Drive-over penalties still being called

[jspatz1]

The refs at Wisconsin evidently didn't get the memo on Update 16 removing the penalty for inadvertantly driving over the ball. They are still calling this penalty, and it is effecting match outcomes. Can anyone report if this is this happening at any other week 2 regional?

[Dave Flowerday]

The refs at Wisconsin evidently didn't get the memo on Update 16 removing the penalty for inadvertantly driving over the ball. They are still calling this penalty, and it is effecting match outcomes. Can anyone report if this is this happening at any other week 2 regional?
I'd like to know what's going on with this too. On the webcast, 4 or more teams in every single match are being shown with yellow cards. That's just silly, and it's a turnoff for spectators.

[Nathan Streeter]

I didn't see what these penalties were called against, but teams can still get penalized for driving onto a ball! If the event is either intentional or if the robot procedes to score, cross zones, kick or possess another ball, or engage with another robot, the team earns a penalty. The exact wording is in the rules, but it is essentially to that effect. So, although I'm expecting this to reduce the penalties resulting from this rule (at least for teams that drop whatever they're doing and get off the ball!), I don't think it'll eliminate these penalties!

[jspatz1]

Certainly there are still cases where the penalty applies. As I mentioned, the calls I was refering to are being made for the slightest, momentary roll-over on balls, just as they were in week 1.

[jamie_1930]

Don't talk to us go tell your ref, wave the update in his or her face, and tell them to do their job. Sorry if that last part comes of as rude to anyone, but that is unexcusable.

[ttldomination]

These calls are being made for the slightest, momentary roll-over on balls, just as they were in week 1.

Ask the head ref. If he/she doesn't know about the update, then you'll be doing everyone a favor. If he/she does, then maybe there's a second side to these calls.

Don't talk to us go tell your ref, wave the update in his or her face, and tell them to do their job. Sorry if that last part comes of as rude to anyone, but that is unexcusable.

Hahaha, there's always two sides to the story, so I wanna hear the other side before I recommend waving the update in the referee's face. :P

[kmitchell]

This is what the referee question box is for. Have a member of your drive team go stand in it after the next match your team is in that has this call. Have them take a copy of the update with them. In the end you need an answer from the head referee.

[Mike Soukup]

This is what the referee question box is for. Have a member of your drive team go stand in it after the next match your team is in that has this call. Have them take a copy of the update with them. In the end you need an answer from the head referee.
Our student representative did just that, but the ref isn't budging. Hopefully he'll get straightened out by FIRST tonight.

[Tanner]

Our student representative did just that, but the ref isn't budging. Hopefully he'll get straightened out by FIRST tonight.

Did the referee give a reason or anything?

-Tanner

[Mike Soukup]

Did the referee give a reason or anything?

-Tanner

No reason. He didn't see the play, but said he trusts the ref that made the call.

The full description of the incident. We were on the far side of the field and were about to climb the bump. The drivers didn't see a ball on the plywood and started to ride up it. They immediately backed up & off the ball, then crossed over the bump. We got a penalty plus a DQ for a second infraction.

[Drivencrazy]

Yeah I watched parts of about 6 different regional webcasts today and I saw more yellow cards than I did in week one.

The matches that I listened to that had penalties were still almost all infractions of G46.

The following is the new wording of the rule and in my opinion alot of these incidents would be considered non-penalties under this rule.

"<G46> BALL Penetration Restriction – The BALL must not extend more than 3 inches inside the FRAME PERIMETER as defined in Rule <R19>. Incidental protrusions of the BALL within this boundary will not be penalized if the TEAM corrects the condition before resuming game play. Violation: PENALTY for a basic infraction, plus a YELLOW CARD if no immediate attempt to remedy and/or the action is deemed intentional."

Hopefully we see refs begin to follow the update in the qualifying matches and into the elims tomorrow.

Good luck.

[Wayne Doenges]

My advice, FWIW, is DON'T DRIVE OVER THE BALLS!!!!

[alicen]

Don't talk to us go tell your ref, wave the update in his or her face, and tell them to do their job. Sorry if that last part comes of as rude to anyone, but that is unexcusable.

"tell them to do their job" is a rude thing to say. all of these refs are volunteers. i know a lot of people get caught up in the heat of things, but these refs have lives outside of FIRST.

per say, my mom's a head ref. while at our regional i was talking with another team and they started bashing the refs. after telling them one was my mother they all felt horrible.

it really shouldn't matter though, the refs can't be expected to be absolutely perfect, and the best way to get things fixed is to approach in a kind and forgiving manner.

i'm not trying to say that the refs are right, i'm just saying show some GP. that's what we're really here to do

[jspatz1]

No reason. He didn't see the play, but said he trusts the ref that made the call.

The full description of the incident. We were on the far side of the field and were about to climb the bump. The drivers didn't see a ball on the plywood and started to ride up it. They immediately backed up & off the ball, then crossed over the bump. We got a penalty plus a DQ for a second infraction.

This was just one of many such calls I saw today at Wisconsin. Incidental, unintentional momentary roll-overs away from the goals and away from other robots being called. Definitely with week-1, pre-update standards. No one is bashing the refs. Just wondering if word got out to them about the update because of the number of questionable calls. My main question in the original post was if anyone was seeing this happen at other regionals, or if the update seemed to be followed elsewhere.

[Vikesrock]

No reason. He didn't see the play, but said he trusts the ref that made the call.

The full description of the incident. We were on the far side of the field and were about to climb the bump. The drivers didn't see a ball on the plywood and started to ride up it. They immediately backed up & off the ball, then crossed over the bump. We got a penalty plus a DQ for a second infraction.

That play was shown clearly on the webcast and the 111 drivers definitely did immediately back down off the ball, then clear the ball before crossing the bump. After Update 16 there should have been no penalty and even before Update 16 there should not have been a yellow card.

If anything this rule is being called more strictly at Wisconsin than at any event than was webcast last week. From what I can tell they were giving a yellow card for every infraction, even before the update a yellow card should only be given if no immediate attempt is made to fix the incursion.

EDIT:
Jeff,

From what I saw (which was quite a few matches from Florida, WPI, Pittsburgh and Arizona) it appeared that there were a lot less ball incursion violations being called at these events compared to week 1 events.

[JHSmentor]

My advice, FWIW, is DON'T DRIVE OVER THE BALLS!!!!

You're kidding right? I mean - why didn't we think of that! Jeash - it's so obvious now.

[jamie_1930]

"tell them to do their job" is a rude thing to say. all of these refs are volunteers. i know a lot of people get caught up in the heat of things, but these refs have lives outside of FIRST.

per say, my mom's a head ref. while at our regional i was talking with another team and they started bashing the refs. after telling them one was my mother they all felt horrible.

it really shouldn't matter though, the refs can't be expected to be absolutely perfect, and the best way to get things fixed is to approach in a kind and forgiving manner.

i'm not trying to say that the refs are right, i'm just saying show some GP. that's what we're really here to do

I still see nothing wrong with what I stated and feel it is fully in line with FIRST's policy of Gracious Professionalism. I understand that to others, especially someone within your situation, may find this a rude way of putting it, but in all honesty it is more blunt than rude. I thank all of the volunteers for all of their work on those days because it makes what we do possible, but on the other side of things, what about us. We students have worked tirelessly and obsessively for the past 6 weeks, and for many of us we have read the rule book over several times and have kept up with the updates on a daily basis. So when competition day comes and a ref makes an inaccurate call it undermines the work of all those students and makes the game unfair to those teams. I feel it is more than fair for those of us in FIRST who continue to follow the virtues of Gracious Professionalism to ask the same of our volunteers, and part of being Graciously Professional is knowing what your job is and how to perform the duties of it accurately.

[Jimmy Cao]

I actually see this as necessary in cases.

At Cass Tech District, I dare say that 30/40 teams would have been called for G46s under the old G46. However, the rule change made it so that many of these teams, some of which were repeat offenders (2-3 times in a "good" match), had no incentive to actually fix the problem.

I will say that the referees were good at calling the penalty often times when a team played defense with a trapped ball. However, in my opinion, a robot that drives over a ball 95% of the time when driving forwards with a ball in front of it needs to be fixed, but the rules permit teams to play otherwise.

Just my $.02.

[Vikesrock]

I will say that the referees were good at calling the penalty often times when a team played defense with a trapped ball. However, in my opinion, a robot that drives over a ball 95% of the time when driving forwards with a ball in front of it needs to be fixed, but the rules permit teams to play otherwise.

Just my $.02.

While I agree that penalties for these teams may be a good incentive to fix their issues, in my opinion they already have an incentive. If you must immediately correct the incursion you will spend valuable match time getting balls out from under your machine if it runs over balls frequently.

[Molten]

You're kidding right? I mean - why didn't we think of that! Jeash - it's so obvious now.

If everyone had thought about it when designing their robot...this wouldn't be such a common a problem. Sorry to say, but I think the blame of this issue is 50/50. Just cause the GDC went lax, try to still make your robot ball resistant. I have to agree with Wayne on this one.

[jamie_1930]

I actually see this as necessary in cases.

At Cass Tech District, I dare say that 30/40 teams would have been called for G46s under the old G46. However, the rule change made it so that many of these teams, some of which were repeat offenders (2-3 times in a "good" match), had no incentive to actually fix the problem.

I will say that the referees were good at calling the penalty often times when a team played defense with a trapped ball. However, in my opinion, a robot that drives over a ball 95% of the time when driving forwards with a ball in front of it needs to be fixed, but the rules permit teams to play otherwise.

Just my $.02.

There is no time in which this is necessary or acceptable. A referee must know, thoroughly, all of the rules and any updates or changes that have been made to them, and make their calls according to these rules. In the case in which you have presented the situation is different though, according to update 16

<G46> BALL Penetration Restriction – The BALL must not extend more than 3 inches inside the FRAME PERIMETER as defined in Rule <R19>. Incidental protrusions of the BALL within this boundary will not be penalized if the TEAM corrects the condition before resuming game play. Violation: PENALTY for a basic infraction, plus a YELLOW CARD if no immediate attempt to remedy and/or the action is deemed intentional.

meaning that if as you say a robot is continuing to play defense once a ball has entered it's frame perimeter more than 3 inches then it constitutes a penalty, the incentive comes from the fact that by not correcting the problem before you continue to play the game still calls for a penalty. The problem is uninformed officials making decisions based on an outdated set of rules, unrelated to the case you have shown.

[the programmer]

while i do think this should be corrected, i also think that we should use GP when asking the refs to follow the update, i also think that if they're still calling it we just have to be careful to not get a ball stuck under us

[paragon571]

yea so in our reginal at wpi only one team got a yellow card for flipping over a robot and our team got doubled penalty for crossing the line our first match

[alicen]

I still see nothing wrong with what I stated and feel it is fully in line with FIRST's policy of Gracious Professionalism. I understand that to others, especially someone within your situation, may find this a rude way of putting it, but in all honesty it is more blunt than rude. I thank all of the volunteers for all of their work on those days because it makes what we do possible, but on the other side of things, what about us. We students have worked tirelessly and obsessively for the past 6 weeks, and for many of us we have read the rule book over several times and have kept up with the updates on a daily basis. So when competition day comes and a ref makes an inaccurate call it undermines the work of all those students and makes the game unfair to those teams. I feel it is more than fair for those of us in FIRST who continue to follow the virtues of Gracious Professionalism to ask the same of our volunteers, and part of being Graciously Professional is knowing what your job is and how to perform the duties of it accurately.

i'm a student too, and i know what students go through, so i'm not trying to speak from a totally clueless position here.
but, what i don't believe you see is that the refs also spend a difficult six weeks refining the rules, discussing how to call them and arguing over FAQ questions. i can't tell you how many times my mom (head ref) or my dad (scorekeeper) would say, "we've gotta hurry up with dinner i have a ref/scorekeepers conference call at 8"
so despite what you might think about them not "doing their job" there's a lot that you are not aware of. the refs also read the rule book over and over, some even make tests for their non head refs to take so that they know all the rules!

anyway, i'm just saying you shouldn't throw something in somebody's face, no matter who they are or what they do, just because you're a little angry they had a lapse in judgment.

and a last point to make; if you really think the refs aren't doing a good enough job, then maybe try out what they're doing and see how difficult it is to watch 6 separate robots and get every call spot on :rolleyes:

[BJC]

anyway, i'm just saying you shouldn't throw something in somebody's face, no matter who they are or what they do, just because you're a little angry they had a lapse in judgment.

and a last point to make; if you really think the refs aren't doing a good enough job, then maybe try out what they're doing and see how difficult it is to watch 6 separate robots and get every call spot on :rolleyes:

Agreed.

I would sugest getting togeather some other teams and aproching the head ref in a professional manner in the morning. That way he will be able to correct the error before the matches begin and it will be fairer for everyone. Besides, if you tell him after the matches begin, he will be reluctant to change simply because it would mean that some of the matches were played by different rules putting the teams with earlier matches at a disadvantage (especially when this year penalties make such a difference).

my 2 cents.

[Chris is me]

From what I saw (which was quite a few matches from Florida, WPI, Pittsburgh and Arizona) it appeared that there were a lot less ball incursion violations being called at these events compared to week 1 events.

I have yet to see a penalty for WPI ball incursion. On the off chance it happens, it's corrected immediately by the driver and no one flags it.

I'd be really pissed if this happened to me, and being told "my ref made the correct call" despite quoting a rule that directly contradicts them that costs you QP.

[CraigHickman]

Part of Gracious Professionalism is the Professional bit. Doesn't matter if you're a volunteer or a staff member, a failure of this level in the real world would result in getting fired.

I sure hope they don't give out any penalties during week three, or the SVR refs will NOT like the lashback.

[golddragon24]

I talked with Mike, one of the referees late Thursday night. (I think. It could have been early this morning.) He said that a question had been raised concerning the interpretation of a word in the new rules. He was unsure of what the exact word was, but I believe it was the word "incidental." Specifically, their question was whether an situation where a team, for example, drives over a ball while trying to control it, is incidental, or if that counts as the teams fault. If a team could have reasonably avoided the penalty, is it incidental?

I definitely agree that there are a lot of penalties being called that are definitely incidental, and are completely random chance. It is nice to know the refs point of view though.

[Akash Rastogi]

Don't talk to us go tell your ref, wave the update in his or her face, and tell them to do their job. Sorry if that last part comes of as rude to anyone, but that is unexcusable.

You don't wave jack s*** in front of a refs face. You politely approach them the next morning before the next matches start and ask them what the rulings were based upon. Follow the correct procedure as Mike and WildStang did.

If the ref knows he/she is at fault, he/she will apologize and correct the situation accordingly.

Craig and Jamie, I'd love to see you do a job perfectly 100% of the time.

[Molten]

Doesn't matter if you're a volunteer or a staff member, a failure of this level in the real world would result in getting fired.

Simply not true. It happens every day and people still keep their jobs.

[jspatz1]

I talked with Mike, one of the referees late Thursday night. (I think. It could have been early this morning.) He said that a question had been raised concerning the interpretation of a word in the new rules. He was unsure of what the exact word was, but I believe it was the word "incidental." Specifically, their question was whether an situation where a team, for example, drives over a ball while trying to control it, is incidental, or if that counts as the teams fault. If a team could have reasonably avoided the penalty, is it incidental?

I definitely agree that there are a lot of penalties being called that are definitely incidental, and are completely random chance. It is nice to know the refs point of view though.

The rule update doesn't say anything about who's "fault" it is or if it might have been avoided. It says it is only a penalty if it is intentional, or if the driver does not clear the ball before proceeding with game play. It is pretty clear to any reasonable reader that the GDC's intent was to eliminate drive-over calls unless they were clearly intentional or were used as a tactic in playing the game. Splitting hairs about the meaning of the word "incidental" is just lawyering the update, as we are often told not to do. Referees should be looking for the obvious spirit of the rule, just as the students are asked to do.

[Raul]

First thing I want to say is: I miss Lunacy where penalties were rare and matches were not decided by the refs. G46 reminds me of the cross the line in reverse penalty in 2008.

Secondly, when was the last time there were 15 occasions of DQ's in the first day of a regional and some much higher number (not sure how many) of yellow cards? Does that tell you something?

I agree that refs deserve some love. It is a tough job, especially when the GDC makes a game like this that has the potential for so many penalties. However, it is the ref's responsibility as a volunteer to know the rules well. Just because they are volunteering, does not mean they should be allowed to be negligent in their duties.

Hey folks, keep in mind, we are not disputing a judgement call here. We are talking about the interpretation of update 16.

I am hopeful that the head ref met with FIRST officials tonight and got clarification.

For those of you out there who are just saying - don't run over a ball. Have you played yet? Do you know how difficult it is to not ride up on a ball when it goes against the bump and you do not even know it is there and you give full throttle to get over the bump? Try it. Unless your robot has no opening at all to let the ball in for kicking, it is very difficult.

[Dr Theta]

One thing I did not like about this most recent update is some of the amendments to the 3" incursion rule. While it outwardly appears to alleviate a lot of the problems of putting a match in the hands of the refs I fear that it has also potentially removed a rule that should have been an important part of teams design decisions. I can understand how this change is intended to remove cases such as team 111's misfortunes in which case the incursion is resultant of an truly 'incidental' occurrence and not indicative of a design flaw. But when teams are having the ball beneath their robot 2 or more times a match consistently there is a problem. Occasional occurrences like 111's are fine but consistent and repeated problems with this rule with numerous incursions without extenuating circumstances demonstrate a design flaw that does not truly fit in with the way this game was intended to be played.

So where do the refs draw the line as to what is truly incidental and caused by circumstance, and what constitutes a penalty where the incursion was not "incidental"? I think it is still a judgement call and one that will have to be made by the refs. I think it is up to the refs to define "incidental" in this case and they need to stick with that decision once it's been made. It is in their hands for this wording of the rule as much as it was for the original. It is their definition that decides whether there are zero penalties for "non-incidental" incursions or many. I would rather see this rule enforced and have a few casualties than see it made ineffectual by having no calls, as this was supposed to be a major part of the design process that many overlooked, but so long as the judgement is consistent throughout the regional I feel they are doing their job.

Just my $.02

[Dr Theta]

I would like to say that I do recognize that my perspective is one of a mentor for a team attending only one regional, and that I only has to worry about operating within the parameters set for that particular regional. I do not have the experience to determine the effects of differences in calls between to different regionals, and may overlook that.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Everyone,
Those of you that are thinking that robots should be designed to prevent ball incursion, please be aware that Inspectors are checking for this during the inspection process. Every robot is looked over for ball incursion and in Wisconsin the Lead Inspector had some very nice ball check templates made for the inspection process. If you check the Inspection Checklist Rec C, you will find this item just under the bumper check on the first page as it relates to R19 of the robot rules. If you have not attended a regional at this point, expect to be required to comply with this rule at your events.

[Dave Flowerday]

Wow, announcement by the head ref at the start of competition at Wisconsin - he said he got straightened out by people back at FIRST and apologized for calling it wrong all day yesterday. Also indicated that some scores from yesterday will be revised.

I'm surprised and impressed.

[Rich Kressly]

For those of you out there who are just saying - don't run over a ball. Have you played yet? Do you know how difficult it is to not ride up on a ball when it goes against the bump and you do not even know it is there and you give full throttle to get over the bump? Try it. Unless your robot has no opening at all to let the ball in for kicking, it is very difficult.

Amen. In week one we saw the exact same scenario as did many other teams - regardless of some major design differences. Here's to hoping this gets ironed out. I appreciate the way 111 is handling a tough situation, but I'm wondering if the refs shouldn't get an opportunity to drive robots on practice day and play the game (alright, this'll never happen, but I think it might be a real eye opener to some). :-)

[jspatz1]

Wow, announcement by the head ref at the start of competition at Wisconsin - he said he got straightened out by people back at FIRST and apologized for calling it wrong all day yesterday. Also indicated that some scores from yesterday will be revised.

I'm surprised and impressed.

Holy cow. That's impressive.

I have to disagree with the idea that repeated roll-overs are a "problem" that the refs must "draw the line" at and somehow address. Unintentional roll-overs are not a problem for anyone except the team that it happens to, and their alliance partners. It is a design flaw that greatly hampers your ability to play the game and probably your chances for success, and is somewhat of a penalty in and of itself. I can't think of a downside effect it has on anyone else or the game. I think the GDC got it exactly right when they gave it the treatment that it has in update 16.

I also wanted to make it clear that my team is not at the Wisconsin event. The original post was merely an observation, and asked if the same thing was being seen at other events.

[JHSmentor]

If everyone had thought about it when designing their robot...this wouldn't be such a common a problem. Sorry to say, but I think the blame of this issue is 50/50. Just cause the GDC went lax, try to still make your robot ball resistant. I have to agree with Wayne on this one.

you honestly believe that teams that are incuring this penalty didn't TRY to design their robot in such a way as to keep the ball out? I dare say that EVERY robot was designed with that in mind. I saw robots that really should have no business getting a ball under them (very low, 6-8 wheels on the sides or sides that nearly go to the ground, not even capable or trying to go over the bump, small kicker in front or a mechanism in front that blocks the entire area) being pushed on (we were pushed over 3 at one time and were penalized), landing on, and driving over the ball and being penalized. Sure there are robots that are more open under them than others - that's a consequence of trying to go over the bump and also trying to have a kicker mechanism but EVERY robot I have seen is making an attempt at protecting themseves from this rule.

It's also one thing to drive over the ball and quite another to get one stuck under the robot or inside the robot and not be able to dislodge it. while I understand being penalized for the later case (and, yes, this is a design issue in most cases), being penalized for landing on or driving over and being pushed over a ball is rediculous and unavoidable. Unless, of course, you just avoid the balls all together - which is like avoiding the game all together.

[texarkana]

omg what the heck is going on in wisconsin. yesterday they were so trigger-happy calling everything they could think of including those wrong incursion calls. today they won't call anything even the worst penalties. i just watched two separate times where a robot PUSHED ANOTHER OVER THE BUMP AND TIPPED THEM OVER ON THE BUMP (one was 2062 in match 80), directly in front of the head ref and he did not call either one. so much work by so many people ruined by refs that don't know the rules.

[Molten]

you honestly believe that teams that are incuring this penalty didn't TRY to design their robot in such a way as to keep the ball out? I dare say that EVERY robot was designed with that in mind.

My point was, in a dysfunctional relationship...the blame is always on both. You can't throw all of this on FIRST when it is a part of the challenge.

[Josh Fox]

omg what the heck is going on in wisconsin. yesterday they were so trigger-happy calling everything they could think of including those wrong incursion calls. today they won't call anything even the worst penalties. i just watched two separate times where a robot PUSHED ANOTHER OVER THE BUMP AND TIPPED THEM OVER ON THE BUMP (one was 2062 in match 80), directly in front of the head ref and he did not call either one. so much work by so many people ruined by refs that don't know the rules.

Though I can't cite any rule, and therefore this is just an opinion that means nothing in the grand scheme of things, I don't believe this is a penalty.

Unless 2062's sole strategy in any given match is to push someone up against a bump and tip them I don't know of a ruling against it, since only strategies "specifically targeted at tipping an opponent" or something along those lines is deemed illegal by this year's manual. IIRC of course.

[fuzzy1718]

In our last match at Cass Tech we got rammed and tipped over. When our team mate came to flip us back over, we landed on a ball and it got stuck underneath us. Our driver then spent the next 30 seconds or so trying to get it unstuck, doing nothing else but driving in circles. In the end we ended up with 5 or 6 penalties for this event. Is this a good call by the refs based on the rule?

[jamie_1930]

In our last match at Cass Tech we got rammed and tipped over. When our team mate came to flip us back over, we landed on a ball and it got stuck underneath us. Our driver then spent the next 30 seconds or so trying to get it unstuck, doing nothing else but driving in circles. In the end we ended up with 5 or 6 penalties for this event. Is this a good call by the refs based on the rule?

From the information you presented no penalties should have been assigned. Although I would want to see the match in order to be completely sure of this, you said that the drive did nothing, but try to get the ball out from underneath, but this may not be the case depending on the specifics. For instance if there were other robots in the area it would be likely that in the process of trying to get the ball out he, or she, unintentionally interfered with the opposing alliance which would constitute a penalty.

[ahecht]

At the WPI regional, there was not a single yellow card issued for ball-related penalties. There were penalty points for the "basic infraction" in about 1/3 of matches, but these were only in situations where a team kept playing without attempting to free the stuck ball.

As to the one yellow card issued at WPI, that was a situation where two teams collided and one ended on on its side, and then the upright robot backed up and rammed the tipped robot at full speed, pushing it onto its back. There was also a red card issued to a team for the similar issue -- two robots collided and one was tipped on its side, and after the collision the upright bot rammed the bottom of the tipped bot an additional 4 times. However, those were the only two cards issued the entire tournament.

[zbanks]

To reiterate what (few) others have pointed out, it's surprisingly easy to get balls stuck underneath the robot. At one point, we had a bar going across the front of the robot about 4-5" off the ground. Yet, when we drove into a ball in the middle of the field, our robot ended up going over the ball instead of pushing it.

Thankfully, at WPI, the refs kept the spirit of the rule, and seemed to only penalize teams who then tried to score/move the ball.


And to repeat what ahecht said, there weren't many cards issued at WPI either. Our robot was the one tipped/rammed in the red card instance. From my (completely biased) perspective, I think the red card was justly deployed. Of course, I don't know if it was an issue with the other team's robot that unintentionally caused the repeated contact, but it did cause substantial damage to our drive system.

The one thing that really irked me with the red card, though, was that it happened in the 2nd-to-last match on Saturday. So, the team only lost out on 10 seeding points, and ended up in 9th seed (eventually becoming 7th? seed) instead of 6th.

Although this is just enough in our case, I feel that red cards should really represent huge weight. I don't think it will ever be an issue again this year, but in the future, it might be worth it for the GDC to modify the rules to provide *some* sort of carry-over to the elimination rounds.


Take everything I say with a grain of salt, clearly I'm quite biased! :P

[Tom Line]

From the information you presented no penalties should have been assigned. Although I would want to see the match in order to be completely sure of this, you said that the drive did nothing, but try to get the ball out from underneath, but this may not be the case depending on the specifics. For instance if there were other robots in the area it would be likely that in the process of trying to get the ball out he, or she, unintentionally interfered with the opposing alliance which would constitute a penalty.

Unfortunately, during the incident, our driver contacted another ball while driving to get the first from out from under us. That is what the penalties ended up being called for - because we were possessing one ball and interacting with another.

In the end, it was a judgement call by the ref. Not a big deal, just a very unlucky break for us.

[ttldomination]

In one of the matches I got to see, 1319 was parked on top of a ball for a good 13 seconds. They were trying to get it out, and the penalty was never officially
called.

Other than that, there are VERY few "under the robot" being called. The ones that are being called are being called for robots that sit there and pretend like they don't have anything under them.

[tanmaker]

As a ref in Oklahoma, I would like to shed some light on what is going on, in our regional at least.

Throughout Thursday and Friday morning, we called penalties based on what the Head Refs had decided during their conference call. They had said that if a ball penetrated for just a second, then rolled back out, no penalty would be called. If the ball was stuck for more than 2 or 3 seconds, we would call a penalty. But if the robot continued playing the game, a penalty, plus a yellow card would be assessed.

After discussions during our lunch, we went back over this rule, after I pointed out that one user on the webcast was more than upset by the way we were calling it. We then decided that if a ball went under a robot, they had 10 seconds to dislodge it. We feel that 10 seconds is more than enough to fix the problem. After that, we call a penalty. However, if the robot tries "playing the game", we will call a penalty and a yellow card, no matter how long it is stuck under.

I hope that provided some insight. I'll do my best to answer any other questions about rulings on the field.

EDIT: As of the drivers meeting this morning, we will not call the penalty if it looks as if the robot is actively trying to remove the ball. I personally believe that this is much more in the spirit of the rule, and glad we made this change. I know teams will be upset if we call this penalty, but keep in mind we don't know exactly what you're trying to do with the robot. We base it off how the situation looks to us.

[TubaMorg]

It is pretty nice of you to clarify how you are planning on making the calls. I would think, however, that you would want to make the call in accordance with the rules. If for some reason a ball gets stuck under their robot and they spend the entire match trying to remove it without actually engaging in game play, why penalize them? Which rule are they breaking?

<G46> BALL Penetration Restriction – The BALL must not extend more than 3 inches inside the FRAME PERIMETER as defined in Rule <R19>. Incidental protrusions of the BALL within this boundary will not be penalized if the TEAM corrects the condition before resuming game play. Violation: PENALTY for a basic infraction, plus a YELLOW CARD if no immediate attempt to remedy and/or the action is deemed intentional.

A BALL trapped under a ROBOT, intentionally or unintentionally, will be considered POSSESSED until it is dislodged from the ROBOT. Teams are encouraged to design and drive with this in mind. Note that this does not alleviate the inspection requirements for 3 inch intrusion.
Examples of game play include, but are not limited to, actively engaging with another ROBOT, navigating toward a GOAL, controlling the position or direction of another BALL (e.g. kicking or herding), and changing regions (crossing a BUMP or under a TOWER).

[tanmaker]

It is pretty nice of you to clarify how you are planning on making the calls. I would think, however, that you would want to make the call in accordance with the rules. If for some reason a ball gets stuck under their robot and they spend the entire match trying to remove it without actually engaging in game play, why penalize them? Which rule are they breaking?

Please see the edit to my previous post.

[TubaMorg]

Please see the edit to my previous post.

I heartily endorse the adjustment :)