Penalties for a part falling off of robot?

[David Brinza]

At the Los Angeles Regional, a number of penalties were issued for damaged robots leaving parts on the field. Even in the finals, a penalty was issued to Team 330 because a chain failed and ended up on the field.

It seems to me that having a part fail and losing capability in a robot is enough of a penalty for an alliance. Isn't tacking on an additional point penalty like pouring salt in a wound?

The intent of <R16> (which can be invoked under <S04>), is to prevent teams from gaining an advantage by expanding outside of the frame perimeter prior to the FINALE period. Having a part of the drive system fail so that it's now left the frame perimeter is hardly an advantage for the team involved.

Is this penalty the norm at other regionals?

[viperred396]

This penalty was called at the Colorado regional too.. when 1619's wheel parts fell off in the quarter finals it was called on them. its all jsut part of the game

[KarenH]

They called it at the Arizona Regional.

Sounds like a lot of laws these days. Some are sensible, some are crazy.

In California, truck drivers are now required to cover their loads. You would think that losing cargo and equipment off trucks would cost the companies so much money that they would have prevented it themselves, without a law being enacted, but apparently not. How many traffic reports say there is a ladder (or some other hazard) lying in the freeway lanes? And the tomato trucks in summer still lose tomatoes on the ramp curves.

But with a robot in competition, losing pieces isn't usually much of a hazard except to the robot. I wonder if FIRST was trying to get teams to build more robust robots (as if teams would intentionally build a weak robot), or if this is just another example of a rule that does not have optimum phrasing.

Or maybe it's part of their attempt to be "green"--the FIRST version of anti-littering laws?

[jblay]

Although I agree that these penalties are ridiculous I think they are necessary because if the rule was changed to "no penalty if the bot goes out of dimensions because of it breaking" what happens if a bots hanger is deployed because something breaks, do they get a penalty or not?

[SpaceOsc]

Don't lose sight of the spirit of the rule, its to avoid purposeful drooping of parts and separation of robots from subsystem designed to provide advantages. if a match changes based on accidental or purposeful change in the terrain of the game field and you lose due to it, it would make sense why there a rule to ensure teams do all they can to not drop parts.

its meant as deterrence rather than punishment.

I wouldn't mind dropping a banana peal or throwing a red turtle shell at other robots, but that's the rules!

[NickE]

Our robot lost a tread in one of our first qualification matches at SVR and we were not penalized.

[David Brinza]

They called it at the Arizona Regional.

<snip>

But with a robot in competition, losing pieces isn't usually much of a hazard except to the robot. I wonder if FIRST was trying to get teams to build more robust robots (as if teams would intentionally build a weak robot), or if this is just another example of a rule that does not have optimum phrasing.

Or maybe it's part of their attempt to be "green"--the FIRST version of anti-littering laws?
<R16> During normal operation no part of the ROBOT shall extend outside the vertical projection of the FRAME PERIMETER, except as permitted by Rule <G30>.
(Emphasis on "normal operation" is mine.)

I think the intent is to prevent robots from having mechanisms that can intentionally extend beyond the FRAME PERIMETER to gain advantage (ball manipulation, impeding robots, etc.). Teams probably would not choose to deflect soccer balls by leaving robot parts on the field.

BTW, I didn't find anything in Q&A regarding this call. Unfortunately, I don't have the energy tonight to ask GDC the question properly. :rolleyes:

[AustinSchuh]

Our robot lost a delrin spacer out of our electronics board one match, and no penalty was called. It sounds like SVR wasn't as picky on the parts detaching from the robot rule.

[waialua359]

I dont think penalties should be called for falling parts.
It was called in all 3 regionals we attended. SD, AZ and HI.
We were called on it twice for our polycarbonate shield coming off the top of our bot. It was 2 of 3 penalties I believe we got this season.
The other was for herding 2 balls at once, which by the way is legal! The head ref admitted later that one member of her team got it wrong, but wouldnt change the score after we challenged it.

Here's my gripe. It was caused by the opponent due to heavy defense from us trying to score soccer balls into goals.
I thought that the opponent couldnt cause you to receive a penalty?:rolleyes:

I'd ask the head ref prior to the starting of matches on what they will call. Its obvious that it depends on the referee team at the respective regional.

Heck

[RRLedford]

We had a match where a pair of pliers fell on the field. This I think SHOULD be a penalty for negligence. I don't think small items falling from bots should be penalties unless they pose a threat to the operation of other bots, ans they are not usually obvious and attributable to a certain bot. In the case of larger items which could flip up and get snagged into the drive trains of other bots, I feel that the penalty is justified. Remember what caused the crash of the Concorde? It was a part that fell onto the runway from an earlier jet's takeoff.

-Dick Ledford

[ttldomination]

Hm...this is interesting.

In a couple of our matches, some the zipties that held on excess surgical tubings snapped off, and they would just drag behind the robot, and in one particular match, one of our chains popped off. We never got penalized for these.

I think it's all about taking a rule based off what its intentions are, or its 100% translation and applying that ruling. Lukily the head ref at Palmetto is awesome, and extremely reasonable.

[Jeffy]

We have had mixed results. AT KC (week 1): I don't remeber this being called ever. At one point we lost 4 meccanum rollers and all the bolts and washers to go with them.
AT OKC (week 4): Teams were getting called for chains, treads, surgical tubing, ect. that were still attached to the robot, but not being called for pieces that completely fell off.

[vhcook]

We have had mixed results. AT KC (week 1): I don't remeber this being called ever. At one point we lost 4 meccanum rollers and all the bolts and washers to go with them.

Actually, it got called on us at KC when we lost a chain in our first (and I think third) match.

Once we got the chains tensioned correctly, it was never a problem for us again, fortunately.

[thefro526]

In New Jersey they were pretty lenient towards broken robots and understood that if a robot breaks and a part is outside of normal configuration it wasn't done on purpose and I don't think any penalties were called.

In Philly we were called for having a piece of aluminum sticking out of our robot after we were involved in a hard impact. The aluminum served no purpose other than to act as a spacer and it was still within the bumper perimeter, but the refs chose to call us on it.

Hopefully the refs will be understanding at the Championship, but if not, I guess it just means that we should all build more robust machines, right?

[Jin Hayashi]

The penalty was called at the Seattle Regional. One alliance lost a semi-final match because a chain failed and was left on the field. Another team was penalized when their bumper came off.

[Jon Stratis]

Although I agree that these penalties are ridiculous I think they are necessary because if the rule was changed to "no penalty if the bot goes out of dimensions because of it breaking" what happens if a bots hanger is deployed because something breaks, do they get a penalty or not?


That happened to us in St. Louis. We were playing midfield, and during autonomous our alliance member kicked a ball right into our hanger - the impact was big enough to cause it to become unlatched, and the gas spring sent the whole thing up... and slightly out of our frame perimeter. Our drive team handled it great, and played a very laid back game that time with no robot-robot interaction. We were not penalized.

[Mike o.]

The other rule that you need to take into consideration that they could be calling as well is <G41>:
<G41> Detaching MECHANISMS - ROBOTS may not intentionally detach parts or leave MECHANISMS on the FIELD. Violation: PENALTY for each incident and potential RED CARD if an intentionally detached COMPONENT or MECHANISM impedes MATCH play.

Bumper covers must not detach, even unintentionally, from the ROBOT. Violation: PENALTY.


I agree though, that teams should not be penalized for their robots breaking and pieces like chains, treads, nuts, bolts, etc. Although for larger pieces and objects on the robot like arms, shields, etc. should warrant an intitial warning and then possibly a penalty in subsequent matches if teams do not fix the problem. Teams should not be prohibited from playing the game because another team did not secure their mechanisms well.

[Emily3204]

Our team got a penalty in the semi-finals when our wheel fell off... quite embarassing actually

[Radical Pi]

In one match we had a side panel completely fall off after a ball got caught between it and the robot (we use velcro). There was no penalty called for it, not sure if the refs gave us a warning. In a few other matches we had our top panel come loose and partially break frame perimiter, however it might have been too slight for the refs to catch.

During a semifinal match we got hit pretty hard and the back panel of our robot clearly broke bumper perimiter for the rest of the match. The refs chose to call us on that one and it cost us the semis (would have been an 8-8 tie, great match). I think I can see how these were called differently, but I think some official word from the GDC would be good before championships

[Dancin103]

I dont think penalties should be called for falling parts.

I agree with this. I do not think this was called at either regional we attended. The penalty of being out of the bumper zone and extending before the twenty seconds was called. I think the penalty, to me, means that if there is a part the robot is dragging around with them that is extending beyond the bumper zone and is continuing to score that is a penalty. For example, this weekend there was a team at the Philly regional whose bumper was falling off and flapping around outside of the bumper zone and they were penalized for that and continuing to score, well it was only a one point penalty. Just my two cents here.

Cass

[Kims Robot]

Did anyone ask about this in the Q&A yet?

It was being called in Boston too, and I don't really get it. Teams aren't intentionally detaching parts to change the game. 229 didnt get penalized when they blew a tread because they hit the estop. But 1100 dropped out I think half their drivetrain in a match with us and got a penalty (even though they appeared to be disabled after that). I wasnt on the field and dont know the specific calls, but at any rate, robots falling apart after being designed and built in 6 weeks shouldnt cause a penalty. No one designs their robots to fall apart, but things break... I cant recall this ever being a penalty in FIRST in the past. Maybe we all need to use the fact that we can all now use duct tape and wrap our robots in duct tape or even saran wrap so they cant drop anything!

[DonRotolo]

As mentioned, NJ was not calling these, but at Virginia these penalties were called often. We never had one though. :)

I don't think it should be a penalty for stuff UNintentionally dropping off the robot; but then again, what is the disincentive for teams to build robots where things don't fall off, even inadvertently?

[kevin.li.rit]

As mentioned, NJ was not calling these, but at Virginia these penalties were called often. We never had one though. :)

I don't think it should be a penalty for stuff UNintentionally dropping off the robot; but then again, what is the disincentive for teams to build robots where things don't fall off, even inadvertently?

Things are going to come loose with all the vibrations and contact but part of the inspection checklist should include a box that says something lik "parts must be reasonably secure."

[fordchrist675]

At the Los Angeles Regional, a number of penalties were issued for damaged robots leaving parts on the field. Even in the finals, a penalty was issued to Team 330 because a chain failed and ended up on the field.

It seems to me that having a part fail and losing capability in a robot is enough of a penalty for an alliance. Isn't tacking on an additional point penalty like pouring salt in a wound?

The intent of <R16> (which can be invoked under <S04>), is to prevent teams from gaining an advantage by expanding outside of the frame perimeter prior to the FINALE period. Having a part of the drive system fail so that it's now left the frame perimeter is hardly an advantage for the team involved.

Is this penalty the norm at other regionals?

At SVR I didn't see it called too many times, It didnt happen in the finals I was a little perplexed by it cause I read the rules as if a part broke, fell, or came off it would result in a penalty.

[David Brinza]

Did anyone ask about this in the Q&A yet?

It was being called in Boston too, and I don't really get it. Teams are intentionally detaching parts to change the game. 229 didnt get penalized when they blew a tread because they hit the estop. But 1100 dropped out I think half their drivetrain in a match with us and got a penalty (even though they appeared to be disabled after that). I wasnt on the field and dont know the specific calls, but at any rate, robots falling apart after being designed and built in 6 weeks shouldnt cause a penalty. No one designs their robots to fall apart, but things break... I cant recall this ever being a penalty in FIRST in the past. Maybe we all need to use the fact that we can all now use duct tape and wrap our robots in duct tape or even saran wrap so they cant drop anything!
Given the inconsistency of penalty calls for loss of robot parts in various regionals, I posted a question in Q&A Section 7. If loss of robot part on the field is deemed a penalty, I asked whether it is still a penalty if the robot was damaged by impact from another robot.

We can go down a slippery slope if a penalty is assessed for making contact with a robot and that robot loses a part.

[Ken Streeter]

AT OKC (week 4): Teams were getting called for chains, treads, surgical tubing, ect. that were still attached to the robot, but not being called for pieces that completely fell off.

What specific rule is being referenced for these penalties? Is G30 the rule that referees are interpreting in this way? It seems to me that the wording of G41 is written such that accidentally / unintentionally detached parts do not incur a penalty, with the exception of the bumper covers.

If referees are calling penalties for accidentally-detached parts, this sets up a judgement call with regard to the size of said parts. How big does the detached part need to be in order to incur a penalty? Is a 1" piece of 80/20 big enough? How about a 0.5" long 1/4-20 bolt? How about a #4-40 nut? How about a tooth chipped off a small plastic gear? What about a small piece (1mm cube) of rubber from a tire tread? How about dust coming off a timing belt that hops occasionally?

I might be mistaken about this, but my impression is that the GDC's intent was not to penalize teams for every accidental occurrence of a part falling off a robot!

Yes, it clearly doesn't make a positive impression on sponsors to have robots regularly falling apart on the field, but this level of penalization seems to go beyond my reading of this year's rules.

[qc1967]

Our robot lost a delrin spacer out of our electronics board one match, and no penalty was called. It sounds like SVR wasn't as picky on the parts detaching from the robot rule.

Hmm, I guess the refs look at each case differently. Our robot had four small motors used to get balls off the walls, and we got penalized when one of them was mounted on loosely to our robot and fell off. Then again, maybe we got penalized because we dragged it for a while before the wires came loose...

[TubaMorg]

No penalty = no incentive to take action to ensure a robust design
penalty = incentive to fix a problem more robustly

Obviously no one builds their robot to explode on impact, but once parts start falling off, a team may decide to "tie wrap it back on" if there were no penalties. Loosing a point or two may make them to explore a more permanent repair.

[DonRotolo]

Obviously no one builds their robot to explode on impact
Team 1902 (http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/team.php?team=1902) notwithstanding :D

[David Brinza]

No penalty = no incentive to take action to ensure a robust design
penalty = incentive to fix a problem more robustly

Obviously no one builds their robot to explode on impact, but once parts start falling off, a team may decide to "tie wrap it back on" if there were no penalties. Loosing a point or two may make them to explore a more permanent repair. I disagree with no penalty = no incentive to ensure a robust design.

Loss of functionality and/or perception by scouts that a team's robot is poorly constructed and unreliable should be the driving incentive for building a robust robot.

I don't believe the GDC intended <G41> or <R16> to apply to cases where mechanical or structural failures have occurred in robots. (We'll need to see the answer in FIRST Q&A to get this resolved).

[Radical Pi]

I don't believe the GDC intended <G41> or <R16> to apply to cases where mechanical or structural failures have occurred in robots. (We'll need to see the answer in FIRST Q&A to get this resolved).

Don't forget G30. We got called on that once (lost us the semis too), and we got a warning about it once or twice (unrelated issue). If any part of the robot, including decorative panels breaks the frame perimeter illegally, I promise you that it is most definitely counted

[kirtar]

Honestly, it's not easy to make an absolute statement about this. As an example, if you drop a single bolt or a nut, I don't know that it should be called. However, if for example (with something that happened to us at Buckeye), the cover of your robot comes off completely or partially, you should at least get a penalty for extending beyond standard configuration. Of course, in the above mentioned case, it also made it so that we weren't elevated because it hung down a lot.

[David Brinza]

Honestly, it's not easy to make an absolute statement about this. As an example, if you drop a single bolt or a nut, I don't know that it should be called. However, if for example (with something that happened to us at Buckeye), the cover of your robot comes off completely or partially, you should at least get a penalty for extending beyond standard configuration. Of course, in the above mentioned case, it also made it so that we weren't elevated because it hung down a lot.
My thoughts about penalties (which might be different than the referees or GDC) revolve around whether an alliance is gaining an advantage by virtue of the infraction.

If your robot extends beyond the frame perimeter and you are able to block shots or prevent an opponent from maneuvering past you - penalty!

If your robot is damaged, breaks off a wheel and can only drive in circles - no penalty!

If an opponent's robot impacts your robot and causes a part to come off, should this be a penalty? If so, WHO should be penalized?

[Zultraranger]

Long Island SBPLI Regional did not enforce that rule. They kept it consistent throughout the competition, robots would lose parts and they were not penalized.

[Rick Wagner]

A referee at LA explained it this way to me: if a part falls completely off a robot, there is no penalty. If a part (like a chain) is dragging outside the frame perimiter, penalty. That makes sense to me.

One team (to remain unnamed) had a bumper fall completely off three times in three different matches and got three penalties for it. The rule in this case is that robots must have bumpers all around.

[David Brinza]

A referee at LA explained it this way to me: if a part falls completely off a robot, there is no penalty. If a part (like a chain) is dragging outside the frame perimiter, penalty. That makes sense to me.

One team (to remain unnamed) had a bumper fall completely off three times in three different matches and got three penalties for it. The rule in this case is that robots must have bumpers all around.I believe the BeachBots were penalized in the last finals match after they lost a chain - it was lying on the field, away from their robot. From what I heard, there was a lack of consistency in the calls at LA. Apparently, there isn't consistent interpretation across all of the events.

[Rick Wagner]

I believe the BeachBots were penalized in the last finals match after they lost a chain - it was lying on the field, away from their robot. From what I heard, there was a lack of consistency in the calls at LA. Apparently, there isn't consistent interpretation across all of the events.

The way I understood the explanation from the referee, if the chain was dragging outside the frame perimeter before it fell completely off, that would be a penalty.

[David Brinza]

The way I understood the explanation from the referee, if the chain was dragging outside the frame perimeter before it fell completely off, that would be a penalty.
Perhaps...but what an "interesting" interpretation of the rules by the referees.

What advantage is gained by dragging a part around the field that should be working in a drive system or manipulator? I don't recall penalties being issued in prior years for having a robot component come off of the robot (unless it was a safety issue). Usually, such failures create such a significant disadvantage for the alliance that adding a penalty would seem unwarranted (or even mean)!

[Sumathi]

I believe it is normal to see this now. We lost points during the final matches because our bumpers were falling off. (frame was broken) At first I began to question why they would penalize us when it was the other robots fault for agressive driving. I finally reasoned what I think FIRST wants us to play by. There was a part in the rules saying that there would be lots of contact so be prepared, therefore we should have been prepared. Because our robot broke down we were not prepared and therefore should be penalized for the broken parts falling out side of the perimeter.

Disclaimer: This is the way I understand it, if you don't agree feel free to elaborate or offer a different view.

[,4lex S.]

Strange, I never remember it being this way. Especially back when we didn't have bumpers :D.

The GDC needs to fix this; it is pretty inevitable, unless your robot is one solid block of aluminum. It should be a judgement call, but I think it should be a much more lenient one. Thrown chain/ Lost Wheel? No penalty. Heavy opponent contact? No penalty. Unable to withstand basic rigorous motion? Penalty.

[Joe Ross]

Given the inconsistency of penalty calls for loss of robot parts in various regionals, I posted a question in Q&A Section 7. If loss of robot part on the field is deemed a penalty, I asked whether it is still a penalty if the robot was damaged by impact from another robot.

Was there a response to this question? I looked and couldn't find it. It seems at this point that the drivers meeting would be the only way to get an answer.

[David Brinza]

Was there a response to this question? I looked and couldn't find it. It seems at this point that the drivers meeting would be the only way to get an answer.I did post the question to Q&A on 3/29 and have yet to see a response. Someone should bring this up in the Driver's Meeting.