Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

I just made a thread for this very topic not 5 hours ago:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=124434

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

I think it's a way of ensuring that you keep your partners off of your opponents' ball.

If your own is stuck, you declare dead ball, the ball is dead, assists are reset, and you get a new ball--and to be clarified, you might get goal points from it if it comes free.

If your opponents' is stuck in you, you get 100 points in fouls, possibility of an alliance red card...AND they get a fresh cycle! Translation, if you know a partner has a tendency to chase and possess the wrong ball, keep them far, far away from the opponents' ball, by using the E-stop if you have to!

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

Am I the only one who let out a hearty laugh when reading this?

Also, I wonder if you can get Catch points if you got it after it was shaken off the truss?

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

Can't get Catch points if you don't get Truss points--and if it's a Shake instead of a Truss, no Truss points are awarded.

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

So...sounds like we would all be better off designing our robots so they CAN'T catch. Too big a risk for infrequent 10 pt gain verses risk of 100 pt penalty or worse? I can just see big basket fold outs waiting innocently for their partner to lob their ball over the truss and their opponents misfire bounces right in. I think the penalty is too extreme for an incidental event like an unintentional catch of your opponents ball...it would seem more fair to allow a no harm clause if the catching robot immediately returns the ball to the opposing alliance.

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

While I do agree that you would want to keep your partner as far away as possible to stop them from incurring such large penalties, you cannot just go around e-stopping teams for stuff like that because one it can damage their robot and two only the team controlling the robot or the FTA has the right to hit a teams e-stop. If it becomes an issue during the match you should discuss it with that team and tell them to stay out of the way for the remainder of the match. If it seems intentional that they are incurring penalties talk to the field officials about it.

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

Agreed. E-stopping (or trying to e-stop) another team's robot seems to me like a nuclear option.

I know teams like to win, but common courtesy is another thing.

That being said, I sincerely doubt anyone would actually do this-- aside from the moral aspect, it may also be a tad difficult to get at your parters' e-stop buttons, considering they aren't in your alliance station.

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

I think in this case (unintentionally catching a ball), you should be just fine - as long as you get rid of it as quickly as physically possible.

That being said, your point is still valid since as the rules are written, you would be carrying an opponents ball and could, in theory, be assessed a technical foul according to G12.

I'd imagine that this would be a fanstastic Driver's Meeting question at each event assuming that the Manual hasn't been upadated by then. I think the head ref would more than likely rule no tech foul - assuming that the catch was unintentional (weird bounce, shot angle is off, etc) and the robot obviously got rid of the ball as quickly as they could.

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

First off I'm not advocating this strategy, I just think FIRST needs to fix a hole they just opened up.

Possessed balls don't count as part of the robot otherwise a lot of robots will break the height restriction and the extension restriction.

That means that an alliance could get a ball "stuck" on the end of their goalie's 6" blocking device and now have a 25" wide blocking device in front of their opponents goal.

This is obviously not in the spirit of the rules but from my interruption of the rules currently legal. Strategic use of the new dead ball rule should be a Red card or technical foul.

Overall FIRST put a very nice solution to a potential big problem in the flow of the game.

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

How is 36 square inches of anything going to hold a ball rigidly enough to deflect another ball? I really, really don't see this happening.

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

This is FIRST. Anything can happen.

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

I have learned not to count a lot of things out in FRC. I didn't think a sub 10 sec climb was possible last year but the Poofs proved that to be incorrect. I can conceive of a strong enough vacuum system that could do this.

It definitely wasn't within the intentions of the GDC to originally allow this and it should be prohibited unless that's how they want the game to be played. The rules shouldn't even allow teams to try it.

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

I think the trade off of not scoring any points is worth a 25" diameter blocking device.

Additionally, does a dead ball score the base amount for being scored through the alliance goals?

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

I saw a video the other day of a team holding a ball with a shop vac. It seemed pretty stable to me, and wouldn't violate the 6" diameter cylinder rule. Also, a 6" diameter cylinder isn't 36 square inches in cross section. That would be the area for a square cross section 6" per side, and as the diagonal of such a square would be longer than 6", it would be illegal per R3. The largest cross section available is about 28 inches, per the area formulae for a circle, pi*r^2.

Re: Team UPDATE - 2014-01-10
 

I feel sorry for the refs.
This is a tough task and will require much interpretation.

Rather than shaking the truss, I'll bet that we see 12' PVC poles on each side of each field. They will become the nets of 2014.