Do We have a trend here?
 

The Finals at both PNW and UCF were Deja Vue all over again.


First Match a Tie,
Second One alliance wins,
Third, Other alliance wins,
Fourth and final match determine winner.


This could be a nightmare demolition derby nationals - Best way to win is not be gracious and professional but bully the weaker of your opponents until the the last second and then hang. I really think there should be no ties in the elimination rounds. Best two out of three with highest points, highest qp, highest hanger, closest to the bar, coin flip breaking the tie at the end of 3.

I can just see the finals going until midnight, tie after tie.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

I had realized this, however I had not put it into perspective of what will come of it at Nationals. I can see this highly possible as happening, and having extremely robust machines batling and able to fight till the end, match after match. However, I would think that by match 4, or match 5; soon therafter we would see one of the machines become "exhausted". Although, it would be sad to see, one of the alliances would get to the point, where they would no longer be able to compete due to unworking status.

...... Factors such as the balls and human player abilities will affect the outcomes though after time.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

hmmm.... "demolition derby" eh? could be a very strong possibility. the elims at GLR were very physical... by the end i doubt that any team team made it through eliminations without damaging/breaking their robot. time-outs were very common in the elims, where teams were rushing to get their robots fixed. :ahh:

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

yes, the GLR elim rounds where VERY physical. our robot was banged up pretty bad, and I was quite disaapointed that this was what the other teams did. But o well, we did much better than we could have hope for so great job to all the teams at GLR!!!

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Yeah GLR was brutal (I didnt mean to I swear (sry about the arm HOT)).. I mean I think I broke at least two things just trying to do what I was supolse to. Yeah go Alliance #8! (Bedford, Mach Vee, Chargers!) Well for us a Semi Final finish was great oh and great job to all the other teams there!

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

The time-out idea is odd because one of the reasons for having alliances was to prevent delays by having a backup robot if one broke. It was a little unnerving to see a robot hanging safely and then two seconds later it was lying on its back because a robot lifted it off the bar. That's why you build them strong.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

i think that if you have 3 ties, then they would just see how many points each alliance scored total in that round and that would determine who wins. It probally has something about it in the rule book.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Not to mention knocking out Wildstangs and Rush.... oh and breaking team 1481's arm

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

They did the best average out of 2 matches last year... it was horrible in my opinion. Best of three accounts for one team just having horrible luck in one of their matches... at least more than 2 ;)

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Did teams really get pushed off the bar once they were already hanging?!

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Yeah we can give credit to TNT for that one. The Dana Team with the red robot (the number slips me.. sry guys) was hanging on the bar then TNT hooked came right up underneath them and lifted them up and off the bar. I think that was the only time it happened at GLR but still that was quite the site to see.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Nope, I don't think so. As far as I've seen in the rules, you could tie match after match and it'd keep going till one alliance got two wins.

Cory

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

At the pittsburg regional the top seeded team, 808 was excellent at getting on the bar, and they crashed to the ground in the elimination matches.

Im not sure if the other bot that was pulling itself up snagged them a little on the way up, unhooking their bar, or if they snagged it somehow and added more weight than it could handle - I think their hook straighten out - they were eliminated in that round

Things werent really that rough at pittsburg, but we did get bashed twice in the very last match - our bot was herding balls on our side of the field, and an opponent bot came over and rammed us going quite fast, smashing two of our tri-wheels on one side.

then they rammed us on the other side, smashing those wheels as well

I saw lots of pushing and shoving around the platform and the bar - but that was the first time I saw a team ram a bot that was herding balls.

Will be interesting to see how this continues this year- we sustained about $750 damage in destroyed custom machined PVC wheels in that one match, and was a little surprized that no penalties were called for the incident.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

The fact that a team would smash one side of your wheels sucks, whether it was intentional or not, but to go and do it again to the otherside is just donwright ugly. I really wonder how people can do something like that and then feel good about themselves for it.

Cory

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

well we did learn something cool from the experience - triwheels will rotate around and put a good wheel on the floor when one has been broken - even with 4 of the 6 wheels in our triwheel pair totally smashed, our bot was still able to drag itself towards the corral, and push two more balls in

BTW - we literally lost the last match and missed being regional winner by an inch - our other alliance partner, team 1114 just couldnt quite get up off the floor - they were hook on the bar and just needed a few more seconds - if they had been up we would have won the match.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

I am proud to say that our alliance (492,957,1031) won the PNW Regional in this pattern:

1. Tie
2. Their Victory
3. Our Victory
4. Our Vic...

Ah....I see what you're saying... :D

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

in st louis we had the tie situation. in quaterfinals, it went like this:

1.Red wins
2.Blue wins
3.Tie (blue has 20 more points, but gets 2 penalties :( )
4.Tie (blue has 10 more points, but gets 1 penalty :( )
5.Red wins (both blue bots tip over :( )

and me being on the blue team. if we had last year's rules, or even this years rules minus one of the updates, we would have won based on point avg, margin of victory, or highest score, but thats how it goes. btw gg to 1018 and the rest of that team for 5 great matches (in a row...)

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

5 rounds to deternine a winner? Think about that. Is that fair to you or your opponent? After so many matches the chances of something breaking, or wearing out, or just shear exhaustion can realy take a toll. So the National Champion is decided by the luckiest team whose had easy matches, and the best robots have all destroyed each other because they have had 3 or four matches more than their luckier opponents.

Think about the nationals where we repeat this in both the division and national titles. I agree the two game only rule last year was bad, but only bcause the score was based on QPs not overall points. If you lost a close first round, it was impossible to recover. If the two matches were based on winning points, there rarely would have to be a third tie breaking match. I strongly suggest the rules for the nationls be changed to make the winner the best 2 out of 3 if the teams split. So first team to win two rounds, or after three games, highest points scored by any team, highest qp by anyteam, coin toss.

We want the most capable robot alliance to win. As it stands now, the best robot to have for the national champion is a battlebot that can hang quickly. It wins by knocking opponents over or disabling them, playing king of the hill, and hanging at the last minute. Opponents a good ball herder? (knock em over) a big ball handler? (knock em over) can hang? (knock em over). As a ref it is really hard to judge intention. Were they trying to prevent the other robot from scoring, or were they malicious? That is an almost impossible call to make.

Having teams play more than three matches to dermine the round is not in anyone's best interest. I don't know how we get the attention of the rules committee on this.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

I dont see why that would be a hard call to make?

if someone is trying to score and you get it front of them, get in their path, and block it or push them backwards, you are defending the goal

but if a bot is trying to score and you fly across the field and slam into their back or side your intent is obvious - you are not stopping them from reaching the goal, you are attacking the robot - esp obvious if serious damage results fom the impact.

kinda like if a hockey player skates up from behind and punches another player in the back of the head, knocking him unconscience, and then jumps on him and hits him again - if an attack like that is not even allowed in hockey, you would think an attack like that against a robot would not be allowed in FIRST

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Actually, the situation in St. Louis is similar to most of the other times that the elimination rounds have gone on to a fourth or fifth match. It really comes down to this (and this is also true for the qualification matches): if you want to win, cleanly and quickly, then DON'T GET ANY PENALTIES! Penalties can (and many time do) make the difference between winning and losing a match.

There is a slightly subtle, but VERY important difference between this year's game and prior versions. In prior years, the rules typically stated "you can't do action xxxx during a match" but never really specified what would happen if you violated the rule. This year, almost all the rules are stated in the form "you can't do action xxxx during a match; if you do there will be a penalty of yyyy." Personally, I think this is a very good thing, and it helps remove a lot of ambiguity and inconsistency that we have seen in the past. Yes, there is still some, and things can still be cleaned up a little more, but I think this is a big step forward.

Ain't gonna happen. The absolute worst think that FIRST could do at this point would be to change the scheme used to conduct the competitions. The robots have been built, they have been shipped to the competition sites, regional events have been held, games have been played, and we are nearly half way into the competition season. Changing the rules in as massive a way as you are suggesting would be an insane move for FIRST to make.

Plus, who says that having teams play just three rounds is some sort of panacea for ANY problem? Does anyone remember kick off? Does anyone remember the explicit and implicit message that FIRST has been giving this season? Does anyone remember the whole discussion about the necessity to BUILD ROBUST ROBOTS? If a team has built a robot that can just barely survive three rounds, but can't last through a fourth, then why should we be considering torqueing the entire competition process around just to appease them? Particularly when there are other teams that have listened to the ROBUSTNESS message, and designed their robots accordingly?

One more thought on this. From the audience entertainment/involvement standpoint, going into an extra "overtime" match or two due to a tie situation is GREAT! It very definitely adds to the drama of the event, and kicks the excitement level up a notch or two. Given the clearly stated objective from FIRST to increase the general public awareness and involvement, and to make the competitions more attractive to the public and mass media, this is a very good thing. The "unwashed masses" love to see the sort of extended play, sudden death, tie-breaker overtime matches that these opportunities create. It draws them in, helps make fans of them, and opens the door a little bit for FIRST to expand their message. Conversely, having the final game of an elimination match decided by the flip of a coin is about as boring and anti-climatic a way to determine a winner as I could possibly imagine.

Alan, I have read your messages on this topic (all of them, on this and other forii), but with all due respect, I gotta disagree with you on this one.

-dave

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

hahahah 1481's arm
We were done anyway.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

I think it would be wrong to change the rules on who wins in the elimination rounds, simply because teams have designed their machines based on what the rules are.

your opponets points are important in the seeding rounds, but not in the elimination rounds - many teams have build machines designed to win the elimination rounds, not necessarily to ensure high points for the losing team

changing the rules now would be unfair to them -esp a change that drastic.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

At Bae in one of the quarterfinals there was a tie. I may get a few facts wrong but bear with me on this. I forget the teams but they tied with one alliance having 1 win and the other having none. The tie showed how close the first alliance was to winning and how close the other alliance was to losing. With that in mind, both alliances played their hearts and getting all 4 robots to hang!


I think the race to 2 wins is a great format. To change the eliminations structure would have people crying for rematches and to be made champions. To have the CHAMPIONSHIP WINNERS decided on a COIN FLIP would be devastating to the losing alliance and the winning alliance would not feel accomplished.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

FIRST is here to inspire and excite kids (and adults too) about science.

FIRST has chosen to use a competition to do this.

So why is 5 rounds unfair? The teams in the finals have been through 6 or so more matches then teams in the quarterfinal. Teams that goto Na. The Championship in Atlanta will have been through at least one regional. Is it unfair to play more matches? If you want to determine who built the best robot, how is playing more unfair. If something wears out in that time, then it wasn't engineered for a long enough duty cycle.

The NCAA tournament. You have to play more games as you go on. If the team gets tired before another team, then the other team will win. The best will prevail and move on.

Like with the DARPA contest, the teams that failed early on didn't get far enough to run into the problems that teams later on ran into, but the collective knowledge and experiance from the challenge will allow the teams to do better next time.

Extra matches are not unfair, they are part of the challenge.

Wetzel

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

I don't think that ties are as big of a problem as Time-Outs are. While it is statistically unlikely that a tie will happen, nevermind two or three, TO's are givens.

With 4 QF's, 2 SF, and 1 Final round, Times 2 alliances, Times 6 minutes, there's the possibility that you will be at a competition for an extra 84 minutes, just sitting around waiting for a match. At the GLR, I estimate that we were sitting around for at least 45 min during these such timeouts.

Incedently, why the heck did the Red alliance call timeout in the Finals while the Blue teams were only a minute into their own timeout? Seems like a waste to me...

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

I was floored when that happened. However, had they called their timeout later our other alliance partner would have again been fully functional and we "could" have ran away with it rather than turning it into the tight race it became. Made it more exciting tho didnt it?

Side note: How about robots going after refs? Dan i know you almost got nailed a few times, lol. And BTW we did find our own distribution block after we returned the one we borrowed on thursday

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

My team was on the losing side (Blue Alliance) of the 5 match quarterfinal in St. Louis. Much as I would like that match to have gone our way, I would feel very bad about the outcome if it had been determined by the original version of rule 7.4.4 (max pt total decides if tied after 4 matches). Continuing until one alliance has won two matches is easier for the audience to follow, and it favors the better built robots.

The audience excitement during our quarterfinal was equalled only by the final round. Exciting elimination rounds are good for our Regional and good for FIRST.

Any game can be improved, but I think the 2004 game is much better than the previous two years. Thanks and congratulations to the game design folks at FIRST.

Now if they can just continue the trend toward simplifying the rules...

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

I, too think I see a trend... and I am not sure if I like it...
We were on the winning side of the quarter final in St. Louis that had two ties.. it was tremendously exciting to be part of that...
We are just a second year team and I was very proud of the Alliance we had there... but on to the rest of the story...
I posted the following elsewhere here:
************

I do want to clarify something about the semi-final matches. This is where it became very physical... 1098 was again damaged and couldn't compete... and in the very final match after withstanding a pounding by Team 16 ...even our beloved Luci robot couldn't get the grippers to work because the contact had bent the rod on our pneumatic actuator. I guess this is a viable strategy as it wasn't flagged. We were on the verge of capping a small goal with 12 balls and couldn't open our grippers...so we didn't go on to the finals.

I just am sending out a warning to all teams who use grippers and collect balls and perform these tasks.... the big hangers will just pound you into submission... you may not be able to do what you are designed to do because of the physical damage you may have done to you. It is not just pushing around... it is IN YOUR FACE, hammering and slamming with whatever they have to do it with... reminiscent of battle bots rather than the FIRST competition we all enjoy.

My personal thoughts are that this is a dangerous trend... but it is within the rules and I cannot fault teams for using the strategy as long as it is legal.
More power to them...

All three of our alliance's robots were damaged in the semi at St. Louis.
I am sure many others were too...

I, for one, really don't want this competition to be about robots beating on each other.... FIRST has more to say than the "strongest robot" should dominate another...

Please don't think that I am complaining about any particular teams... everything done was within the rules and using those rules are part of the game... I only speak to the greater good of the competition as it matures...

It does seem to be a trend though... last year we had quite abit and now this year its even worse...... anyway that's my two cents

We will be busy in Cleveland on practice day repairing our robot and we will continue to try and accomplish the game using our strategy...

Our robot WAS pretty robust... until the last match, our robot had competed in 4 quarter final matches and 2 semi-finals with no more repairs than just changing the battery...

thanks for reading

Bob Steele

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

I'm from team 492... along with 1031 and 957 we took the regional, barely edging out a very powerful robot from team 753. Their robot had been all over the field - they tiped over the basket case robot in the semis, and tipped over our alliance partners in the first match (a tie) and the second match (which they won)... After a few false starts, however, they were dead in the water - which was lucky for us, but also shows why the rule is this way. 753 had an intimidating robot that beat up the competition and hung from the bar consistently. However, their drivetrain broke and another alliance won - so who built the better robot?

Team 492 ran into trouble... we took the timeout to fix our arm (it worked out for us, thank goodness for that rule)... an when 753 took their timeout, they got something replaced but it evidently wasn't enough. They also took their timeout, but the timeout can also be bad, since it gave them false hope and they fielded a dead robot in two straight matches, when they did have an alliance partner that could have taken the field and made for a much closer final match.

I have to agree with those saying there is no need to change the rules now. We built our drivetrain to be powerful but nice on the batteries as well (we ran out in the finals last year), so suddenly changing the rules so that there were fewer matches would be extremely unfair to us, and any number of teams that built less powerful but very robust robots. Let the best robot win, however the game determines the best robot. We don't need to change the rules to achieve some other outcome... As long as the rules are applied evenly across the board, the game will determine the winners without a problem.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Yeah, no kidding. I saw my life flash before my eyes when the Leaning Tower of Milford missed me by a literal inch, and team 1241 had both myself and Paul diving for cover when it decided to charge the side of the field!

Good job at squeezing out a victory at GLR, despite breaking your arm twice and "limping" off the platform at the end! Congratulations at finding your destrib block!

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

setting out to damage another robot IS against the rules - clearly against the rules - I dont see why the judges should have any problem distinguishing between a team that is getting in your way, pushing you away from a goal, and simply ramming and bashing into your bot?

<G32> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or
entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics competition and are not allowed. Accidental tipping over of a robot is not considered damaging and may be allowed at the discretion of the referees. Intentional stabbing, cutting, etc., is illegal. If a breach of this rule occurs, the team will be disqualified for that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team being disqualified from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event.

notice that it does NOT say robots designed to cause damage to other robots - its says teams who's strategie it is to damage another teams robot

anyone who has been on a team this year should have a pretty good idea of home much a machine can take and what kinds of actions will cause damage - and it should be obvious to a ref if a machine is contending for a goal or position, or simply ramming the other bot.

I find this esp troublesome because our bot was designed to collect and deliver small balls and we were repeated given penalty points if the slightest bit of our bot broke the plane of the ball corral. Our bot was designed so that it cannot possibly go through the corral and put the HP in any sort of danger - which is the intent of the rule - to protect the HP from getting spleened

but a few times our bot tipped up slightly and the very bottom edge of the bot or castor broke the plane - we lost over 50 points during friday - and at no time was the HP in any danger

but robots were rammed and slammed so hard that pieces flew off the playing field, and no penalites or disqualifications were called - isnt the end result a clear indication? if you hit a bot so hard that piece go flying is there any question to what your strategy was?!

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

I had the same feeling re: penalties for 'breaking the plane' -- they were probably called more often than necessary, if the intent is really just to protect the HP.

Can someone who is a FIRST referee comment on procedures?

In St. Louis, it appeared (to people watching in the stands) that four referees were stationed beside the ball corrals for the entire match, looking for plane breaking and throwing the flag every time it occurred, while the Head Referee monitored the action at midfield. This makes sense if the intent is zero-tolerance on plane breaking, and that in turn makes sense as a way to keep the plane breaking calls fair by eliminating the referee's judgement of the relative risk to HPs from one incident to the next.

On the other hand, I agree that the bot-on-bot action this year is much more aggressive (and sometimes destructive, even if unintentionally so) compared with previous years. Clearly, penalties for bot-on-bot violations (pinning, entanglement, tipping, etc.) are much more subject to the referees' judgement, and this causes disagreement between competitors and among spectators about whether a referee's call is fair.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Whatever the intent of the rules are, if you break them then you should be penalized. It doesn't matter if you're an inch into the goal or a foot, you're still violating the rules. It's like when you're driving, whether you're going 5 over or 20 over you're still breaking the law. The intent there is to stop unsafe fast driving, yet you can still get a ticket for only going 5 over. Thus, the call must be made.

You could see that the penalties had a positive effect on the drivers - during the Elims I only called one team for "breaking the plane." So if the drivers learn to drive safer, I believe I did a good thing calling the close ones earlier. Calling the close ones lowered the chances of having someone being hurt later on a big violation.

As for the damage rule, there is a VERY fine line between legal "blocking" and illegal entanglement, damage, destruction, etc. There were a few times when I wanted to call a robot for pinning another one, but since the other robot could still move, even if it couldn't go where it wanted to, it wasn't considered pinning.

I can't speak for referees at other regionals, but at the GLR where I was refereeing, we gave one warning to teams with unsafe features, and thankfully the teams took them into consideration. I didn't see any robots that damaged other robots on purpose, and for robots that had questionable intentions, I would have disabled if their actions resulted in actual damage.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Thanks for the explanation, SwaDan.

I completely support the way the plane breaking rule was enforced at STL, and it seems you were applying the same standard at GLR. Teams must consider the potential hazards to HPs, and the consequent standards that field officials must apply during competition, when designing their robots for the tasks required by a particular game tactic. The standard for protecting HPs must be higher than the standard for protecting robots.

[SF fans will recall that this policy is consistent with Asimov's 1st Law of Robotics.]

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

As a person whose robot sat out the Saint Louis eliminations (we had an ugly friday. And we only had one match after we fixed our robot, in which our auton mode functioned correctly and we got on the bar in about 25 seconds . . but it was too little too late. . .)

Anywho, I watched the elimiations. As a fan there is little in this world as exciting as two alliances tieing each other TWICE IN A ROW!!

The crowd was on its feet screaming their heads off. This is not something you see even in the finals. You are all talking from the perspective of the team, but let me tell you that in the crowd's mind, ties are great.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Thank you, you just made my point for me. Alan - read the prior post ^^^ !!!

-dave

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

I love hockey. I hate soccer. One of the reasons is you play to win. Soccer you play to tie and hope your goalie is better in shootouts than the other teams. Some of the ideas are valid but if you want to water down the competition then why not draw straws at the beginning of each match to see who wins.

As to breaking the plane rules, they are easier to call than others. Once a robot breaks the plane of the diamond plate they are in violation. However whether someone is intentionally damaging another robot is tougher to call. I had a discussion with the head ref at Pittsburgh after he told our team to back off. He said that he thought we were damaging another robot (which may or may not be true as there were no pieces laying around). My point was that the rules allow push and shoving and that if a robot can't take it so what. Our team did back off which let the other team go to the other side of the field and push our alliance partners away from the platform. Was this right? Who knows. What I do know is that the ref did the best he could and inforced the rules to the best of his ability and I commend him for his dedication and hard work. He is a volunteer and had no ill will to any of the teams. As to my opinion, I was partial to my team and may not see things the same. The ref also checked out the rules after the game to make sure that he remembered right. Again another plus for the refereeing crews.
On the other hand I do not condon ramming or intentionally damaging robots. I would rather see our team lose than be seen as one who intentionally damages others. It is a fine line between aggressive play and detructive play but most teams know the difference.

I hope that FIRST never goes back to the way they were last year. This years system is a lot more exciting (and demanding) than before but by the interest shown by the spectators proved it to be a better system.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

O.K.


Thanks for the discussion and input. I will not bring it up again - and I won't say I told you so if the Nationals run late.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

I want to make a small comment about "breaking the plane"
Evidently it is perfectly within the rules for a team to jam the mobile goal into a the ball corral. In our case, the goal was sticking nearly a foot inside our goal area ... this seems to be OK with the rules... I am not sure why this is the case as the goal is actually more dangerous to people trying to retrieve balls than a robot because it is sticking inside quite a bit further...
I wonder whether if we had touched it ..and pushed it out, whether we would have been penalized ??? It would seem that if it is not dangerous for someone to intentionally push it inside our goal area then it is equally not dangerous for us to push it back out...

just wondering

thanks
Bob

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

<G09> Team members may not extend any part of their bodies into any part of the playing field. Violating this rule will result in the disabling of the team’s ROBOT and the team will be disqualified.

<G28> If any part of a robot is in a Ball Corral (breaks the vertical plane of the diamond plate of the Wall), a referee will throw a 10-point penalty flag. The robot operator and the human player have a shared responsibility to avoid contact. If a team member touches the offending robot, that teams' robot will be disabled. If a robot pushes another robot to break the plane, the pushing robot will be assessed the penalty. If a human player touches a robot that has been pushed into the Ball Corral, the pushing robot and the pushed robot will be disabled.

<G29> If a human player touches a mobile goal that has been pushed into the Ball Corral, his / her team will be assessed a 10-point penalty for each occurrence.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

so then according to the rules, you CAN cram a moble goal into a ball corral so its a foot inside

but if a tiewrap on your bot protrudes into the corral by a 1/4" then YOU get a penalty

ok, someone at FIRST needs to rethink this one! :ahh:

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Actually, I think that this makes sense. The goals are fundamentally inert, monolithic objects without an ability for agile motion. They are big rocks on wheels.

The robots are (theoretically) active objets with multiple degrees of freedom, one or more of which can be activiated without notice (from the perspective of the Human Player) in any direction. Almost every robot has exposed chains, gears, wheel sets, pulleys, cables, etc. which will cause harm if a finger/hand/elbow/head are mistakenly stuck into them.

Given these differences, I think that the differences in the penalties make sense. The penalties are structured to provide an implicit message: "these machines CAN be dangerous, and CAN do harm if you are not careful - so we are going to help you remember to behave around the machines with appropriate caution." During the excitement of a competition match, the Human Player needs to stay away from the robot, and the robot needs to stay away from the Human Player, just to make sure nothing goes wrong.

Given some of the unsafe behavior that I have observed from many teams in the pits (i.e. people shoving hands into drive mechanisms while the power is on, tensioning sprocket/chain assemblies by driving while pushing the chain with a bare hand, operating robot arms while people are inside the work envelope, hauling batteries around by using the connectors as a handle, etc.), I don't have a problem with anything that helps reinforce the concept of appropriate caution during the operation of these robots.

-dave

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

this is interesting.

if a team jams your chute thing w/ a mobile goal, you can push it back out and only lose 10 pts which is better than not being able to get any balls in at all.

make sense?

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Be sure to read this one too.

<G09> Team members may not extend any part of their bodies into any part of the playing field. Violating this rule will result in the disabling of the team’s ROBOT and the team will be disqualified.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

so, if the goal was in the corral, you could push it back, making sure that you didn't break the plane yourself, and lose only 10 pts. since i was scouting, i didn't get a chance to see this, but how far in does the mobile goal get into the corral? is it a couple of inches or half a foot or what?

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

The intent of the rule is to not touch the mobile goal- therefore do not touch the mobile goal! Besides,even if you pushed it flush, the bot would still be unable to deliver balls. Why not just herd the balls to the other teams's player? I'm sure they could pass them to you if you asked.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

wish we could, but in our case, both the corrals got blocked. alright, so don't touch the mobile goal is the verdict then.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Alan,

I basically agree with your statement that Nats will probably run late because of ties. With that said, WHO CARES?!? At Great Lakes, QF2 had a tie (or maybe two) and it was an outstanding match, very exciting, and the crowd was going crazy.

I think the tie adds a tremendous amount of excitement to the game.

We, as a FIRST community, need to get the lay person sitting on the couch eating bon bons interested in what we are doing. Last year we were the soccer of televised robotics. This year ... time will tell, but I can say for certain, that I was hoping for ties in some matches because I just didn't want the game to end.

With regard to the level of bashing going on; I noticed some teams at GLR ramming others, but not to the extent that others noticed at other regionals. I saw all the matches from Friday morning through eliminations and great defensive plays with strategic blocking were abundant. In the eliminations, most of the robots were broke due to the level of contact while trying to hang.

-Paul

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Dave I have to disagree with you on this rule. I was a coach behind the glass reaching for a ball when our mobile goal came smashing into our glass, propelled by our worthy opponents and subsequently penetrating our corral by what seemed like a foot.. Yes, it was a Rock on Wheels, but it was being moved by a robot. It is JUST as dangerous for a robot to push the mobile goal into the corral as any robot that is pushing balls in. Point of fact is that the mobile goal is a bigger hazard as robots who are gathering balls and pushing them in are already "trying" to NOT break the plane. If the stated reason for the breaking the plane of the corral opening is to provide safety to the human players, the rule should have been written to not allow the mobile goal to be pushed inside by any robot. I understand that the rules allow this potential hazard to exist. I do believe that everyone should at least be warned of this potential outcome. Someone will get hurt by this...
I am not suggesting that we change the rules midway through ... but warnings should be issued to all the competitors by the head referees to watch for this potential safety hazard. thanks

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

At BAE before EVERY SINGLE MATCH the drive teams of all robots were warned to watch limbs and dont touch anything that comes through the corral. And the only way i think someone will get hurt is if they are over zelous and try to get a ball by reaching into the field. Also to see just how far it goes in have someone CAD it up and double check.

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Speaking of ties and the excitement they generate...

While at the Nats in Disney in 2002 we were in the last round of qualifying in the division on the middle field of the three-field tent. Both of the other fields in the tent had concluded and people were milling around and started watching our match. We (329) and our ally had actually tied at the buzzer. Our mouse (mighty mouse) ran to the other side of the field and tied the score at the buzzer.
That was the year that they actually had FIVE methods of tiebreaker. WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THEM!!! Yes! we had to flip a coin to decide the winner. In fact the ref tossed the coin and it actually landed on the tether of the mouse. He had to lift the tether to make the decision> heads/tails. It was one of the most exciting matches I have ever seen. To this day people remember the little yellow mouse that caused the tie and they talk about how exciting it was because of the tie.
The only thing that could have made it more exciting would be if they had employed the rematch till you win rule like this year.

GO FIRST!!!!!

Re: Do We have a trend here?
 

Now that we've had a few more weeks of regionals, it seems that ties in the eliminations are much less common. Does anyone have any hypotheses?