Update #15
 

Update #15 is out. Interesting items are clarification on <G21> (Corner Goal Incursion), lots on <G25> (Offsides), and now we no longer have to use the LED cluster (<R14>)! And, of course, more clarification on the "Fix-It-Windows"! Good grief Charlie Brown!

Re: Update #15
 

Its good to know that if a robot tips over the alliance no longer needs a backbot...

Re: Update #15
 

. . what happend to update 14?

Re: Update #15
 

Update 14 Thread

Link to update 15

Alot of reminders about backbots. I can understand from all of the penalties that were going on during the regionals. But one thing I don’t understand is why a robot that is either mechanically, electrically, or programmably inept (meaning they cant move) why the robot would not be considered inoperable. So if my team puts a 120 lb weight onto the field and it gets pushed across the line then we are still somehow operable... I'm sorry but I don't like the call that the GDC made on that one.

Re: Update #15
 

hmm...they forgot an apostrophe... 3 inches, then 3 feet then 3 inches again...jeez :P

First:
"...not to exceed a distance of approximately 3
inches. The 3’ does not include..."

then later:
"Any incursion substantially beyond 3 inches..."

Re: Update #15
 

After reading it again I do like the addition about robots and the corner goal. When a robot goes for the corner goal and is pushed into the goal (they may be DQed) the person pushing them is considered to be doing excessive "ramming" as they say and would be penalized. A really good addition!

Re: Update #15
 

yes it is a good addtion but if the bot gets pushed in they get DQ'ed while the opposing bot may get NOTHING a PENATLY or a DQ... its not a 100% DQ.... not good IMO

Re: Update #15
 

I dont think that a bot that was pushed into a corner goal will be DQ'ed. It seems to me the intent of the update was to make it clear that ramming other robots into the goal will not be tolerated, and in the case that it is clearly a defensive 'bots fault, that bot will be penalized.

I view this to be much like the "high ramming/high contact" rule of last year- technically, if two robots arms were extended in the air and contacted in an overly vigorous score/defense struggle resulting in a tipping bot/unsafe & unsportsmanlike play, both would be penalized or DQ'ed...in practice, however, it was the bot that shoved it's arm in there and instigated the contact that was typically penalized, not both.

Re: Update #15
 

Well the idea that you can't stop someone from scoring when they're at the corner goal isn't accurate. Often if you hit them from the side toward the back of their bot you can turn them a little. Of course the effectiveness depends on how well they built their robot.

Re: Update #15
 

It's clearly a typo

Re: Update #15
 

I like the corner goal rule. Sort of like the NBA rule where the player with the ball will not be called for charging a defender if the defender is right underneath the basket. It's too late to play defense once the other robot is right at the goal.

I would suggest that if you want to play defense once they are right on the goal that you try to push them sideways instead of trying to push their robot through the opening!

Re: Update #15
 

If you know its dead, and not coming back without some work.. Whats wrong with estopping it?

Re: Update #15
 

I have to respectively disagree with your interpretation. As per rule G21(below), note the last sentance, with the word any in it. This would seem to me to say that if you go too far into the corner goal, you will be penalized. There is a different rule about ramming, which I interpret to be different than pushing. Thus, any time when you go too far into the corner goal, expect to be penalized. They also make the point to reference extending over the scoring system, for that will artificially inflate the score of your team, and that is definately illegal. Thus, because they have to keep this scoring issue as a nonfactor, anyone who causes this to become a problem will be DQ'd. This is perfectly fine, as this rule has been around since the kickoff, and no team should have built with the assumption that they were allowed further into the goal. I think that this is simply clarification that any time you go too far into the goal, you will be DQ'd.

<G21> ROBOT Incursion into the Corner Goal – Robots should not enter the corner
goals. Incidental incursion into the corner goal that occurs as a result of a ROBOT
pushing balls into the goal is permitted, not to exceed a distance of approximately 3
inches. The 3’ does not include the deflection of the goal panel or structure.
Intentional incursion, for example to use a ball gathering mechanism to drop off balls
inside the goal, or extending a portion of the ROBOT through the goal opening to
activate the ball counting system, will result in disqualification of the offending ROBOT.
Any incursion substantially beyond 3 inches, particularly if the robot extends over
the lighted scoring system panel, will be considered intentional incursion.

Re: Update #15
 

It also now states that if you push someone INTO a goal, you risk DQ yourself. This is an excellent addition, because it discourages teams for purposely trying to get their opponent DQed by pushing them in

Re: Update #15
 

Does this mean that the backbot must be stationed near the opposite ramp :confused: That's a long way away.

Re: Update #15
 

No I believe it means that the backbot must remain on that side of the field and is free to move anywhere as long as it remains on that side without crossing back over the line.

Re: Update #15
 

mechanically, electrically, or programmably inept does not mean cannot move. A robot that cannot turn due to too high friction on the wheels coud be considered mechanically inept.... etc.

If a Robot throws a chain or loses motor wires (and is in the frontcourt) then another robot from that alliance must move to the back court or the damaged robot needs to be e-stopped (otherwise it should be penalized).
And, yes, your 120 LB weight could become a 40 point liability if it ends up on the wrong side of the field and is not E-stopped.

As far as the corner goal issue. If they enforced the ramming rules, then I dont believe they would have needed this clarification (JMHO).

Re: Update #15
 

From Update #15:

"Once a robot is in place to deposit balls in the corner goal, ramming it from behind generally has no purpose other than to destroy, unnecessarily harass, or force a goal incursion of the scoring robot. Repeatedly ramming a robot that is depositing balls in the corner goal from behind may be called for a <G22> violation and may incur a 5 point penalty or a disqualification."


From Q&A:

Question: "Our robot is in the process of dumping balls into the corner goal and no part of the robot is extended into the goal. We are then pushed by an opponent's robot such that our dumping mechanism is now more than 3" into the goal. Who would receive the penalty for extending into the goal more than 3"?"

Answer: "Any robot that extends more than three inches into the goal (three inches past the plexiglas barrier) will be disqualified. If your robot has been designed such that it can extend into the goal, even if pushed, then you would be wise to operate the robot cautiously when in the vicinity of the goal."

Are these two official statements from FIRST:

A) Contradicting each other?

or

B) Attempting to tell us that ramming is a no-no but pushing a robot into a goal is a fair play?

I tend to think that teams should have thought of this when they designed and built their robot so that if you get pushed through the goal it is your fault for having a part of your robot sticking out. However, repeated ramming serves no real purpose at anytime during the game and should be penalized. I don't see any difference between pushing an opposing robot into a goal and flipping one over as they climb the ramp. If you design a robot that is "tippable" due to high COG then why would it be the opposing robot's fault if they tip you over by pushing on you while you are on the ramp. Now if you fall over on the ramp and they continue to ram you that is just plain unsportsman like. With all the pushing and shoving designed into this game why should an alliance get penalized for the design flaws in their opposing alliance?

I believe that FIRST is trying to tell us ramming is bad but pushing is OK.

Re: Update #15
 

The point I was trying to make is that if a team just puts their robot out onto the field and their alliance is considering them the backbot and they get pushed across the line they are going to get penalized even though they are just dead weight on the field. I wasn't trying to get to technical and specific oriented. I really don't like this though because I can see teams using this to their advantage because there will always be one team out there that will do stuff like this.

Re: Update #15
 

Do I understand that right? No drop down robots? Have any teams been disqualified now because they flip their robot for a 3 by 5 foot drive base? It was very popular last year...

Re: Update #15
 

This happened to our alliance twice in elims, the first time 540 threw their battery, the second time they shorted to their frame. (At least, that's what they suspected) That said, having been in this position, I can tell you a 120lb weight can be very effective. Where 540 was they completely blocked a lower goal, not that it mattered in an elim against high scorers, but in a qualifier... Anyway, if you don't want this to happen ziptie and electrical tape all "joints" in the electrical system, loctite all bolts, have redundant systems, etc. For example, we threw a chain, and weren't useless, far from it! We still could play really rough defence because I made a drivetrain with redundant chains. Although that choice was made to help chain pathing, it saved our butt. (sort of, we still lost, but not that badly) Design like server admins, redundancy and fault tolerance in power supply (UPS/zipties), programming (UNIX/self-recovery), and delivery. (RAID/multiple drive chains)

Re: Update #15
 

I agree with you there. But to add: The statements do not contradict eachother. One says that if you go into the goal farther than 3", you will be DQed. The other states that if you RAM a robot into a corner goal, you are liable to be penalized. The actions of the other robot are not part of the responses, and therefore i see no contradiction.

As for the ramming, it would be nice if they actually called it during play. I saw a lot of hard hits on the VCU webcasts that would have been considered ramming in my book. However, FIRST provides NO guidelines as to what is ramming other than the description (Long distance, high speed). This leaves it very ambiguous and hard for the refs to determine.

Re: Update #15
 

What confuses me is that this was in the rulebook from the begining...all they added was the "flop-down" clause, which seems pretty redundant to me. It was clearly stated that a robot which intentionally tips onto its side will be DQed, and is also not allowed to score, which should've discouraged any team that read the rules to not do it...

Sorry for the double post.

Re: Update #15
 

That rule has been set right from the start thats what makes offense a 3 on 2. My guess is either you haven attended a regional yet or not a operator. :rolleyes: So let me reword this rule for you. It means that when you are on defense one of your alliance members needs to be on the farside from you at all times or its called offsides. If anypart of the backbot robot crosses the center line its offsides. :D

Re: Update #15
 

Farthest: Def. To be at the most distanced point.

I was being facetious with my comment but it does state FARTHEST from the alliance station. This would put your backbot near the opposition's ramp.

Re: Update #15
 

You still sound confused. The end of the field with the opposing alliance's ramp is where the backbot is to stay. What it says is exactly what it means.

Re: Update #15
 

I stand corrected, Sir.