2006 Penalties

[Steve S.]

What penalties have you seen happen and how many points have they lost?

for me at FLR Ive seen 2 DQs. Both for a robot entering the side goal and both were during final matches. I also saw quite a few backbot penalties. from 5-20 points a match lost and i saw some ramming penalties.

And a Match had to be Replayed. It was Match 15 of Friday which was replayed on saturday because of field problems.

[Melissa Nute]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26824

[Steve S.]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26824
thats from 2 years ago!!!

[Koko Ed]

What penalties have you seen happen and how many points have they lost?

for me at FLR Ive seen 2 DQs. Both for a robot entering the side goal and both were during final matches. I also saw quite a few backbot penalties. from 5-20 points a match lost and i saw some ramming penalties.
The backbot offside penalties make no sense. All it takes is simple communication between the teams to tell one of them to stay back and not cross the line. As simple as following the rules and there were teams that just plain had issue with doing that.

[Jack Jones]

We (1213) suggested that two bots head for on-side. The designated one, and an alternate just in case. One penality point per second makes it worth the fail-safe delay.

[pwilczynski]

One penalty that I saw (it was called on our team) was ramming in autonomous mode. During the semis,
wWe set our auto-mode to go at about 85% speed across the field to try and stop a robot from dumping into the corner goal, like we had been doing all day. However, instead of getting in front of the robot, we smashed into them and received a 5 point penalty, making the score of the match 32-34, with our allience losing on the penalty.

This penalty could have been avoided by putting bumpers on the front of our robot, for anyone who wishes to avoid it,

[Bill_Hancoc]

We had the same one called on us, we had been doing it all day and then we did it and we got the 5 point point penality. We didnt have bumpers on the front of our robot but we asked if we could do it in reverse (where we have a bumper) and it was still illegal the only difference was that we won the match even with the penality.

[The Donger]

That's an interesting penalty. There was plenty of ramming into our robot in the semi-finals and other people rammed other robots in the Finals. There wasn't a single penalty called. Hmmm...

[Donut]

Those ramming penalties might depend on how fast your robot moves, and whether the judges deem there was enough force to cause harm to the other robot.

In the semis, our alliance received a 5 point pinning penalty during the first match. 330 asked the refs who it was against, and they said against them for pinning against the base of the ramp. I didn't know the base of the ramp counts as a wall you can pin other robots against, and that the 10 second rule applies there.

[Jessica279]

Our team, sincerely, got screwed in our first match. match 10.

Any of you who went to Great Lakes Regional and played in matches 1-11 know about the problems. Apparently, the computers went down. The referees had to make ALL the calls and count all the balls, manually.

I suppose, yes, we should cut them some slack since it wasn't their fault.

But in our match, we got 3 penaltys for something we never did. We were the backbot and they said we crossed the line, not once, not twice, but THREE times. We have a video, folks, and our robot NEVER crossed the line.

We tried to talk to the refs about it, but they weren't trying to hear it.
The next day we learned about the computer problems. They told us that all the matches that weren't scored properly were fixed and those that truly won, won.

But then, later on in the day, we hear that in order for that to be true, you had to have ONE rep from each team in the match go up and talk to the refs. If only one rep decides that they don't want to be gracious and say no to agreeing with the win change, then the ref turned his back and walked away.

I'm not sure who it was that said no. I wasn't the rep from our team. As HP, I just throw balls. But I know that whoever that team rep was, they need to think about the spirit of FIRST. It's about gracious professionalism. I hope they wouldn't think that that would make their grandmother proud. Not at all.

Had this happened to any other teams out there?

[Jack Jones]

Our team, sincerely, got screwed in our first match. match 10.

Any of you who went to Great Lakes Regional and played in matches 1-11 know about the problems. Apparently, the computers went down. The referees had to make ALL the calls and count all the balls, manually.

I suppose, yes, we should cut them some slack since it wasn't their fault.

But in our match, we got 3 penaltys for something we never did. We were the backbot and they said we crossed the line, not once, not twice, but THREE times. We have a video, folks, and our robot NEVER crossed the line.

We tried to talk to the refs about it, but they weren't trying to hear it.
The next day we learned about the computer problems. They told us that all the matches that weren't scored properly were fixed and those that truly won, won.

But then, later on in the day, we hear that in order for that to be true, you had to have ONE rep from each team in the match go up and talk to the refs. If only one rep decides that they don't want to be gracious and say no to agreeing with the win change, then the ref turned his back and walked away.

I'm not sure who it was that said no. I wasn't the rep from our team. As HP, I just throw balls. But I know that whoever that team rep was, they need to think about the spirit of FIRST. It's about gracious professionalism. I hope they wouldn't think that that would make their grandmother proud. Not at all.

Had this happened to any other teams out there?

To the best of our knowledge, what you mention never happened, at least not the way you put it.

THE FACTS:
It was matches 4 - 11 that were in question because the head referee may have transposed the scores on the sheets he handed to the scorekeeper. For that reason, and that reason alone, they invited the six teams involved to graciously sort it out.

If you went there wishing to get un-screwed on a judgment call, then I'm as sure as I am glad they sent you packing.

[Jessica279]

The reason I put 1-11, was because the computers were messing up in matches 1 + 2, went out in/during match number 2, and was therefore out in number 3 as well.

And i'm unsure as to what you are saying never happened.
The offside penalties..or..?

[114gopher]

There were a few offsides calls, but that was really about it. What really surprised me was the lack of ramming penalties. In the 2nd match of the finals, we fell, and kept getting hit repeatedly. We had two broken welds, our electronics box was sheared from its bolts in one corner, and our main breaker switch was in two pieces. It wasn't even mounted near where we were getting hit. For the last match of the finals, our back corner of the frame was held together with zip ties. I understand that it was supposed to be a rough game, but I didn't think it was supposed to be this rough. Personally, I think ramming should be called a little more often.

[yodameister]

That's an interesting penalty. There was plenty of ramming into our robot in the semi-finals and other people rammed other robots in the Finals. There wasn't a single penalty called. Hmmm...

I would agree. There was LOTS of ramming during the first 10 seconds, at full speed by the way. Not one ramming penalty that I saw. One of our team mates was even rammed while he was tipped over and a penalty wasn't called.

[Chris27]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45308

or if you dont feel like reading all of it. We got screwed on penalties too, or lack of.

At St. Louis they were big on offsides penalties but other then that they let everything go.

[George A.]

At NJ (the only regional I went to so far) offsides were huge...multiple times we ended up penalizing the entire allaince something like 40 points for not having a back-bot...that adds up to all 3 robots being offsides the entire time that they needed a backbot.

I also saw DQ's for incursion, which is easily enough aviodable...

The one penalty that I kept seeing that I was surprised about was teams getting penalized for stepping out of the drivers box. I've been a HP before, and yes I get excited in the heat of competition, but I always knew where my body was in reference to the driver's box outline. I just don't see how teams can absent mindedly hand points away like that.

[Steve W]

Boy, I am really glad that I have been in NJ and FLR because for most part, reffing has been good to great. This year has had less problems than past years and I thought that that would lead to less complaining. I guess not.

Could one of the complainers about ramming show me the official description of ramming and in what times it should and shouldn't be called? without direction from FIRST, the refs cannot make an informed call. I believe that the GDC has done a better job this year and should be generally happy with the results. A definition of ramming, eg : more than 6 feet or only in driver mode , would help to clarify with refs and competitors.

[MaHaGoN]

I found that the penalties themselves were fair, but how they were being enforced was definitely not fair. At the Finger Lakes Regional I was Team 250's Human Player, and I am well versed in the rules and penalties of the game. However, different refs have different measures of enforcing these rules. Such as how one time I was given a penalty for stepping up onto the metal bar in the back of the lower goal. I did not throw while up there, I just had my toe hit it and backed off immediately before throwing. Technically, yes, that is a foul and I was flagged for it. The ref was watching the spot carefully, not paying attention to anything else, and as soon as he saw it he flagged it, which is his job. Conveniently it didn't cost us the match because then I would have been truly angered instead of just annoyed, however I then decided that while in queue I would watch the other side and see if the ref was watching as carefully. I saw kids stepping up onto the metal, and the ref flagging for nothing but major infractions which rarely if never occur. Now... why do the refs not change sides from time to time, or at least more consistently decide what they are going to call and not call? I think that different levels of enforcement on different sides is not fair. I am not saying that I shouldn't have been flagged for the penalty I received, because that was in fact a penalty, but I think those breaking that rule on the other side should have been penalized as well.

[Cody Carey]

We got a penalty for the 3-inch incursion into the lower goal, and our robot could only physically go 2 1/2 inches, we were limited by diamond plate... we got DQed. This is not fair, but I tried to argue it... and they wouldn't listen :rolleyes:
We even offered to show them our robot and the impossibility of it all... oh well.

We were almost DQed for our coach standing between the drivers, not touching the controls.

[yodameister]

Could one of the complainers about ramming show me the official description of ramming and in what times it should and shouldn't be called? without direction from FIRST, the refs cannot make an informed call. (snip) A definition of ramming, eg : more than 6 feet or only in driver mode , would help to clarify with refs and competitors.

I agree with these comments. The gist of the rule (as I can remember it, I know, I know I need to cite the rule but I don't have it in front of me) was that ramming intended to destroy another robot is against the rules. Since we cannot read the minds of the drivers to determine their intents, it is very difficult to throw a penalty. If there was defined verbage about what ramming was, the teams would know how far they could go, and how far is crossing the line.

[Liz Smith]

We got a penalty for the 3-inch incursion into the lower goal, and our robot could only physically go 2 1/2 inches, we were limited by diamond plate... we got DQed. This is not fair, but I tried to argue it... and they wouldn't listen :rolleyes:
We even offered to show them our robot and the impossibility of it all... oh well.




I think the refs are doing the best job they can, and when they see the penalties, they call it. At Pittsburgh I was a real-time scorekeeper (manual counting of the lower goals) and by even having manual scorekeepers its double checking the scoring.

ps: As for your robot Cody, I was at that goal, the left corner did go more than 3 inches into the goal, sorry man.

[Cody Carey]

Ok, we had Steel preventing us from going too far into the goal... that is how we designed it. By design... It is Impossible for our robot to go more than 2 1/2 inches into the goal, there is only a 2 1/2 inch peice of metal outside of the guard on our robot, and the guard stops us from going into the goal. unless the field gave way, there is no way for us to go into the goal... and in order for us to have bent the taut lexan a half of an inch, we would have broken it. I will put a picture of our robot with a ruler on the corner, showing that it is only possible for us to go 2 1/2 inches into the goal. We only got flagged once, and we made no alterations to prevent it, because it was already prevented. We won't have to worry about it in Philly, though because we are changing our dresign.

[indieFan]

Ok, we had Steel preventing us from going too far into the goal... that is how we designed it. By design... It is Impossible for our robot to go more than 2 1/2 inches into the goal, there is only a 2 1/2 inch peice of metal outside of the guard on our robot, and the guard stops us from going into the goal. unless the field gave way, there is no way for us to go into the goal... and in order for us to have bent the taut lexan a half of an inch, we would have broken it. I will put a picture of our robot with a ruler on the corner, showing that it is only possible for us to go 2 1/2 inches into the goal. We only got flagged once, and we made no alterations to prevent it, because it was already prevented. We won't have to worry about it in Philly, though because we are changing our dresign.

Team 1070 was DQ'd at the AZ regional during seeding matches this weekend because of this. We ended up getting another warning about it during the quarterfinals. However, both Jason Morrella and Dave Lavery were looking at our robot asking how this was possible since it clearly wasn't designed to be able to go in. I'm hoping that there will be changes made to this rule, but I'm not holding my breath.

indieFan

[xmfan]

The tape is across my mouth, If I say anything it will be pulled off.

[Adam Shapiro]

Ok, we had Steel preventing us from going too far into the goal... that is how we designed it. By design... It is Impossible for our robot to go more than 2 1/2 inches into the goal, there is only a 2 1/2 inch peice of metal outside of the guard on our robot, and the guard stops us from going into the goal. unless the field gave way, there is no way for us to go into the goal... and in order for us to have bent the taut lexan a half of an inch, we would have broken it. I will put a picture of our robot with a ruler on the corner, showing that it is only possible for us to go 2 1/2 inches into the goal. We only got flagged once, and we made no alterations to prevent it, because it was already prevented. We won't have to worry about it in Philly, though because we are changing our dresign.
The refs do the best they can and have to deal with many different things at one time. It is extremely difficult to see the difference between 2.5 inches and 3 inches in the few seconds the robot enters the goal. This is the reason for ref calls being final; not only is it very hard for them to see such a difference, they just don't have time to argue it with so many matches to get through. It's unfortunate to be disqualified for such a penalty, but try to put yourself in their shoes: if a robot sped past you, entered a goal, and sped away would you be able to see a half-inch difference?

[xmfan]

The refs do the best they can and have to deal with many different things at one time. It is extremely difficult to see the difference between 2.5 inches and 3 inches in the few seconds the robot enters the goal. This is the reason for ref calls being final; not only is it very hard for them to see such a difference, they just don't have time to argue it with so many matches to get through. It's unfortunate to be disqualified for such a penalty, but try to put yourself in their shoes: if a robot sped past you, entered a goal, and sped away would you be able to see a half-inch difference?
I agree things happen really fast and it is tough to make some calls. The dq call you have to be absolute sure of the call. The dq is a killer call.

[sanddrag]

Look at the updated G21
"The 3 inches does not include the deflection of the
goal panel or structure."

[Andrew Blair]

As far as the 3" goal incursion rule goes- well, a dq is a little harsh- 5 or ten points would be more manageable, and appropriate. However, it's not the ref's fault: they're being given an almost impossible rule to enforce correctly. If it's not *obvious*, they face a tough decision, with no opportunity for a second opinion. In the example above, the refs, to my knowledge, cannot reverse their decision.

*P.S.- Hoping this will add some depth to our situation, we had a team, #398, stationed beside the corner goal infringement, who vouched for us. However, tough decision, and the refs had been lenient towards us all day, and they couldn't reverse it anyways. We simply tried to make them aware, because in the finals, a mistake can really suck.

As it was, we should've have been DQ'ed anyways, perhaps just not for infringment- we rammed the goal very hard that match.

[Martinez]

I voted 'Definately Not' and let me explain why.

I hate the dq penalty for intruding into the corner goals. Give us a 15+ point penalty or disable the robot but don't disqualify the alliance. It really hurts to have an awsome match and then to find you lost during the results due to a call on the field while in automode. I understand the rule and am not debating any refs calls, I just think its too severe.

Things could have worked out alot easier if the corner goals were as wide as robot but not including the bumpers. Then most would not be able to physically fit as long as it wasn't in at an angle. There was also some confusion on our team that if your robot is pushed into the goal by an oppossing robot then your the one DQ. Certainly doesn't seem right and I was wondering if it was true.

It is a bit personal, seeing Chuck and our alliance was elimnated in the quarters at FLR by this penalty but really I've had a problem with it from the begining. Just my two cents.

[cmaccoy]

My concerns are as follows:
-There are no "instant replays" so we can't have the refs look at the incident a few times to confirm.
-If you interrupt the sensor system (go further then 3 inches in the side goal) your entire alliance is disqualified.
The rules aren't that bad this year but still they could be edited.

[DjAlamose]

-If you interrupt the sensor system (go further then 3 inches in the side goal) your entire alliance is disqualified.

This is only durring elimination rounds not durring qualifying matches. Durring qualifying matches the team that is dq'ed is the only one that suffers penalties (so that alliance can still win).

[KenWittlief]

Where is Barney Fife when you need him.

Two years ago if you broke the plane of the goal you were penalized

this year they gave you three inches. I dont think the intent was that 2.99" incursions are OK. you give them 1 inch and they'll take two, you give them two....

Are the corner ref's able to tell if the incursive robot has triggered the ball counter? That is the reason for the rule. If your bot triggers the counter and the score shoots up by 50 points that is a real mess to straighten out at the end of the match.

Also, the fact that you measured the front of your robot and its only 2.5" long doesnt mean that for every possible angle and condition it will not exceed 2.5". For example, if your bot lifts up its front wheels it may be able to extend further into the goal.

Bottom line is, if your bot triggers the ball counter you should expect a penalty.

[hillale]

My concerns are as follows:
-There are no "instant replays" so we can't have the refs look at the incident a few times to confirm.
-If you interrupt the sensor system (go further then 3 inches in the side goal) your entire alliance is disqualified.
The rules aren't that bad this year but still they could be edited.

I definitely agree that there needs to be a camera in place where these types of penalties may occur. I also believe that there needs to be a vertical view of the field recorded during the entire match to be reviewed in the case of high goal scoring issues. It turns out that the goal of making a ball in the high goal is to trip the sensor at the top of the tube, not to make a ball through the bit red/blue circle. Our team made 3 balls in autonomous mode, but only 2 were counted because 1 got caught in the goal and didn't roll down to the tube. Because of this, we lost autonomous and ended up losing the match. Had the match been scored correctly we would have won. When our team approached the judges with video of this, they wouldn't look at it.

[KenWittlief]

Its been in the manual since day 1.

Refs will NOT looks at any videos after a match, from any source.

[Volcomdude412x]

We kinda got screwed eac time we attempted to score, each time someone came up and rammed us causing our corner of our robot to enter the side goal, i think it should be changed so that this problem can be fixed

[KTorak]

The corner goal DQ is pretty annoying. The whole "approximately 3 inches" is so judgemental at the time it occurs that you can get penalized when it didnt do any harm. It's also annoying that the robot that is pushed in is DQ'd, there should be no reason to DQ them for something they can't control, but atleast the one who pushed you in gets DQ'd.

As for ramming, I don't really mind that penalty...if you're trying to ram another robot to disable it, you deserve a penalty. However the Autonomous mode ramming is a tough subject to deal with. A team angled towards our bot and rammed us preventing us from scoring in the corner goal during autonomous and got a 5 point penalty. It should be more during a regular match since you have more control over it.

As for the offsides penalty, that really upset me. A call was made that one of our alliance partners crossed the line 3 times, but we have 3 videos showing they were 10 feet behind it. The Ref must have been confused about it or something. The one thing that upset me the most was that he didn't even know who he called it against, when we questioned it, all he said was "You should have discussed it better before the match, and you're lucky i only threw three flags becuase it should have been more." The other annoying part was that the only way for the score to be over turned was for all 6 teams to agree to have it changed....sure FIRST is about GP, but the teams that are in it "just to win" won't even think about giving up a win.

[abeD]

I have a question about the exact definition of ramming.

If redabot A and bluabot B are both going at high speeds and collide is that a ram? and if yes who is it on? This is basically what people are talking about in autonomous, when one robot drives to the center to shoot to the goal and the other one drives and they have a high speed collision, I don't think any penalties should be called in this case, auto or regular mode. Now if a team is sitting there and someone comes flying across the field that is a different story.

[Cody Carey]

Also, the fact that you measured the front of your robot and its only 2.5" long doesnt mean that for every possible angle and condition it will not exceed 2.5". For example, if your bot lifts up its front wheels it may be able to extend further into the goal.

Bottom line is, if your bot triggers the ball counter you should expect a penalty.

I agree with you, but we didn't go past the black line and into the scoring panel... there was no mess up with the scoring. The team on the opposing alliance that was stationed beside the goal even said that we didn't go in...
and we made sure that from pretty much every angle we couldn't go in.
I really appreciate the refs and what they do for us, but I am just trying to point out that all of the calls they made were not perfect, and some were downright unfair. I also want to point out that the rule was 3", and we were a full half of an inch under that... If you want me not to be snippity about a half of an inch, then somebody talk to the refs about giving a penalty to a team because the driver had their toe over the line during autonomous...
The thread is about weather or not all of the calls were fair, and I am just out to prove that they weren't.

[KenWittlief]

I saw so many offsides penalties at the FLR last weekend it made me think that many teams dont understand what the offsides foul IS.

the whole nearBot/BackBot/FarBot confusion.

I dont think all these teams were deliberately playing offsides - I think it was a mistake or confusion on the part of the driver.

So you really got to stop and ask yourself: if the ref called your team offsides are you SURE he was wrong?

[Adam Shapiro]

I agree with you, but we didn't go past the black line and into the scoring panel... there was no mess up with the scoring. The team on the opposing alliance that was stationed beside the goal even said that we didn't go in...
You need to keep in mind that the opposing alliance, though well-meaning, was most likely very much occupied with their own robots at the time. That is the reason for the refs/volunteers in the first place. The penalty was called by a ref standing at the goal, and reinforced by Pika1579 who was the manual counter at that position and whose job it was to keep a constant watch on what went into and out of that specific goal. It is a hard call to make, and harsh penalty, but you must consider the possibility that they weren't wrong in the call.

[Greg Perkins]

I think the rules are very fair. It's those who try to bend the rules as far as physically possible that are having issues. Here's a thought, build a robot that doesn't break any rules from ship? Because then guess what...NO PENALTIES!

Sorry to sound so brash, but I've been a ref since 2003...and it never stops. Before you say that the refs are all on an ego and power trip, why don't you try it and then once you've experienced how DIFFICULT being a ref is, make your judgment. Have I screwed up...yes, and I am sincerely appologetic for those who the screw up affected. We are all human, and being a ref can be so demanding...you have to constantly watch each robot, the field, interaction between bots, offsides, 5', and pinning countdowns. There just simply is way to much to focus on and call everything 100% correctly, I would probably say all refs do about a 98% accurate job of calling the game. If you have any problems with your outcome TALK TO THE HEAD REFEREE!!!

So my moral? Put yourself in our shoes before you run the marathon...you'd be suprised in what you may learn.

PS. STOP BASHING REF's...email FIRST and your issues will be promptly reviewd and during the head ref meetings will be discussed.

[Cody Carey]

Okay, I concede... there is about a 2% chance that the STEEL was bent out of place by a half of an inch, and then bent back into place, perfectly as it was in the beginning of the match, before the match was over.

P.S. I did not intend any of my posts to bash the refs, I am simply stating (as this is what the thread is about) that no, they do not make 100% accurate calls... nobody could. We are only human :p

[StephLee]

I believe we were called once or twice for being off-sides when I hadn't thought we were, but then I really wouldn't bet my life (or my robot) on it. Once, we were supposed to play backbot and our driver moved towards our alliance station before moving to the back side of the field...that was a rightful penalty, we needed to have been moving back by then. Miscommunication between myself and the driver caused that.

Since none of the penalties cost us a match, though, I really can't speak for how I'd feel then about a call I wasn't sure was warranted. I do know, though, how I felt when we "lost" a match we knew we won. Something was wrong with the scoring system; I honestly don't know what it was. If anyone knows what the problem was during match 5 of Friday at Pittsburgh, please post it. We simply couldn't let that match go. It was a 2-on-2 match, us and 1727 versus 1370 and 365. We played extremely hard and stuck to our strategy; we knew that was the only way we'd beat those two awesome teams. We knew we'd won, but the results said we didn't. Our driver went and talked to the refs, and they reviewed the scores. I'm not sure where it was eventually decided the error was, but they found one and actually corrected the scores - and we had won.

Edit:

ORIGINAL: Greg Perkins

If you have any problems with your outcome TALK TO THE HEAD REFEREE!!!

(snip)

PS. STOP BASHING REF's...email FIRST and your issues will be promptly reviewd and during the head ref meetings will be discussed.

You posted while I was typing mine...you're completely right. We were very content with how the head ref handled our concerns; we asked if they were sure the scores were correct, and they checked them for us. The refs want the games to be fair, otherwise they wouldn't be refs. Ask them about any potential discrepancies, but remember to bring your GP when you do.

[Liz Smith]

Okay, I concede... there is about a 2% chance that the STEEL was bent out of place by a half of an inch, and then bent back into place, perfectly as it was in the beginning of the match, before the match was over.


Specific to your robot, there was also a cable tie that was sticking off your robot into the goal... The refs aren't out looking to make alliances lose points they're looking to make sure that the games are fair...

[George A.]

I really don't think the penalties are all that unfair. I mean they're simple enough to follow. Either have one of your robots behind the line when it's supposed to or get penalized. Don't go in farther than 3" or get penalized.

One easy way of avoiding the Incursion DQ? Make it so your ball deployment system CAN'T fit in the corral. If the deployment system is so ridiculously huge that it can't fit in then there's no way to get penalized. IMO if your deployment system has the risk that it could get pushed in at a certain angle then you're playing with fire and you're going to get burned.

It's foolish for anyone to think that their opponents will just sit idly by and let their opponents score. They're going to play defense, and as such they might end up pushing their opponent into the corner corral. The action is at the opposite end of the field from the drivers so they can't tell.

And here's a sob story for you...

MY team (11) were in the final match in the 2001 Championships on Galileo field before allaince pairing. We were in 6th place and barring any catastrophe's it looked like we were going to elims. The first robot went over the teeter-totter bridge...and the bridge popped off the fulcum making it immovable, as such we couldn't score, so we shut the clock and took the points we could. The end result we get a horrible score, our rank gets dropped from 6th to ninth. We miss 8th place by .5 points, and we don't get picked. When we talked to the ref about a redo since the field broke, they said that it wasn't their fault as it was an "Act of God' . Granted, we didn't like the ruling but we lived with it, and next year we made sure that our robot would be able to adapt to field conditions.

Sorry for the ramble, but the rules are the rules, if your risking coming close to incursion...find another way to score or live with the penalities that you might acrue.

[Greg Perkins]

My concerns are as follows:
-There are no "instant replays" so we can't have the refs look at the incident a few times to confirm.
-If you interrupt the sensor system (go further then 3 inches in the side goal) your entire alliance is disqualified.
The rules aren't that bad this year but still they could be edited.

Replays...are you serious????
This topic has been discussed to death. FIRST has always had a problem with time, there never is enough of it...adding 1 extra minute to every qualification match to look at video is inconcieveable. I was once a supporter of this, until I understood that if it was used, it would be used so much for EVERY penalty that we would need an extra day of competition (or deliberation as the case would be). I assure you, when the ref's meet up in the center of the field to discuss a penalty, I can attest we are not talking about what's for lunch. So please....lets drop the whole NFL way of the game, and let's just start playing by the rules; because then who knows, penalties might never show up.

[Cody Carey]

A cable tie... You mind pointing out where a cable tie was placed on our robot so that it could possibly go into the goal? Because I don't see any.



http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/img/a2f/a2f5bdf27badad6006e4a29853143370_m.jpg

[AcesPease]

Team 1070 was DQ'd at the AZ regional during seeding matches this weekend because of this. We ended up getting another warning about it during the quarterfinals. However, both Jason Morrella and Dave Lavery were looking at our robot asking how this was possible since it clearly wasn't designed to be able to go in. I'm hoping that there will be changes made to this rule, but I'm not holding my breath.

indieFan

In Hartford some teams made minor modifications to their bots to avoid incursion penalties. The refs were firm on the calls. I didn't count, but there were a lot of 5 point and DQ incursion penalties called. I think many of us thought we had 3 inches to spare and never thought how hard it was going to be to call it, so if you somehow planned on using the 3 inch cushion, you were almost guaranteed to be called for the incursion.

Bill Pease
Teacher Mentor
Aces High
2006 UTC New England Champions with 177 and 1124
2006 BAE Granite State Finalists with 319 and 562

[Imajie]

In Hartford some teams made minor modifications to their bots to avoid incursion penalties. The refs were firm on the calls. I didn't count, but there were a lot of 5 point and DQ incursion penalties called. I think many of us thought we had 3 inches to spare and never thought how hard it was going to be to call it, so if you somehow planned on using the 3 inch cushion, you were almost guaranteed to be called for the incursion.

Bill Pease
Teacher Mentor
Aces High
2006 UTC New England Champions with 177 and 1124
2006 BAE Granite State Finalists with 319 and 562
That happened to us once. We were DQed but we didn't think it was possible for us to go into the goal. But we took our bot to the practice field and tried to figure out how it could have gone into the goal, and when we realized that it was possible we made a modification to prevent it.

[Adam Shapiro]

A cable tie... You mind pointing out where a cable tie was placed on our robot so that it could possibly go into the goal? Because I don't see any.
You're taking this way too far. The fact of the matter is two separate people saw the incursion. It is a quick thing to decide and both concluded the same. The penalty disqualified you that match and that is unfortunate, but it happens. Just let it be a lesson for next year: instead of designing such that you avoid a penalty by half an inch, design so you will avoid it by three or four inches. It's just too hard to argue something like that, especially under such a tight time constraint; it's on you to plan for such things in advance.

[Dan Petrovic]

I put "Yes, but a few could be changed", but I believe they are all fine.

These are the rules we agree with at the beginning of the season and none of them are irrational.

Be careful. That's all you have to do. These penalties make sense.

The rules are fine, but some refs can be hard and some can be real easy on the teams.

[Cory]

A cable tie... You mind pointing out where a cable tie was placed on our robot so that it could possibly go into the goal? Because I don't see any.


If you wanted to clarify the call on the field, you should have sent a student member of your drive team to the head ref at the time of the incident.

There is no point in dragging out this specific incident even more by continuing to argue that you were in the right. What's done is done, and no amount of griping about it is going to change what happened.

[Cody Carey]

I am taking this too far, and whats done is done... but I don't appreciate being told that I am wrong when I have concrete evidence showing that it is impossible... no zip-tie, you can see in the pic that there are not 3 inches to intrude with, and to their two oppinions, I have the other teams drive-team as well as our own. I have shown that our incursion into the center goal is impossible, and when I did, I am just met with "I don't care if it is impossible, you did it."

As anybody can see, the call that was made was unfair, and I am not blaming anybody or anything but the pressure that is put on the refs to make split-second decisions... and that cannot be changed. In answer to the thread... It is made obvious that all the calls that are made are DEFINATELY NOT correct.

[Cody Carey]

If you wanted to clarify the call on the field, you should have sent a student member of your drive team to the head ref at the time of the incident.

There is no point in dragging out this specific incident even more by continuing to argue that you were in the right. What's done is done, and no amount of griping about it is going to change what happened.
We did, they wouldn't listen. anyways. I'm done... no more arguing :)

[Adam Shapiro]

I am taking this too far, and whats done is done... but I don't appreciate being told that I am wrong when I have concrete evidence showing that it is impossible... no zip-tie, you can see in the pic that there are not 3 inches to intrude with, and to their two oppinions, I have the other teams drive-team as well as our own. I have shown that our incursion into the center goal is impossible, and when I did, I am just met with "I don't care if it is impossible, you did it."
I can see there isn't much of a way to change your opinion, but I'd just like to point out that a photo of your robot in the pit is hardly evidence. First, it could have been taken either before or after the zip tie was added or removed respecively. Second, there is no way to judge the length of the front of your robot from that photo unless you had a ruler or another object placed next to the robot to compare with. Again, it is unfortunate that you got disqualified for this penalty, and it is additionally unfortunate that the driving teams were in agreement, but the call was at the discretion of the refs and they decided against you. End of story.

[Cody Carey]

You're right :)

The refs make perfect decisions all of the time :D

There is no possible way we could have been right...

There definitely was a zip-tie... the robot obviously exceeds the three inch limit, and solid steel can, in fact be bent and re-bent in the same match... The driver of the opposing team was obviously not paying attention to the goal at that time, neither was the coach to see how many points we scored. Two opinions are always better that five, and zip ties not spontaneously generate.

I don't know why I couldn't see it until the argument was over, I mean, I DEFINITELY, all by my self escalated this thread to the point it was at.

You, Adam Shapiro are ALWAYS right, and in future threads, I know not to dispute everybody elses' absolute knowledge:rolleyes:

I am sorry... please accept my humblest apologies.


Cody C.
--Team 306 Captain/Driver

[indieFan]

In Hartford some teams made minor modifications to their bots to avoid incursion penalties. The refs were firm on the calls. I didn't count, but there were a lot of 5 point and DQ incursion penalties called. I think many of us thought we had 3 inches to spare and never thought how hard it was going to be to call it, so if you somehow planned on using the 3 inch cushion, you were almost guaranteed to be called for the incursion.

We were originally DQ'd because we had a bumper on our back side only that got pushed into the goal. We removed the bumper immediately after it happened. Our front and back sides are flat (save any damage that may have occurred to our hopper). I believe that that DQ occurred during the practice rounds because there was a question that was raised about the bumpers thinking that we (the team) had misread the rules. We hadn't. The following day, without any bumpers on the robot, we still received a DQ during a match. And, we got the warning I mentioned earlier during the quarterfinals. We never, to my knowledge, planned on using the 3 inch cushion.

indieFan

[Cody Carey]

Post: Re: 2006 Penalties (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=469950)

Reputation Score: negative

Reputation Reason: I see your "team role" is listed as leadership. I pity your team if you are one of their leaders. You are making a fool of yourself in this thread - it is OVER - let it go ...





That was VERY rude. In this thread, I said nothing to offend anybody. If I did, point it out to me.

I am simply saying (as this is what the thread is for) that the refs calls are not always fair, and giving an example of why I think they are not...



Not once did I say anything about anybody that might even be construed as offensive until something was said to me that was offensive.... and several times I said that I was glad that the refs are doing the best that they can.



The regional is over... I agree with that. This thread, however IS NOT. I am VERY upset that a TEAM MENTOR has the complete lack of self-restraint that is required to give negative rep with such a rude message attached, without first contacting me, or posting anything in the thread to tell me that I was offending him. This rep was in no way constructive, and has only caused hard feelings.





Once again... Please tell me what I said that was so offensive as to deserve the rep/abusive message?

If I am not making ANY SENSE with what I just said, then please tell me... also please tell me if I am. I would like some closure on this matter.









P.S I guess this proves that some Chief Delphi users are indeed thin-skinned if posting on a thread about the subject of that thread merits being told that I don't deserve to be a leader on my team.

[Jessica Boucher]

I have been asked to close this to cool off the thread, and after reading it I agree with the request. I'm going to give it a couple of hours and we'll go from there.

Update: Reopened. Sorry for the terrible delay :)

[Cactus_Robotics]

Team 1070 was DQ'd at the AZ regional during seeding matches this weekend because of this. We ended up getting another warning about it during the quarterfinals. However, both Jason Morrella and Dave Lavery were looking at our robot asking how this was possible since it clearly wasn't designed to be able to go in. I'm hoping that there will be changes made to this rule, but I'm not holding my breath.

indieFan
Yea we were with you in that match, we couldn't tell how that happened, still a pretty good match though

[Jack Jones]

I have been asked to close this to cool off the thread, and after reading it I agree with the request. I'm going to give it a couple of hours and we'll go from there.

Update: Reopened. Sorry for the terrible delay :)

No - thank you, for a period of relief. ;)

[Mike Norton]

We where DQ because we tried to push a robot up the ramp that was on it's back.

The rules say we can push another robot within the bumper zone. which is like 8" above the ground. If a robot is on it's back we should be able to push it with out being DQ. no matter where we push the down robot. the robot was next to the ramp.

after this DQ same thing happen in another match but what we did was push it away from the ramp and did not get a DQ.


I think because the robot we tried to push on the ramp was damaged is why we where call for it.


I think everybody has to make a robot to take the impact of another robot. and if your robot does tip over it has to be prepare to be pushed. every robot is worth points.


The final call was a Judgment call. I guess the Chief judge can change the rules if he has to. I just wish then they make it very clear what is good and what is not. before it happens.

[sw293]

We where DQ because we tried to push a robot up the ramp that was on it's back.

The rules say we can push another robot within the bumper zone. which is like 8" above the ground. If a robot is on it's back we should be able to push it with out being DQ. no matter where we push the down robot. the robot was next to the ramp.

after this DQ same thing happen in another match but what we did was push it away from the ramp and did not get a DQ.


I think because the robot we tried to push on the ramp was damaged is why we where call for it.


I think everybody has to make a robot to take the impact of another robot. and if your robot does tip over it has to be prepare to be pushed. every robot is worth points.


The final call was a Judgment call. I guess the Chief judge can change the rules if he has to. I just wish then they make it very clear what is good and what is not. before it happens.

The rule <G22> is pretty clear, just make sure you read it thoroughly and literally. Compare it to last year's interaction rule <G25>, which is neither clear nor specific, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Mike Norton]

<G22> Intentional ROBOT - ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping
over, or entanglement of ROBOTs are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not
allowed. However, AIM HIGH is a highly interactive game, and some appropriate contact is allowed
subject to the following guidelines:
• 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. If two ROBOTs
choose not to use bumpers, and they contact such that simultaneous contact occurs both in and out of
the BUMPER ZONE, then this contact is considered within the BUMPER ZONE.
• Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable, and the offending ROBOT will
be assessed a 5-point penalty, and may be disqualified from the match if the offense is particularly
egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT. Incidental contact will not be
penalized. Contact outside the BUMPER ZONE that is a result of tipping caused by contact within
the BUMPER ZONE will be considered incidental contact.
• If a ROBOT extends outside of its 28 inch by 38 inch starting footprint, it is responsible for the
extension’s contact with other ROBOTs and must not use the extension to contact other ROBOTs
outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Likewise, other ROBOTs will not be responsible for contact with
the extension outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Again, incidental contact will not be penalized.
• Extension to extension contact between 2 robots with appendages outside the 28-inch by 38-inch
starting envelope will generally not be penalized.
• Contact with a tilted robot such that the contact is outside the bumper zone will generally be
considered incidental contact.
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.


I have read this rule many times. Where in the rules say you can not push a robot after it is tip over. if that was the case then robots would tip themselves over in front of the ramp to stop you from going on.

our robot is not made to tip other robots over it is made to score quick and then play defense. Why can I not use your robot as points. If you are up right I can why not when you are on your back?

[henryBsick]

I have read this rule many times. Where in the rules say you can not push a robot after it is tip over. if that was the case then robots would tip themselves over in front of the ramp to stop you from going on.

our robot is not made to tip other robots over it is made to score quick and then play defense. Why can I not use your robot as points. If you are up right I can why not when you are on your back?
Hundreds of dollars of electronics and controls coupled with hundreds of man hours is why you can't push tipped robots up the ramp. If you don't take the chance in damaging a robot, the potential damage in said situation doesn't happen.


To my best estimates,
-Henry

[Mike Norton]

Hundreds of dollars of electronics and controls coupled with hundreds of man hours is why you can't push tipped robots up the ramp. If you don't take the chance in damaging a robot, the potential damage in said situation doesn't happen.


If the robot is made good, you would protect your electronics even if it is tipped over and I hope in those hundreds of hours you made your robot strong enough to take a hit.

If you made your robot top heavy then you would pay the price. I would of loved a shooter at the top of our robot but we new you would have a chance of tipping over. Why should teams that make a good robot that does not tip over be punished for a robot not build to take a hit.

FIRST came out and said this year that there will be contact and make sure your robot can withstand that contact.


I would like a ruling where you can push a robot from, if it is on it's back

[Adam Shapiro]

If the robot is made good, you would protect your electronics even if it is tipped over and I hope in those hundreds of hours you made your robot strong enough to take a hit.

If you made your robot top heavy then you would pay the price. I would of loved a shooter at the top of our robot but we new you would have a chance of tipping over. Why should teams that make a good robot that does not tip over be punished for a robot not build to take a hit.

FIRST came out and said this year that there will be contact and make sure your robot can withstand that contact.


I would like a ruling where you can push a robot from, if it is on it's back
Just about any robot can tip, regardless of the design. It's not a matter of whether or not a team designed it to "take a hit," it's that things happen. Even with the highest level of protection there's a chance of damage. It's not just the electronics, a part could bend or a number of other, unexpected thing could happen. Nobody designs a robot to be robust when pushed along its side on a ramp. I'm sure your own team would be rather upset if your robot got pushed in such a way and a part (not necessarily the electronics) was damaged or destroyed. It's a matter of safety towards the robots.

[AcesPease]

If the robot is made good, you would protect your electronics even if it is tipped over and I hope in those hundreds of hours you made your robot strong enough to take a hit.

If you made your robot top heavy then you would pay the price. I would of loved a shooter at the top of our robot but we new you would have a chance of tipping over. Why should teams that make a good robot that does not tip over be punished for a robot not build to take a hit.

FIRST came out and said this year that there will be contact and make sure your robot can withstand that contact.


I would like a ruling where you can push a robot from, if it is on it's back

The key part of the rule is: "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage..."

The referee made the right call.

Even if you disagree with the referees, you need to adjust the way you play to the way the game is being called by the referees. If you don't, the penalties you get will not only hurt your team, but the two teams you are allied with. All the teams need to be aware of how the penalties are being called, not because some of the calls may be questionable, but because all of us want to play clean rounds that are not decided by penalties or disqualifications. We won a semifinal on a DQ and it was a strangely empty feeling. This can be an exciting game. Lets make it as exciting as we can by playing well and when necessary laying off robots that are down.

[Mike Norton]

First of all we do play a clean game. and not all robot will tip over. When we did get DQ it was us only us not the whole team.

The key part of the rule is: "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage..."

Do you think by scoring in auto mode and then play defense is being destructive? we do not plan on damaging robot, but if a team plans on building a weak robot and it break we should not be DQ.


In the past this has been brought up. I have seen arms going into robots and ripping out controls without being DQ because the arm was used for something else. I remember the wedges tipping over robots and breaking them with out DQ I know you could not do that this year because it was stated you couldn't. But they told you that you could hit outside of the bumper zone if the robot was on the ramp or tipping.


So to us FIRST wanted to see contact this year. the way they made this game. So for team that do not think they will get hit are not being realistic.

If for some reason our robot tips over and someone smashed our robot we would be able to fix it very quickly because of our design. So the game is to build a robot that will not break under any condition.

[Adam Shapiro]

we do not plan on damaging robot, but if a team plans on building a weak robot and it break we should not be DQ.
It's not that teams "plan" to build unrobust robots, it just happens as a consequence of a specific design. This shouldn't give another team permission to go ahead and attack them in a way that could knowingly cause damage.

I have seen arms going into robots and ripping out controls without being DQ because the arm was used for something else. I remember the wedges tipping over robots and breaking them with out DQ I know you could not do that this year because it was stated you couldn't. But they told you that you could hit outside of the bumper zone if the robot was on the ramp or tipping.
It's one thing to accidentally break a robot's components with an arm or other device when the other robot is up and running, but it's entirely another to go after a robot (even simply pushing it) once it is on the ground. It is unnecessarily dangerous and destructive; even if you believe a team should be able to fix parts, you can't be sure they will be. Also, the rules have never, to my knowledge, allowed for hitting while another robot was tipping. This has always been a penalty of some sort that I can remember. The bottom line is you're better safe than sorry.

So the game is to build a robot that will not break under any condition.
Actually, the game is to built a robot that can handle balls and defend against other alliances. Yes, robots should be built as robust as possible, but this is not as easy for all teams as it may have been for yours.

The rules are in place to make the game more fair, and to give more teams a chance at competitive matches. If they weren't there we wouldn't have FIRST, we'd have BattleBots (not to mention chaos).

[Mike Norton]

last point:

This is the first year FIRST made the opponents robot worth points. Do you not think that this is part of this game. So if a robot does not want to be points to the other team they should tip over and prevent the other team to use them to score?


So yes you have to make your robot to take a hit and not to tip over and if you do tip over your robot will have to be able to take a hit. Unless you read more into this game then we did.

25 points is very big in this game. So for other robots that had to lighten their robot and use very light stuff on their robot to be able to have a good shooter will have to pay the price of maybe getting damaged.

everybody has a choice and FIRST this year stated make your robot to take a hit.

[Andy Brockway]

last point:

This is the first year FIRST made the opponents robot worth points. .....


2002 was the first year. Dead robots due to the main breaker popping (lots of discussion was generated on this problem) were prime candidates to be pushed back behind the line. Same rules as this year, any robot in the near zone counted.

[Mike Norton]

I pretty sure you had to get your teammates back behind the line not your opponents. you did not get any points because your opponents where behind your line.

[Dylan Gramlich]

i heard from my friend who is a ref at nationals(dont trust this info cause they might not enforce the rule) that they might call penalties in autonomus for the defensive autonomus' that people are using because they are in violation of the rule for ramming another robot (rule <G22>) but again dont quote me on this or plan on them enforcing it

[KTorak]

i heard from my friend who is a ref at nationals(dont trust this info cause they might not enforce the rule) that they might call penalties in autonomus for the defensive autonomus' that people are using because they are in violation of the rule for ramming another robot (rule <G22>) but again dont quote me on this or plan on them enforcing it

Already happened at GLR. One team got a 5 point penalty for ramming us in Autonomous.

[BobC]

Already happened at GLR. One team got a 5 point penalty for ramming us in Autonomous.
I do not think ramming should be called in autonomus mode.

[eugenebrooks]

I do not think ramming should be called in autonomus mode.

If ramming is to be called for a penalty (no ramming penalties or warnings were called at the regionals I have attended), and here we are talking about ramming at a high speed such that parts on a well constructed robot break, why should there be any difference between the call for human player mode and autonomous mode. If the driver team sets the robot up in autonomous mode specifically to hit another robot in a high speed collision, why is this any different than when the the driver team is at the controls.

[Elgin Clock]

If ramming is to be called for a penalty (no ramming penalties or warnings were called at the regionals I have attended), and here we are talking about ramming at a high speed such that parts on a well constructed robot break, why should there be any difference between the call for human player mode and autonomous mode. If the driver team sets the robot up in autonomous mode specifically to hit another robot, in a high speed collision, why is this any different than when the the driver team is at the controls.

For the first time in my 5 years in FIRST I have found a rule I have no stance on. Well.. let me rephrase that. I have stances, but I have no clear view on this.

In one instance, I see how ramming is bad and should be called in Autonomous every time no matter what. We personally have been affected by ramming, where we could have scored 15 points at least in a center goal, but because we were rammed, we lost them all.

The penalty was called on the other team, but comparing 15 points to a 5 pt penalty, is a very tough to call. You could just "play the system" and ram all you want to make 15 points worthless, and only lose 5.

But, staying on track of ramming, on the other hand; I disagree with the penalty by saying that if you are set up to move in autonomous, you are likely to touch certain parts of the field that other robots will touch. Whether or not you get there at the same point is indeed a factor, and uncontrolled in most instances.

I think it is up to the refs to call it as intentional, or unintentional, and that's truly the best way it could be done.

[abeD]

I have a question about ramming...
if two robots both going at high speeds collide is it a ram? why would the defensively minded team be penalized in this case?

I can see where if a robot is sitting somewhere not moving and another robot flies across the field into it full speed as a ram, but in the case of two teams both going full speed colliding into each other, who has the right to the space that two robots are trying to occupy?

[The Lucas]

If the driver team sets the robot up in autonomous mode specifically to hit another robot in a high speed collision, why is this any different than when the the driver team is at the controls.
I think teams should consider autnomously slowing down thier bot before making contact with another bot. In Pittsburgh, my team played a lot of autonomous defense. We have a shifting transmission and we would use HIGH gear to get to the opponent quickly. Then, we would down shift into LOW gear before making contact with our opponent. Just like with a driver-controlled bot, if you slow down before hitting your opponent it is not considered ramming (by most refs Ive ever talked too).

Most programmers could impliment this with a simple timing routine. You should know about how long it takes to drive to the intercept point. Just slow your motors down in code about a second before you get there. If you show concern for the other bot the refs are not likely to penalize you.

[Jack Jones]

I have a question about ramming...
if two robots both going at high speeds collide is it a ram? why would the defensively minded team be penalized in this case?
...
I’ll answer your question with a few of my own…

If a Patriot missile hits a Scud, is there not an explosion?

Was that Patriot launched to intercept the other missile, or simply to get to the other side of town?

Was that Patriot traveling at such a rate for you to assume that the intent was to damage or destroy the target?

The Patriot was just doing what it designed to do. All is fair in love and war! OTOH, claims that there is no right of way are an attempt to rationalize a way around <G22>, which says in no uncertain terms that NOT ALL is fair in FIRST!

[Tristan Lall]

In my example, the Patriot was just doing what it designed to do. All is fair in love and war! Claims that there is no right of way, or that robots moving at a high rate of speed toward the sides are looking to "occupy space", are an attempt to rationalize a way around <G22>, which says in no uncertain terms that NOT ALL is fair in FIRST!I'm not sure that this analogy sufficiently describes the situation with <G22>. After all, what is a Patriot, but a surface-to-air missile? It exists to intercept missiles and aircraft, and by all accounts, does a reasonably good job of communicating its intent.

A robot, on the other hand, could be designed to intercept another robot, but alternatively, might legitmately be designed to get to the other side of the field quickly (and maybe do something once it gets there). There's no question (in my mind) that a strategy aimed solely at the destruction of robots is illegal—that's what the rule says. But what of a strategy aimed at doing something else, which might, as a side effect, cause a robot to be damaged? For example, let's say that I want to position myself six feet from the base of the ramp, so that my operator can shoot balls in the first period; if I go there quickly during autonomous mode, and by coincidence, another robot hopes to occupy that space, there might be a collision. The net result is high-speed, long-distance ramming, and yet, the intent to destroy wasn't necessarily there; only the knowledge that a collison might reasonably occur. <G22> doesn't preclude strategies for which the intent is unclear—it only bans strategies solely aimed at carnage. It restricts other damaging actions at the discretion of the referee, which means that teams might reasonably expect their strategy to be legal in theory, but still subject to its consequences in a given match.

Basically, unless the referee can say with great certainty that the sole intent was to damage, destroy, tip or entangle (we're talking chainsaws, shotguns, and gladiator nets, here), a strategy is not illegal unless the consequences are deemed inappropriate. I can, legally (if maybe not ethically) make the full-speed charge, knowing full well that anything that gets in the way is probably going to suffer damage. But as long as my intent is unclear (so that "sole intent" is not established), the referees have to evaluate the damage suffered, and not the fact that my strategy was not very courteous.

Worse still, though the sole intent to destroy, etc. strategies are banned, there is no penalty specified. (No, I'm not crazy. Read <G22> carefully.) Only in cases of robot-to-robot contact are penalties described (5 pts. or disqualification). So if I make a 15 fps charge at the starting location of another robot, with reasonably clear intent to flatten it, and the robot gracefully eludes it, it's a case of no harm, no foul. It's like a Patriot missile trying to intercept an airliner, except that if it misses (by sheer dumb luck), there's no declaration of war.