Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

But your robot is the one that is directly endangering the safety. It doesn't matter who made the robot be in a dangerous position, but the fact remains that if something isn't done, those three tetras (24 lbs) can come crashing down on your head and cause some serious damage. What would you rather have happen: a concussion or losing a match? Plus, if someone is injured, FIRST might be liable for a lawsuit, which would make everyone losers.

-Daniel

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

You are pointing out a fundamental flaw in this whole ruling. There is no limit to how high you can raise a tetra and in order to cap the goals all the time (even if there are many tetras already on the goal). Your robot has to be able to raise the tetras higher then the height of the wall. Our robot raises the tetras straight up over the base of the robot, and the only way for us to get tetras to break the plain of the player’s station is if we are tipped by another robot. Thus our design is the safest out there and this safety problem still happened. This is one of those things that got missed in the design of the game, not that it is FISRT's fault. I think everyone would have missed it. But they should correct it by adding protection to the field no matter what it costs before someone gets seriously hurt. They could add lexan or netting over the players heads. It could be placed horizontally or vertically.

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

We had a similar situation at UTC, luckily the refs let us play on. We had the arm extended 14 feet in the air and we got pushed into the other team's zone.. I'm not sure why we weren't disabled, maybe because the way we hold the tetra's they felt it wasn't going to fly off.

I know somebody mentioned the fact that some robots let go soon as the power is shut off, but if a team also needs to be under power to keep the arm up 2 things could happen.

1. the arm falls and comes back into the field NOT endangering anybody. Could that team be re-enabled if it's deemed to be safe again? (I'd assume no)

2. What if that arm falls and the tetra hits the top of the driver's station, the tetra could fly off and hurt somebody, wouldn't it be safer to just let the team keep playing?

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

I saw a situation very much like this while refereeing at Detroit. We disabled both the robot that put a tetra over the wall and the pushing robot.

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

I don't believe you could sue them, I beleive thats part of whats covered in that release form everyone has to sign..

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

You can have people sign releases all day, but they can still sue.

Wetzel

Midwest Regional Finals
 

[I am currently watching some amazing robotics action thanks to Wildstang - Team 111 and NASA for providing the webcast to the Midwest Regional.]

Now to the subject at hand:

I was, prior to the first match in the finals at the Midwest Regional, completely undecided on whether or not this rule is an appropriate way to fix the problem. I have come to the conclusion that this rule is ABSOLUTELY NOT an appropriate band-aid for the 'tetras-going-over-the-wall' problem. Here is what happened:

One team on the blue alliance makes the very smart decision to go cap one of the corner goals in red alliance's home row, late in the match. As they are positioning to cap the goal, a blue alliance robot pushes them toward the goal and naturally, toward the wall. Of course, in order to cap the goal, the tetra must be HIGH. And, of course, once they were pushed, the tetra ended up over the wall. They were disabled with something like 10 or 15 seconds left. Thereby preventing them from capping the corner goal, taking away a row for red, and winning the match.

Rather than having a penalty (in the form of disabling the robot) for play that should be perfectly allowable...
MAKE THE WALL TALLER.

-Andrew

P.S. (Just my 2 cents) :D

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

Watching this thread, I have seen many suggestions about higher walls or nets over the top. Here is what I think about this: 1) If the game involves human players throwing things over the wall, neither a higher wall nor a net is practical. If one is used, the humans should have their own area and hard hats. 2) If the game does not involve throwing objects, a net that directs the objects to the ground in a certain area, like behind the player station, is probably the best choice. A higher wall will only block anything that is lower than its top.
3) Until FIRST decides to do something, which may not happen for who knows how long, just be careful.

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

In Chicago, the rule was "if you break the plane of the player station wall, you will be disabled." Did I miss something recently? Haven't seen that rule.
Unfortunately, we were disabled for this in an elimination match (along with our partners), and seeing it up close, I don't feel there was a safety issue, which I thought was the intent. The entire tetra was not over the wall (it was tilted downward into the field), and the only part that broke the plane (if that, it may not even have cleared the thickness of the wall) was the endcap, about 1/2" of it - 99% of the tetra was below the wall. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with it. I do agree with possibly disabling if an entire tetra is dangling overhead (after they move away), but I don't agree with barely "breaking the plane" esp in the corner where there is no wall, and no people really in harm's way. In the corner area is a subjective call as to whether or not it broke the plane.
But, it's now in the past....

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

In many, if not most cases, there is more of a safety hazard in disabling a robot which is dangling a tetra over a player station than to let play continue. A number of robots having "active" tetra grabbers will release tetras if disabled, and most robots, including ours, will "backdrive" and allow the tetra holding arm to fall if disabled.

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

Breaking the plane rule has been used at different regionals for a couple of weeks now - I am not certain that it is written down except for the "safety of the players" wording in some generic rule.
I have witnessed tetras hit drivers and coaches in the head on three different occasions, when they came over the wall inadvertently.
I have seen the arms dangling them over the wall and not hit anyone.
In all honesty, I believe that for the safety of everyone, the robot should be turned off - but again, if the rule is to be enforced it must be clearly communicated to all on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
Given that clear warning, teams can choose to take on the risk and they can avoid the consequences, if they break the rule.
Teams that cause another to break the plane should also be turned off as a matter of fairness.
This has been a rough year with rules and interpretations of the rules - we will all need to be somewhat flexable and alter our strategies appropriately. I would only hope that those that do this, are rewarded and those that choose to push the limits are not.

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

Well, I got hit in the head at one of our quarterfinal matches at Boilermaker. The tetra that hit me and one of our drivers came flying over the wall. The robot that launched it was not over the wall but was holding it very high near the wall and was hit hard by another robot causing it to fly over the wall. This new rule will never prevent that from happening.

I agree that a safety "roof" should be installed over the player station, or at least everyone in the driver station should be forced to wear hard hats.
Think of it this way: Disabling a robot for causing a safety hazard does not PREVENT the hazard. By the time the robot is disabled the hazard is done. We need to prevent the hazard, rather than just discourage it with disablement.

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

We're a rookie team and have been to two regionals thus far (Rochester-Finger Lakes and Cleveland-Buckeye). We're off to Toronto this weekend.

At both regionals, we've witnessed tetras outside the palying field on all FOUR sides. Although I didn't see a tetra being dropped from above the playing staion wall, I did see several tetras being "flung" off to the sides of the field. A couple of times, a tetra "broke apart" when being dropped onto a goal (still counted if seated properly) but the loose parts were in and outside the field of play.

Everyone just needs to watch out. For the drivers, hard hats aren't such a bad idea and can be "fun" as well. The team coach standing behind the two drivers can also watch out for flying tetras if such an event were to occur. Call it an "occupational hazard". FIRST can't predict everything that possible "might" happen, so we all need to share the responsibility of safety.

Yes, I agree that if a robot is FLAGRENTLY dangling a tetra over the wall of the driver station, there should be a penalty, but NOT disabled. If a robot is holding a tetra high and gets hit from behind which causes the tetra to fly over the wall, the coaches and field attendants should simply be ON THEIR TOES to watch. That's about all that can be done this year.

In th real world, a lot of stuff just happens.....Be safe; the world is a jungle.

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

I was field reset at Pittsburgh and Philly

I saw this happen about 5-6 times, and it was close to happening more times.

The refs assesed no penalties, that I saw, but it was quite scary

Re: Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?
 

As a follow-up to my note on 29-March, we have now attended our 3rd regional (Toronto) this past weekend.

Just prior to this past weekend, FIRST published the OFFICIAL team update #18, which defined a penalty for tetras being over the driver wall. See http://www2.usfirst.org/2005comp/Upd..._Update_18.pdf

We did NOT see many of these situations in Toronto, now that an official penalty is in place. Thanks to FIRST for recognizing the problem, and taking the correct action.