I would hesitate to give anyone a penalty.

In this certain match, neither robot was given a penalty and game play continued on as normal.

DjAlamose

06-03-2006, 13:04

2ft/S is 1.3mph!!!

Cars are designed to withstand a 5mph collision (rammed) without damage to their bumpers, and many cars can take 10mph with no structural damage.
This is true but not all teams have the backing of an automaker. Plus people might not know how sturdy they need their robot to be, I know our first year we didn’t know. Plus this is just a personal opinion of what ramming is, yes it is slow, but I see no need for any contact past that point.

I don't recall the high speed ramming rule NOT applying during the autonomous period - did I miss that?

In my opinion, the argument will rage on because there are as many opinions as there are teams when it comes to defining ramming - and don't expect that the ref's even see this the same way amongst themselves.

So, just ask for as much clarity regarding all aspects of this AT THE DRVERS MEETING, and pay attention to WHAT GETS CALLED.

I, for one dislike robots pushing on each other, but that's probably because I have to fix the thing after it gets broken.

So, there will always be folks that are unhappy with the interpretation and execution of calling or not calling this difficult to measure infraction - but as long as it is being called consistantly AND that every team was clearly communicated with as to what is and what isn't going to be called - that is all we can ask for.

I completely agree with this. If the calls are consistent and everyone was informed of the incidents then that is enough to satisfy me. I also agree that it would be difficult to measure the infraction. But it all comes down to how the refs interpret ramming. I will live with their calls because they should know what they are doing. Also it is good that you point out ramming during autonomous because that is even more likely to happen as teams just tell their robot to go forward and not determine a good speed. I just hope the calls will be fair and consistent.

Tristan Lall

06-03-2006, 13:04

If you mean the ramps that drop down to release balls they are legal. I had a discussion with one of the refs and I showed him in the rules were these are legal. If the ramp is outside of the footprint of the robot then it is OK as long as they don't make contact with another robot. If they do there can be penalties depending on the infraction.<R04> "Wedge” robots are not allowed. Robots must be designed so that interaction with other robots results in pushing rather than tipping or lifting. Neither offensive nor defensive wedges are allowed. All parts of a robot between 0 and 8.5 inches from the ground (the top of the bumper zone – see Rule <R35>) that might push against another robot must be within 10 degrees of vertical. Devices deployed outside the robot's footprint should be designed to avoid wedging. If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots, penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur depending on the severity of the infraction.As described, they're not actually legal (if they "might push against another robot"), but that's an issue for inspectors to catch before the robot competes. The penalties (on the other hand) require interference during the match; if that occurs, it's up to the referee to make the call. Basically, there are two separate issues, enforced by different officials; if one fails to enforce their half of the rule, the other half of the rule is still applicable.
Since you are a mentor, how was this not a violation of <G42>?188 wasn't competing last weekend; Steve was in NJ as an observer. It looks like the referee is invoking <G43>, which allows the head ref to take advice from any source, even Steve. Besides, even if he did violate <G42>, there's just about nothing that can be done about it, absent a competing team....

Swan217

06-03-2006, 13:28

After re-reading <G22> (http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Manual/4-The_Game_Rev_D.pdf) it seems like if you stay inside the bumper zone contact is leagal in almost any instance described so far (reference the first bullet under <G22>).The one clear ramming instance given in the rules is the cross-court shot.

Please take a minute to look at the wording of the rule if you have an issue. Also if you want clarification bring it up at the Drivers meeting on Thurday or Friday where the ref should address it to the whole group.

Long distance does not exclusively mean a cross-court shot. "Long Distance Ramming" has been repeatedly interpreted as meaning "more than about 3 feet away" by the referees. I don't know if anything has changed between last year and this year, but last year they called ramming like that. I saw quite a few hits from a few yards away at VCU.

The rule is much more akin to hockey than football. In hockey, body checking is alright, as is checking someone into the boards, while "Boarding" occurs when the player contributes an excessive amount of kinetic energy into the hit (usually determined by the skates leaving the ice). Ramming is the same way. The intent of the rule is to keep "bonejarring" hits to a minimum. I've also heard that a good rule of thumb is, "If the hit makes you wince, it's probably too much."

Steve W

06-03-2006, 13:33

As described, they're not actually legal (if they "might push against another robot"), but that's an issue for inspectors to catch before the robot competes. The penalties (on the other hand) require interference during the match; if that occurs, it's up to the referee to make the call. Basically, there are two separate issues, enforced by different officials; if one fails to enforce their half of the rule, the other half of the rule is still applicable.
188 wasn't competing last weekend; Steve was in NJ as an observer. It looks like the referee is invoking <G43>, which allows the head ref to take advice from any source, even Steve. Besides, even if he did violate <G42>, there's just about nothing that can be done about it, absent a competing team....

<R04> "Wedge” robots are not allowed. Robots must be designed so that interaction with other robots results in
pushing rather than tipping or lifting. Neither offensive nor defensive wedges are allowed. All parts of a
robot between 0 and 8.5 inches from the ground (the top of the bumper zone – see Rule <R35>) that might
push against another robot must be within 10 degrees of vertical. Devices deployed outside the robot's
footprint should be designed to avoid wedging. If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for
example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots, penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur
depending on the severity of the infraction.

Now as you know Tristan and I love to argue rules and wording. This is my interpretation. As for speaking to the ref, it was after a match where people were dumping balls. The head ref had already ruled about the legality of these robots. I did NOT have any influence or input on the issue. I believe that the talk was later on on Friday. The ref was calling as per the head refs ruling. As you know also, that many people talk about rules and ideas and interpretations during events. This is not new or unGP.

Steve W

06-03-2006, 13:41

2ft/S is 1.3mph!!!

Cars are designed to withstand a 5mph collision (rammed) without damage to their bumpers, and many cars can take 10mph with no structural damage.

FIRST has provided a clear rule book of their own. Using kinetic energy (impulse) is allowed to move an opponents robot.

This has been in the rules since the kickoff meeting. If you want to be able to score during aggressive play, you will need a tracking system that can quickly acquire the goal, lock onto it, tell your driver when to fire, or a system that wont fire if target lock has been lost.

Standing at the freethrow line people can shoot baskets all day long - what is the record now, a couple thousand baskets in a row?

In many ways this game is like football: if the quarterback has the ball and is about to throw it, he's fair game to be 'rammed' to the ground.

Quote:
• Rule <R35> in Section 5.3.4 establishes ROBOT BUMPER ZONEs. Any contact within this zone is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed long distance ramming.

Where was this quote from?

KenWittlief

06-03-2006, 13:51

Quote:
• Rule <R35> in Section 5.3.4 establishes ROBOT BUMPER ZONEs. Any contact within this zone is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed long distance ramming.

Where was this quote from?

The part of <G22> that addresses bumpers and robot to robot interaction.

Steve W

06-03-2006, 13:58

The part of <G22> that addresses bumpers and robot to robot interaction.

Thanks Ken, I missed that in my perusing. I guess that the only issue here is what is high speed ramming and when does in occur. There is no definition in the rules on what constitutes HSR. In previous years there have been things saying no more than 3 feet or 5 feet but nothing this year. I believe that leaves everything up to the refs to decide again on a regional by regional basis.

A. Snodgrass

06-03-2006, 16:04

Ashlee, do you know where specifically in the rules it says there's a 5 point penalty for unintentional incursions into the side goal?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I can't find it anywhere. I took it to mean that any time a team went into the goal more than 3", it was automatically assumed to be intentional, and a DQ.
Unfortunately, that was what was defined to the referees at the event itself. However, looking back at the rules and the manual I could not find an actual POINT amount for deduction into the goal. Its something I couldnt find at the time either. Which I find interesting because all the regular ref's were told to call was the corner incursion, and which team incurred into the goal. We were never given the decision on what penalty was given for that incursion.
You have to understand, we had to work with the interpretation of the rules that we were given by our head ref, and unfortunately that was how he interpreted those rules. Specifically though, there is no place in the rules or in the referee manual that specifically states that its a 5 point penalty. Neither is there in the game rules that I can see.
I can state at Portland regional, the penalties on both cases were meant to try to deter teams from going into goals that were having difficulty with heavy impact. During one of the matches we did have a goal break, and have to do a playover.

Lil' Lavery

06-03-2006, 16:16

Ramming, oh boy ramming...
The biggest change in rules from prior years to this one, in regards to defensive contact, it the one dealing with bumper zones. Whether this rule should or should not effect ramming is a debate that will likely rage long into the season. Here's my interpretation:
The bumper zones deal more with contact area than the bumpers dampening the blows themselves. Generally, base-to-base contact is not incredibly harmful, aside of maybe a wire coming unplugged, a couple bolts becoming loose (if not loc-tited etc) and that level of damage, even when it is a high speed collision from 10-15 feet away. The issue becomes of robot damage typically becomes involved when a robot tips or suffers a blow to lesser protected area, such as a shoulder, arm, shooter, etc. A majority of these infractions occur when contact is made high on the robot.
With the establishment of penalties for almost ANY high contact (the exception I beleive is when it is obviously un-intentional, such as your robot tipping, or your robot being shoved; and/or when your robot is helping an alliance member onto the ramp) you have taken away the biggest cause of damage, disabling, cripping, and tipping caused to other robots. Thus why more liberty can be applied to LEGAL contact in the "bumper zone".

Richard Wallace

06-03-2006, 16:29

With the establishment of penalties for almost ANY high contact (the exception I beleive is when it is obviously un-intentional, such as your robot tipping, or your robot being shoved; and/or when your robot is helping an alliance member onto the ramp) you have taken away the biggest cause of damage, disabling, cripping, and tipping caused to other robots. Thus why more liberty can be applied to LEGAL contact in the "bumper zone".Yeah, what he said!

I like to see matches with good defense. This year my team built a shooter that launches from near the top of our nearly 5 ft. tall robot. I expect that we will be defended hard, if we appear to be shooting accurately when left alone.

What I don't like to see is strategic ramming; i.e., ramming with intent to disable. I would approve of referees applying stiff penalties, including DQ, to discourage strategic ramming.

AmyPrib

06-03-2006, 16:45

Regarding the incursion corner goal thing, I asked this in Q/A just now - waiting for answer.

Due to some penalty calls at 1st week regionals, we'd like to have this cleared up before next regionals so that refs can make calls correctly.

Regarding incidental incursion beyond 3" into the corner goals, will there be a DQ for either team if BlueBot pushes RedBot into Redbot's corner goal such that they pass beyond the 3" allowance?
It seems at some regionals there was no call made in this situation.

Also, there are some regionals calling 5pt penalties for corner goal incursion. Nowhere does it say 5pt penalty for anything relating to the corner goal.

Based on the rules and Q/A here is what I've gathered:
- Incursion into goal less than 3" - no penalty
- Intentional incursion into corner goal, beyond 3" - DQ
- Unintentional incursion into corner goal, beyond 3" - DQ

Is that correct? And if so, what team if any, will get a penalty for pushing their opponent into the corner goal such that they go beyond 3"?
Thanks.

I have no idea why 5pt penalties suddenly appeared for this. The rules do not call for it. The incursion into goal less than 3" is ok. Incursion into goal beyond 3" is a DQ, whether it's intentional or unintentional. Now the big question, which I asked, is whether or not it's situation-based, if an opponent pushes you into the corner goal. If I had to interpret the rules, I would call that unintentional incursion beyond 3" and DQ - and maybe DQ both teams for causing it. I base that off of this Q/A:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=387&highlight=incursion

saying it should be designed and driven to stay out. So the opponent needs to drive such that they don't unintentionally cause the incursion, and the scoring bot needs to design such that they can't go in beyond 3". I saw someone's comment about bumper size making it easy to go in past 3", but I haven't look at that closely yet.

We'll see if Q/A comes up with a quick answer before this week's regionals.

KenWittlief

06-03-2006, 16:54

Generally, base-to-base contact is not incredibly harmful, aside of maybe a wire coming unplugged, a couple bolts becoming loose (if not loc-tited etc) and that level of damage, even when it is a high speed collision from 10-15 feet away...

that is the normal intuitive view of things, but if you work out the math, a robot going 10mph and hitting frame to frame can experience (and impart) over 1,000 gs of impact

having a few inches of foam between the frame drops the impact down to a few gs.

when frames hit metal to metal batteries can be broken loose, victors and robot controllers broken free from their mounts - you can even break printed circuit boards inside the control components. It all depends on how everything is attached to the frame that is accelerating at 1000 gs for a few mS.

a 130 lb robot going 10 mph has a LOT of kinetic energy*. That energy has to be absorbed by something, if not the bumpers, then the functional parts of your robot.

*edit: if I did the math correctly, it has the same momentum as a 5 pound sledge hammer travelling at 50mph!

Stu Bloom

06-03-2006, 16:58

If you mean the ramps that drop down to release balls they are legal. I had a discussion with one of the refs and I showed him in the rules were these are legal. If the ramp is outside of the footprint of the robot then it is OK as long as they don't make contact with another robot. If they do there can be penalties depending on the infraction.Actually Steve, I believe it was the referee that showed you in the rules where I (oops) ... I mean HE was w..w..w..w..wrong about those ball-dumping doors.
As described, they're not actually legal (if they "might push against another robot"), but that's an issue for inspectors to catch before the robot competes. The penalties (on the other hand) require interference during the match; if that occurs, it's up to the referee to make the call. Basically, there are two separate issues, enforced by different officials; if one fails to enforce their half of the rule, the other half of the rule is still applicable.As Steve correctly pointed out in his later post (and to me on the field in NJ - which won him a Mountain Dew BTW) the last sentence in rule <R04> states:
<R04> ... If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots, penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur depending on the severity of the infraction.
And also, Steve, while I am here ... I enjoyed meeting and working with you, and look forward to seeing you in Atlanta ... just make sure you bring your rule book!! :p

In fact, I am now having second thoughts about the interpretation of <R04> ... but that is a discussion for another day ...

Richard Wallace

06-03-2006, 17:19

<R04> "Wedge” robots are not allowed. Robots must be designed so that interaction with other robots results in pushing rather than tipping or lifting. Neither offensive nor defensive wedges are allowed. All parts of a robot between 0 and 8.5 inches from the ground (the top of the bumper zone – see Rule <R35>) that might push against another robot must be within 10 degrees of vertical. Devices deployed outside the robot's footprint should be designed to avoid wedging. If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots, penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur depending on the severity of the infraction.

As described, they're not actually legal (if they "might push against another robot"), but that's an issue for inspectors to catch before the robot competes. The penalties (on the other hand) require interference during the match; if that occurs, it's up to the referee to make the call. Basically, there are two separate issues, enforced by different officials; if one fails to enforce their half of the rule, the other half of the rule is still applicable.(emphasis added)
I expressed an opinion on this subject in an earlier thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43369&page=5&pp=15): I don't have specific direction on this from FIRST (yet). I was simply saying that, until I get another interpretation from FIRST, I would read <R04> as disallowing any surface in the bumper zone that is more than 10 degrees from vertical. So I would flag any such surface as an issue that the team would have to correct before their robot could pass inspection.

Of course, FIRST could direct me and other lead robot inspectors to use some judgment as to whether a particular surface that is more than 10 degrees from vertical 'might push against another robot'. I would not like to be in that position, since my judgment might differ from that of another lead robot inspector at another event. Uniform application of the rules at all events should be an important consideration in whatever FIRST decides to do about this.
I've got the same issue with <R04> as Richard; the much-vaunted common-sense approach suggests that we apply a reasonable interpretation of the rule, and yet, it requires us (as officials) to determine what "might push against another robot". If I were to take a literalist approach, it would be useless (encompassing far too much to be practical, e.g. the radii of the bumpers themselves); on the other hand, if I apply my judgement, it will inevitably be different from others' appraisal of the same design. Looking at my own team's robot, I can concieve of many possible opposing robots that might contact it at an angle greater than 10° from vertical. And yet, the robot is positively slab-sided, and can hardly be considered a wedging threat.

What is clear, however, is what's going to come of this, absent a clearly worded and well-thought-out clarification: different teams will interpret this rule differently, and all but the most blatant violations will be permitted to play, either on the grounds that they were allowed at another event (which, technically, isn't relevant unless the inspectors want it to be, since there is no rule or universally accepted practice for applying precedents), or on compassionate grounds, because it would be rather impractical to make them all attach extraneous vertical surfaces to every exposed aspect of their robot.Maybe the lead inspectors' teleconference tonight will provide some guidance.

Lil' Lavery

06-03-2006, 22:53

mtaman02

07-03-2006, 08:12

At BAE, the refs were calling G21 correctly. In fact, the refs at BAE did a great job. There weren't any controversial calls that I can remember.
Everything was being called accurately. Granted, I wasn't watching Human players, I was watching robots.

At the NJ Regional The Majority of the calls were:

Off Sides

At the NJ Regional there were Team DQ's but I do not remember on what basis

At the NJ Regional due to a very buggy scoring system and faulty IFI Equipment close to 7 matches were replayed b/c teams felt they were cheated out of who won the autonomous mode, not to mention the time between the autonomous mode to switch to the second portion of the match (probably like 15 seconds or so). If the scorers started the match the Arena Controllers would not get the signal that the match has started. During the Finals the Final Score would be tallied up as let say blue 25 red 35 but for the final score it would say blue 25 red 0 even though there was no penalties thrown.

As you can see we are just into the 1st week of regionals going on to our 2nd set of regionals and many of these issues will probably not get resolved till nationals. The refs can only do so much with what they have to work with. I believe the Refs at the NJ Regional did an outstanding job including head ref Sky. I hope they all return next year because they made this regional Fun, Fair for everyone. My hats off to these guys.

dlavery

07-03-2006, 10:56

At the NJ Regional due to a very buggy scoring system and faulty IFI Equipment close to 7 matches were replayed b/c teams felt they were cheated out of who won the autonomous mode, not to mention the time between the autonomous mode to switch to the second portion of the match (probably like 15 seconds or so). If the scorers started the match the Arena Controllers would not get the signal that the match has started. During the Finals the Final Score would be tallied up as let say blue 25 red 35 but for the final score it would say blue 25 red 0 even though there was no penalties thrown.
Not to make too fine a point of it, but please be aware that neither the scoring system nor the arena control system were developed by Innovation First Inc (IFI). If problems with the field control and/or scoring system were experienced at your regional event (and where were they not?), then please do not blame IFI - they didn't have anything to do with it.

-dave

Bob Steele

07-03-2006, 12:26

a 130 lb robot going 10 mph has a LOT of kinetic energy*. That energy has to be absorbed by something, if not the bumpers, then the functional parts of your robot.

*edit: if I did the math correctly, it has the same momentum as a 5 pound sledge hammer travelling at 50mph![/QUOTE]

Sorry but the physics teacher (that evil voice..) is coming out in me now...

Your math was pretty good but the kinetic energy of the robot and the sledge hammer are about the same... not the momentum... (mv<2 vs mv)
and you are indeed right in that the kinetic energy is what is important when considering an exchange in this collision. Sorry to correct you but there are children listening...

The energy is transferred via whatever comes into contact. The bumpers act to increase the contact time between the robots during the energy transfer therefore increasing the impulse with the same energy. This increase in impulse has the direct result of decreasing the acceleration. Which is what does the damage...

Sorry but being just a teacher I rarely get to say anything half as interesting as any of you engineers on here!! I couldn't resist!!

smile

KenWittlief

07-03-2006, 13:19

oops, Bob is right. I said kinetic energy, and I used the equation for kinetic energy, but then I referred to the momemtum being the same.

the kinetic energy of a 130 lb robot going 10mph is the same as a 5 lb sledge hammer going 50 mph. Imagine someone taking a wack at the frame of your bot with that sledge hammer at that speed, then decide if you want them to wack the frame, or the bumper with the hammer?

Some other terms I twisted and strained. The frame of your robot will only 'absorb' the energy if the frame is dented in the process. Most of what happens is your robot is accelerated in a very short period of time (milliseconds) to the velocity that is the result of the collision. (this is where the conservation of momentum comes it).

Thats where the damage occurs to the other parts of your robot: the battery holder, the electronics... These parts are not designed to withstand 1000 gs of acceleration, not even for a short period of time, so components and screws and bolts start breaking.

mtaman02

07-03-2006, 14:32

Not to make too fine a point of it, but please be aware that neither the scoring system nor the arena control system were developed by Innovation First Inc (IFI). If problems with the field control and/or scoring system were experienced at your regional event (and where were they not?), then please do not blame IFI - they didn't have anything to do with it.

-dave

nope mr lavery i don't blame IFI things do go bad and its to be expected but as far as the the 2006 scoring system is concerned it was very buggy and the program froze up easily and virtually un noticeable and when the score table wanted to start the match they couldn't b/c the program froze with out them noticing it. I think i witnessed the score table reboot the systems at least 1 or 2 times every 3 matches.

AmyPrib

07-03-2006, 15:41

See post 122
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=466607#post466607
for incursion ruling. DQ regardless of how you got in the goal past 3".

Steve W

07-03-2006, 15:53

A. Snodgrass

07-03-2006, 16:20

<G21> ROBOT Incursion into the Corner Goal - Incidental incursion into the corner goal that occurs as a result
of a ROBOT pushing balls into the goal is permitted, not to exceed a distance of approximately 3 inches.
Intentional incursion, for example to use a ball gathering mechanism to drop off balls inside the goal, or
extending a portion of the ROBOT through the goal opening to activate the ball counting system, will
result in disqualification of the offending ROBOT.

This could mean 2-4 inches. I saw some that were marginal that were not called because, I believe, they didn't cause a safety concern. You will also note that there is no penalty defined if you go past the 3". I believe that the rule probably is read that if a robot is pushed in then it would be the refs decision on how to call. It may be that the pushing robot only pushed a bit and barely infringed or that they just pushed as hard as they could, knowing that the other robot was inside the coral. This may not be written in the rules but I am sure that the refs have discussed. The head ref should explain in the drivers meeting and if he/she doesn't then the drivers should ask the question.

I believe that the rule was written that way so that if a bumper went in then there wouldn't be a penalty but if a ball delivery system did then a penalty would be assessed.

If someone gets an answer this week it would be good of you to post.

This rule also seems somewhat to deal with preventing the scoring system from getting screwed up. Bumpers counted as part of the robot when they went into the goal at Portland, because they could interfere with scoring, as was stated at the end of the rule. Whether bumpers will count as part of the robot when they incur into the goal in the future regionals, I can't say for certain.
I know we had one corner goal in Portland break. What caused this seemed to be too much ramming...but robots going into the goal doesn't help either, and that does include bumpers. Past 3" you are going truly into the light table, or possibly a little to close to the light table for comfort.

AmyPrib

07-03-2006, 17:02

You will also note that there is no penalty defined if you go past the 3". I believe that the rule probably is read that if a robot is pushed in then it would be the refs decision on how to call.

If someone gets an answer this week it would be good of you to post.

In the Q/A, and I know I posted it somewhere, there IS a penalty defined for a robot going past the 3".. I specifically asked that in a Q/A because the G21 didn't specify, and while they say Q/A aren't "official", they did say they can be used to make decision. Some may not accept any Q/A as official ruling until they make an update, but the penalty is a DQ for going past approximately 3".

The Q/A also showed that no matter how you got in the goal past 3" (pushed or by yourself), you are DQ'd. The decision the refs make is whether or not it went past 3" or caused a safety issue. The penalty amount is not the refs decision.

Lil' Lavery

07-03-2006, 23:16

As for autonomous ramming, the Q&A clearly stated that is the same as operated ramming. So therefore, it is once again referees discretion on what is "excessive". Also note that, autonomous defensive programs do NOT have to "ram". A "clip" to the corner of their bot to rotate them often works (provided they are dead reckoning) or blocking the bot (especially when it's attempting to score in the corner goal) by simply getting in front of it also often work. On the other hand, these strategies are often harder to set up during autonomous as you have a smaller margin of error (trying to hit the corner 6" of a bot is alot harder than trying to hit their full 38" side).

Brindza

12-03-2006, 11:22

Kit Gerhart

12-03-2006, 13:10

I remember reading that there could be no HIGH SPEED ramming, meaning that instance D would be perfectly acceptable.

Also see <G22>
DELIBERATE HIGH SPEED ramming was completely legal at UCF DURING AUTONOMOUS. The explanation given to our calm and collected student who asked was that there was no way to prove intent. When you consder the way the robots are placed in the squares, etc., it may well be easier to tell intent on autonomous than the driver portion of a match, given the nature of the "busy" end of the field during most matches. How has this been ruled at other regionals?

George1902

12-03-2006, 13:16

DELIBERATE HIGH SPEED ramming was completely legal at UCF DURING AUTONOMOUS.
1604 and 710 were warned and penalized respectively for ramming us during autonomous.

Hearing that this ruling wasn't consistent even at our own regional is discouraging.

Peter Matteson

12-03-2006, 13:21

DELIBERATE HIGH SPEED ramming was completely legal at UCF DURING AUTONOMOUS. The explanation given to our calm and collected student who asked was that there was no way to prove intent. When you consder the way the robots are placed in the squares, etc., it may well be easier to tell intent on autonomous than the driver portion of a match, given the nature of the "busy" end of the field during most matches. How has this been ruled at other regionals?

It was called a few times at UTC as mentioned above.

The difficulty is if your trying to get in front of a shooter to block them (because they shoot lower than the height of your bot) but instead collide is it intentional ramming? If you get there first in auto to block a shooter and they hit you at full speed are they ramming? There was a reason they pushed the bumper issue this year. The middle of the field gets busy in auton and many teams can change their auton quick so just driving to a position to be ready for human control you can hit some one.

I think they are being leanient because of these many reasons.

Kit Gerhart

12-03-2006, 13:35

It was called a few times at UTC as mentioned above.

The difficulty is if your trying to get in front of a shooter to block them (because they shoot lower than the height of your bot) but instead collide is it intentional ramming? If you get there first in auto to block a shooter and they hit you at full speed are they ramming? There was a reason they pushed the bumper issue this year. The middle of the field gets busy in auton and many teams can change their auton quick so just driving to a position to be ready for human control you can hit some one.

I think they are being leanient because of these many reasons.In the case we experienced, we were rammed by a fast robot which was pre-aimed to intersect the path we normally took to shoot balls at the high goal. The collision bent our 1/4 inch aluminum side panel. Our lesson was that we need bumpers on our robot, which we have added. However the rules may be interpreted in the future, something similar could happen, so our top priority was to protect our robot from further damage.

Our match in question was an early match on Friday, and hearing George 1902's experience, things were called differently later during the UCF event.

Dan9874123

12-03-2006, 13:53

The ramming penalty was called on my team during a quarter final round, we were trying to beat 181 to the corner goal,(a move we had been doing all day to great success) our intention was to hit the wall infront of them and block them but we ended up hitting them. We certainly didn't injure 181, only stopped them. The 5 point penalty caused us to lose the match and get knocked out of the competition. We weren't even opperating at top speed and most people were shocked at the call, the corner goal ref even apologized to one of my team mates after the competiton, saying it was a bad call. When team 20 was knocked out of the competition we went over to talk to them, their frame had been bent in an inch THROUGH a bumper and no penalty was called. It seems to me that this particular rule hasn't been called fairly.
I think this competition is alot like football, esspecially in auto mode. Your gonna get hit and hit hard, no matter what happens. FIRST even mentioned making your robot robust for this game in their animation.

nehalita

12-03-2006, 14:00

One thing I noticed wasn't called was penalties due to contact outside of the 28x38x60 area (aka due to extensions).

Personally, I think there are just too many things to fully take account of when there are 6 robots on the field, making contact, and doing their own thing.

I'm sure every team has their story of a time that a penalty was not called that could have changed the match or an error occurred that wasn't their fault (ex: one team's switch was pushed somehow when a robot went full speed into the lexan and they couldn't operate their robot after that) and it really isn't anyone's fault. The judges make their call on the spot and can't change it for obvious reasons.

I mean, suppose after every match, teams were allowed to go up with disputes with the scores and calls made. This means more distractions to the current game occurring (and therefore more possible complaints) and we'd probably need a whole other day of matching to redo the matches that weren't "perfect." Even if we do have proof, the only thing the judges can do is give us a rematch and I'm sure every team would desire a rematch of some sort or another (and how would you do a rematch during the elimination round? that would mess everything up). There's just a lot going on in a small given amount of time.

Lesson: Control what's in your hands and just take what happens. You can't do much more than that and if you try to, you'll just probably lose more brain cells than anything else.

note: you might notice that I'm a little sore, yes, it's true. I'm not going to mention what or when because i know it's not the opponent's fault nor the judge's fault. things happen.

Jack Jones

12-03-2006, 14:16

Richard Wallace

12-03-2006, 14:25

note: you might notice that i'm a little sore, yes, it's true. i'm not going to mention what or when because i know it's not the opponent's fault nor the judge's fault. things happen.We all need to take a lesson from nehalita. FIRST (and CD) needs more of this and less whinging.

Changing topics abruptly:

I saw what struck me as a very interesting (!?) call by our head ref at STL yesterday. I didn't observe the play itself, but did see the position of the robots just afterward. Bluabot had pushed Redabot so that Redabot extended more than three inches into a corner goal. Redabot was DQ'd for the incursion and Bluabot was DQ'd also. One ref thought that Bluabot's DQ was called for ramming, while another thought it was called for intentionally causing the incursion. Since it occurred in the elimination rounds, the result of this double-DQ was a replay.

Can someone who was directly involved please offer clarification, or correction if I got the story wrong?

thesse

12-03-2006, 14:33

Rule G22 was commonly disregarded throughout the Pittsburg regional. Rule G22 establishes guidelines and penalties for contact with other Robots. It clearly states that “Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable” but then undermines itself with a loophole stating “Incidental contact will not be Penalized”. All damages to our Robot during the Pittsburg Finals were classified as “Incidental contact” and not a single penalty assessed. To give you an idea of the level of damage you may consider “Incidental contact” we had a ½ inch wide piece of angle aluminum, which supported our ball hopper 6 inches above the bumper zone bent back and forth so many times the aluminum was actually severed.

Team 888

Gary Dillard

12-03-2006, 15:00

One thing I noticed wasn't called was penalties due to contact outside of the 28x38x60 area (aka due to extensions).

Neha is being very kind in her post, by speaking in generalities - her team was on the receiving end of what I felt was an obvious violation of the tipping rule during elimination matches. Another team with a long, high blocking "wing" that extended outside the base footprint came alongside them, turned around and used the force of their wing against the top of 1345's robot to tip them over. Intentional or not it happened right in front of the head ref who immediately signaled that there was no foul. If that's not a tipping violation I don't know what is.

I had an issue with the same robot and the 60" max height rule. This wing was statically within the rules but when used for blocking it would continually deflect several inches higher - it was made of PVC and contact with the other robot would bend it up. I must say, however, that this is an excellent feature and very effective so a simple modification could prevent violation of the 60" rule.

Swan217

12-03-2006, 15:35

In the case we experienced, we were rammed by a fast robot which was pre-aimed to intersect the path we normally took to shoot balls at the high goal. The collision bent our 1/4 inch aluminum side panel.

Our match in question was an early match on Friday, and hearing George 1902's experience, things were called differently later during the UCF event.

I cannot speak for the other referees, but I was personally repremanding teams that I saw had a repetative nature of running cross-field and slamming into whatever was there. Each team that I talked to changed their programming to let up at the last second to allow for another robot being there.

Neha is being very kind in her post, by speaking in generalities - her team was on the receiving end of what I felt was an obvious violation of the tipping rule during elimination matches. Another team with a long, high blocking "wing" that extended outside the base footprint came alongside them, turned around and used the force of their wing against the top of 1345's robot to tip them over. Intentional or not it happened right in front of the head ref who immediately signaled that there was no foul. If that's not a tipping violation I don't know what is.

The robot you are referring to was warned for this action and was watched for further violations of the tipping rule. I didn't see the original tip, so I cannot comment further on this.

Gary Dillard

12-03-2006, 16:26

I cannot speak for the other referees, but I was personally repremanding teams that I saw had a repetative nature of running cross-field and slamming into whatever was there. Each team that I talked to changed their programming to let up at the last second to allow for another robot being there.

I'm not aware if you spoke to our team or not Dan, but here's what we did and why:

We were intentionally trying to knock the autonomous 3 pt shooters off target, before they started shooting. This required us to notice/guess where they were going to be and when they would be there. We also had to account for their alliance partner coming between us to block us or knock us off course. What we knew was our speed in each gear - we didn't have shaft encoders or a yaw rate sensor hooked up (yet) so we had to program a distance based on time. As you can imagine that's a pretty big window to account for all of the unknowns. To expect programming to "let up" is rather optimistic - if you're already travelling at 12 fps, letting off the gas isn't going to slow down a 145 pound robot much as far as impact momentum. We've got plenty of power to push other robots around, but we needed the speed to compensate for all the stuff that the robot can't sense in autonomous.

But we did set a limit; our concern was if we missed their robot and ran full bore into the field railing that we would topple over out of bounds. Again, in the finals the robot we were trying to knock off target remained in the starting box so that gave us a better window for aim but not much for distance, especially if their alliance partner tried to block us.

Team 86 (Resistance) had an excellent autonomous in that they changed their shooting position on the field so we couldn't predict where to aim.

I don't see how you can call any robot with regulation bumpers for ramming - as Ken said it's only a couple g's and certainly can't fit the intent of the rule which is to penalize intentional damage, not defense.

Ryan Foley

12-03-2006, 16:44

I'm sorry to hear you lost a match. But not as sorry as I am the hear that one official put themselves above another. Please say it wasn't so! I hope your team mate (sic) was mistaken. Officials have no business apologizing for another's call.

Ok, orinigally I was just going to PM Dan, but I feel I should clear this up.

I was both the ref who made the call and the ref who "apologized". However, I was not apologizing for making the call nor was I saying it was a bad call. I was merely saying that they did a good job, congrats on chairmans, etc, and that I wished I didnt have to make the call in the first place as I know what it's like to loose a match off a penalty and the ref's arent there to ruin people's fun.

Regardless, I stand by the call I made. It was discussed after the match with fellow refs and those that saw it agreed with the ruling. It was not the first time we penalized a team for such an action, nor was it the last.

abeD

12-03-2006, 17:07

I had an issue with the same robot and the 60" max height rule. This wing was statically within the rules but when used for blocking it would continually deflect several inches higher - it was made of PVC and contact with the other robot would bend it up. I must say, however, that this is an excellent feature and very effective so a simple modification could prevent violation of the 60" rule.

So alot of people are probably wondering about this...I talked with ref's aobut the wings and asked the extent of this rule, they said that if we had them up and someone ran into us and they went outside the 60" cube it was ok, but if we drove into someone with them up and then this happened then we would be penalized.

As to tipping 1345, I was pretty sure we were going to be dq'd after that I don't know why it wasn't a penalty.

Stu Bloom

12-03-2006, 17:07

Well I just got back from the Pittsburg Regional...and well I was a little dissapointed to say the least. :(

I don't know how the other regionals were called, but at Pittsburg the pinning rule (G24 i believe) was COMPLETELY disregarded. If this was the case at the other regionals i would like to know before we go the the Annapolis Regional.

Team 888I would be interested to know the specific circumstances as many people do not know/understand the pinning rule (which has changed this year from previous years).

Directly from <G24> (emphasis added):Pinning - While on the carpeted field surface, a ROBOT cannot pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border) for more than 10 seconds. This rule does not apply if either ROBOT is entirely on an ALLIANCE PLATFORM...

Brindza

12-03-2006, 18:02

I would be interested to know the specific circumstances as many people do not know/understand the pinning rule (which has changed this year from previous years).

Directly from <G24> (emphasis added):

I will post the video tommarow when I go to school. I feel like that is the best way to show it. Explaining wouldn't cut it. but our robot was on the carpet when it happened and the explaination the ref gave me was that since I was pinned against a field element and not a barrier the penalty did not apply.
Which is clearly wrong, although I did not think of asking for a rulebook since I figured the head ref would know the rule better than me, so it may be my fault for not demanding that the rulebook be reviewed.

Chris27

12-03-2006, 18:08

I wish that more people had this opinion

Hopefully I don’t blow up in this conversation...

There is a HUGE difference between ramming and defending. When ramming you are using excessive force to move something. You are unleashing a greater amount of energy in a single instant than pushing. This can be harmful to robots. That is why bumpers are helpful, they cushion the impact. But it is still not within the spirit of the game to harm a robot, bumpers or not. I am fine with robots pushing robots around. But any contact between two robots that are going more than 2 ft a second, in my book is ramming.

Instance A: Bluebot A charges across the field only to slam into Redbot C who is shooting into the goal. Obvious ramming.

Instance B: Bluebot A is near Redbot C and pushes on Redbot C moving out of aim with the center goal. No ramming (given that the robot moved to Redbot C without going over 2 Ft/sec)

Instance C: Bluebot A charges accorss the field only to slow down right before it reaches Redbot C. No ramming.

Instance D: Bluebot A repeatedly backs up and moves to push Redbot C. No matter what speed Bluebot is traveling it should be considered ramming because the robot backed up and moved back in to "push".

I saw many times through the VCU feed of instance D. Even if the robot only backs up once and moves in again it is not within the rules. (I can't quote a rule right now but i will work on getting it).

Let’s take it out of context of robots and move it to cars. If a car gets into an accident most likely it’s because of a ramming action. But if a car was to push another car (say a car was broke down and another car was helping it along) then there would be no damage to the car being pushed (or very little).

What I think needs to be defined by FIRST is ramming. It is a very open term that can be interpreted by many people in many different ways. I have just given my interpretations of what ramming is.

it should also apply during autonomous too

Ken Loyd

12-03-2006, 21:16

On a few occasions at Arizona we were "rammed" pretty hard. I do not know if anything was said or done to the offenders. When my kids asked me if they could do the same, I said no...GP comes first. Maybe I am old fashion, but "it is not about the robots."

Ken

AmyPrib

12-03-2006, 22:30

I saw what struck me as a very interesting (!?) call by our head ref at STL yesterday. I didn't observe the play itself, but did see the position of the robots just afterward. Bluabot had pushed Redabot so that Redabot extended more than three inches into a corner goal. Redabot was DQ'd for the incursion and Bluabot was DQ'd also. One ref thought that Bluabot's DQ was called for ramming, while another thought it was called for intentionally causing the incursion. Since it occurred in the elimination rounds, the result of this double-DQ was a replay.

Can someone who was directly involved please offer clarification, or correction if I got the story wrong?

Wasn't there, nor involved, but it's been posted and in Q/A (and maybe update?) that regardless how you get in the goal past 3in, you will be DQ'd... so if a robot gets pushed into the goal that far, they can be DQ'd.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?p=1811#post1811
I suppose the
I believe update 15 addresses this as well.
The pushing robot risks penalty from ramming or safety, as I'm not sure what the point of pushing a robot at the corner goal would be.

irishninja

12-03-2006, 22:37

It seems that they were very liberal on all of these rules. I measured one bumper that started 6 1/2" from the floor. There was another that cleared the bumpers on the other bots. I hope that this is standard throughout all regionals. If not then there will be a lot of upset teams that attend second regionals.
?

Were they inside the robot dimensiosn? Because if so, they are completley legal. If not well then they aren't.
Also, yes balls being behind the human player was useful, to mea s human player because then i didn't have to worry about stepping over the line as i would hit the holder first.

Richard Wallace

12-03-2006, 22:42

Wasn't there, nor involved, but it's been posted and in Q/A (and maybe update?) that regardless how you get in the goal past 3in, you will be DQ'd... so if a robot gets pushed into the goal that far, they can be DQ'd.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?p=1811#post1811
I suppose the
I believe update 15 addresses this as well.
The pushing robot risks penalty from ramming or safety, as I'm not sure what the point of pushing a robot at the corner goal would be.I saw the earlier thread, and expected that the incursion DQ would be called as it was on Redabot. The earlier thread doesn't anticipate Bluabot also being DQ'd -- that's why I asked for clarification (or correction) of what actually happened from someone who was directly involved.

A referee who was on the scene and witnessed the play commented that he hoped this double-DQ call would not occur frequently, since it seems to be a method for a team that is hopelessly behind in an elimination match to force a tie and (in effect) get a replay.

atomikitten

14-03-2006, 22:05

Sorry, I know this is redundant, but I feel it's very important to reiterate.

Hey now... one catchy soundbyte echoes in my head: "life's not fair, and neither is FIRST." I'm saying this even though it was my team that suffered because of some other people's errors. We're going to put up with a lot of crap from a lot of idiots in the real world; frankly, I'm just greatful to have experienced FIRST, where idiots and crap are at a minimum.

Having cleared that up, I can say confidently that team 888 had an overall pleasant, positive experience at the Pittsburgh Regional, despite the frustrations. To any individuals who made our acquaintances, please understand the team's frustration and try to look at it from our point of view--you were there too. The situation simply outraged us. This does not excuse our team's rants, but perhaps the rest of the FIRST world could borrow a little bit of perspective.

To tell you the truth, on Thursday, we felt that a few other teams were absurdly aggressive towards us, both in and outside of the arena. We were even subjected to repeated "speed screenings" because "other teams reported" that our shooter violated a velocity regulation. After three intermittent screenings, absolutely no breach of regulation was found. We were suspicious and a bit insulted, but we beared it.

I feel it's also important to acknowledge that there were individuals who were notably courteous and pure-intentionedly helpful to us as well. They made gestures that were more typical of FIRSTers.

most importantly:
I'm ready to put all of this behind me so that I am completely unburdened to look forward to the Chesapeake Regional. I can only ask and hope that everyone else feels similarly. After all, each day is fresh with no mistakes in it [yet].

sw293

15-03-2006, 13:38

The key to understanding this year's Robot Interaction rule <G22> is to look at last year's rule, <G25> and compare.

The first difference is in the title. <G25> last year had none. This year's reads, "Intentional Robot - Robot Interaction." This makes is more clear that unintentional interaction is generally not governed by G25.

The first two sentences start off the same the same: "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However Triple Play/Aim High is a highly interactive [contact] game" (2005-G25 includes the word "contact", 2006-G22 does not)

Here, the rules diverge crucially in setting the standards for legitamite and illegitamite interaction. First, 2005-G25:

Some tipping, entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, entanglement, or damage occurs where it is not a part of normal game play, at the referee’s discretion, a 10-point penalty will be assessed, and the offending team/ROBOT may be disqualified from that match.

The standard here is "where it is not part of normal game play, at the referee's discretion". This can be very broadly interpreted, and in some regionals last year, it was. In an attempt to clarify the rules and establish some consistency, FIRST offered examples of normal/inappropriate robot interaction.

On the other hand, 2006-G22 reads "Some appropriate contact is allowed subject to the following guidelines:", followed by a list of guidelines, followed by: "In all cases involving robot-to-robot contact, the Head Referee may assess a 5-point penalty and the robot may be disqualified, subject to these guidelines." The standard for allowed robot interaction is specifically laid out here in a set of guidelines. It does not depend on a referee's opinion of "normal game play".

The guidelines themselves specifically set a great deal of robot interaction inside the realm of allowed play. Contact within bumper zones and extension-extension contact "will generally not be penalized", and incidental contact "will not be penalized." Notably, FIRST makes it clear twice that tipping over a tilted robot is usually considered incidental contact: "Contact outside the BUMPER ZONE that is a result of tipping caused by contact within the BUMPER ZONE will be considered incidental contact. ... Contact with a tilted robot such that the contact is outside the bumper zone will generally be
considered incidental contact." As for ramming, "high speed ramming" in 2005 has become "long-distance high speed ramming" in 2006.

It is arguable that the <G25>-to-<G22> changes were made to avoid the controversial robot-robot interaction calls that occured in several regionals last year. It is not arguable that this year's rules governing robot-robot interaction are far clearer and easier to interpret, and the standard they set for improper interaction is much higher than the standard applied by many regional referees last year. Read them throroughly and realize that they do not read the same as last year's rules.