Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

I'll be honest, a lot of teams were not just doing this because 254 or 1678 were using overhead cameras on poles. Some teams at the Arizona North Regional were doing it because they specifically knew there was no height restriction. Now that this rule is implemented, a lot can agree the safety is definitely more concerning than the advantage over another.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

As the person who typically files the medical incident reports in the Dome, I am pleased.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

1: Red, Red, Red
2: Red, Red, Blue
3: Red, Blue, Blue
4: Red, Blue, Red
5: Blue, Blue, Red
6: Blue, Blue, Blue
7: Blue, Red, Blue
8: Blue, Red, Red

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Seems the height limit was chosen to be the same as the top of the flag on top of the tower. So, those on the field will have a nice, handy visual reference to know if your camera is too high!

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

We went into semifinals as the 7th seed. Under the old rules, we would have had blue bumpers. We told our partners we will stay in blue and our opponents queued up in red. Then the FTAs told us to switch. Then we cited the rule and we switched. Then they figured out the FMS was operating under the 2014 rules and they could not manually switch us so we switched BACK to red.

We figured out it was one of the many cases where somebody probably copy-pasted 2015 to 2016 and this case did not have a lot of instances where this would have happened until this week. 1v8 and 2v7 will always send a red alliance to semis and 3v6 and 4v5 will always send a blue alliance to semis. 1/8v4/5 will always send red to finals and 2/7v3/6 will always send a blue team to finals, just like in the olden days.

I feel really bad because everyone at the event did their jobs right (our drive coach read the rule to the head ref, the head ref agreed with him, and the FTAs tried to accommodate based on the rules, and field staff communicated the changes as fast as possible) but we all ended up contributing to a loss of about 20 minutes of time (the event still finished on time though, which was AWESOME)

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

What are these flags you speak of? None in sight on the towers at AZ North.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

They're supposed to be up or down based on who's tower it is (or if it's been captured).

Apparently they were a tad late getting out to the fields.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

And a tad broken... the solenoids on ours were tripping circuit breakers.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

I was also a ref in week 2, and this exact thing happened. We asked about it, and got a response of no automatic cross. I guess since it happened (apparently more than once), it caused them to look at it and change the rule to something that more closely matches the intent. A good change, IMO.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

At least they weren't rejected by customs and actually got Arizona. :rolleyes:

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

G13 still needs to be updated to address an ambiguity in the "beyond the midline" portion... As of today, the rules can be read that the additional foul can be applied either:

A) if a portion of a robot crosses to the opposite side of the midline (and then contacts - directly or transitively - an opponent robot), or
B) the additional foul could be applied by a robot (still behind or over the midline) transitively contacting an opponent robot that is beyond the midline.

The difference is essentially whether "beyond the midline" applies to the offending robot or the opponent robot.

I would like to see this updated... it seems that A is the intended scenario, given that B is only possible now that transitive contact was made possible, but it definitely isn't clear from the rules as written.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

In order to have a G13 foul, the robot has to enter the Midline zone. That "entrance" is not transitive via the boulder.

Only when the Midline violation occurs can you then have a transitive violation that adds to the penalty (granting of the crossing).

Note: In a "Boulder War" where neither robot enters the midline zone, there is no G13 Foul. If both robots enter the midline zone, and both are in contact with the Boulder, IMHO, both robots get a G13 Foul with enhanced penalty.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Does G13 mean that if you know a robot attempts to get a ball from the center then you can touch the ball and not let them?

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

We were at Arizona North last week and from that I can honestly say that I am glad this update was made, we saw a team just toss together a 25-30 ft pole that looked like it was about to come crashing down.