Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Well, it looks like 254/1678's ceiling touching camera poles won't be legal any more under this rule. I wonder how that affects the visibility from the cameras.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Put cameras on poles 3 ft long, attach to ceiling. Problem solved.

EDIT: They also did not enforce that the cameras had to be connected only to the driverstation and driverstation shelf at the madera event this weekend. I saw most teams mounting them to stands on the ground (which to me seems a lot safer than having a pole on a driverstation shelf that is getting rammed by robots all the time). Maybe they will change that rule, too.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

On the bright side, now we aren't limited by our shops ceiling for practice!

-Mike

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Do we think the new height limit applies to the whole driver station, or does it exclude the elements held/worn by the drivers. In other words, can I make a taller camera pole as long as someone is holding it and it is deemed safe?

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Does anyone know the nominal height of the driver station shelf? The manual gives width and depth, but not height for that part... and knowing that height is going to be important for figuring out the max height for cameras, as it's defined "above the floor".

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

FE-00004 shows 34 inches from floor to bottom of shelf.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

The shelf is 34.25" above the floor.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

The driver station rules make sense, and the fixed backup bot rules are a relief.

The clause added to the contact above the midline doesn't really make sense though. Who gets the foul now? Both teams? And what is the intent of this rule?

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

I believe since they purposely added this after the note that the max height is the max height regardless of whether or not a driver is holding it.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

11'8"??? Hmmmm........

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

I guess FIRST was worried about teams not fastening their poles properly and creating a dangerous situation!

Best Regards,
RM

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

I am actually glad the height limit has been implemented.

While we designed our "Eyes in the Sky" to be safe and quick to assemble, I can't say the same for every pole at CVR. Seemed like some teams were making them just because 254/1678 had one, with little consideration to the strategic advantage they may/may not have received. Safety was not always a priority with these rushed assemblies.

To be clear, our set up, which included a 27" screen, secondary 13" screen, and a go-pro on a pole, was completely designed and assembled before the event with safety in mind.

I hope future events will be safer with the new height restrictions in mind.

-Mike

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

So if shockwave won worlds does that mean the maximum height would be 448'8"?

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

I am somewhat disappointed we don't get to see how high they would have ended up being at the Edward Jones Dome.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Why the G13 change? It only makes 2 ball auto more dangerous and really how effective can throwing your one auto boulder at the other alliance be?

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Exactly, I think at that point a view looking down at the roof of the dome wouldn't strategically viable... just a guess...

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

I imagine it would've looked similar to this:
https://youtu.be/oiMaHpT7bvg

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Well it would appear that our periscope will now be modified to be 8'8". Benefits of using a pool slimmer pole is that it allows us to adjust height easily.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Agreed. I can't quite make out why this change was made, or how it really helps anything. The way I read it, both teams going for a center ball would receive a penalty. I don't think there have even been any center-line ball battles yet, so maybe this is a pre-emptive effort to stop something?

The only thing I guess that this could effect would be that teams that have 2 ball autos or 2 ball auto defensive strategies could now be at risk for yellow cards. If that is truly the intent, that really disappoints me because effective autonomous routines are some of the most inspirational things in FRC.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

i believe the change is to call a second foul and give a crossing if a robot captures a midline ball and then contacts a robot with it during a midline crossing. The way it was worded before, a team did not get a second fall/crossing penalty if the contact with a robot was through a ball. It had to be robot to robot contact to get the extra penalties.

Transitive contact is when you contact something through something else... in this case...while holding a ball you contact an opposing robot while your robot is over the midline during auto.

IMO that is the reason for the change.

I wonder how well this would be called if both robots were going for the same ball and they both grabbed it in auto? If both robots were over the midline I assume both would get the same penalty. This would be very difficult to call for the referee.


Evan I think your explantion is better than mine...

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

All they did was fix a loophole. In order for G13 to trigger, your ROBOT still has to enter the midline zone. With the previous wording, if your robot entered the midline zone but only touched another robot through a boulder (and not your ROBOT), technically there were no add-on fouls or additional defense crossings awarded. That is now fixed.

It also incidentally makes boulder wars a lot riskier. Where previously you could maybe stomach taking the foul for a close call at the midline to stop a 2-ball auto, now you're risking a double foul and an automatic auto cross.

Edit: Sniped by Coach :-P

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

This is a good change.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

I don't think boulder wars is the genesis of the G13 change. I am guessing this is more likely the problem:

Two opposing robots line up on each side of a boulder. At the start of Autonomous, One robot drives in the wrong direction, and hits the boulder, which then hits the other robot. The other robot was not going after the boulder, but was going for a cross. The other robot is now knocked off it's path and cannot complete the crossing.

Since the offending robot did not "touch" the other robot, there was not a G13 - Contact of opponent robot foul.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

If refs see it this way I don't have a problem with the rule.

Unfortunately the rule could also be read that fouls can be called if both teams are touching a boulder that is on the middle line, even if neither bot enters the volume above the midline.

Also does a robot still have be in contact with the boulder for the "transitive" contact to be applied? I.E. is it a foul if a team's auto mode messes up and causes a boulder to roll/shoot/whatever in to an opposing alliance bot?

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Assumedly so, as rolling/shooting/whatever would fall under G39

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

This is exactly the change Travis spoke about the very first time I saw him setting up your camera pole.
Whether 11'8" is an optimal solution, it is a solution none the less. I'd say objective achieved!

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

Why is no one talking about this?

How will the alliance colors be decided for playoff matches?

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

I believe this clause was leftover from Recycle Rush and just was not removed. This year alliance colors are being determined as they did prior to 2015. The red alliance is the higher seed provided seeds had held in the bracket.

For example, the winner of 1v8 will be red regardless of who wins the set and plays the winner of 4v5. The winner of that semifinal is red in the finals.

Likewise the winner of 2v7 is red in the semifinals against the winner of 3v6, and the winner of that semifinal is blue in the finals.

Re: Team Update 16 (2016)
 

If neither robot enters the volume of the midline, then G13 has not been broken, plain and simple. The revised description of the consequences for a violation does not effect the basic rule (breaking the mid-line volume).

I can't find the video of it, but I saw this happen at a week 1 event - a red robot drove across the midline and pushed a stationary blue robot several inches transitively through a boulder (no direct robot contact). Only 1 foul was called due to how the rule had been written. I was a ref in week 2, and we discussed this scenario prior. We decided since R13 did not mention transitive contact, we would enforce it the same way as was done in week 1. I'm glad to see the loophole closed, as it preserves the intent of the violation.

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.