Re: 2006 Penalties
 

At NJ (the only regional I went to so far) offsides were huge...multiple times we ended up penalizing the entire allaince something like 40 points for not having a back-bot...that adds up to all 3 robots being offsides the entire time that they needed a backbot.

I also saw DQ's for incursion, which is easily enough aviodable...

The one penalty that I kept seeing that I was surprised about was teams getting penalized for stepping out of the drivers box. I've been a HP before, and yes I get excited in the heat of competition, but I always knew where my body was in reference to the driver's box outline. I just don't see how teams can absent mindedly hand points away like that.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

Boy, I am really glad that I have been in NJ and FLR because for most part, reffing has been good to great. This year has had less problems than past years and I thought that that would lead to less complaining. I guess not.

Could one of the complainers about ramming show me the official description of ramming and in what times it should and shouldn't be called? without direction from FIRST, the refs cannot make an informed call. I believe that the GDC has done a better job this year and should be generally happy with the results. A definition of ramming, eg : more than 6 feet or only in driver mode , would help to clarify with refs and competitors.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I found that the penalties themselves were fair, but how they were being enforced was definitely not fair. At the Finger Lakes Regional I was Team 250's Human Player, and I am well versed in the rules and penalties of the game. However, different refs have different measures of enforcing these rules. Such as how one time I was given a penalty for stepping up onto the metal bar in the back of the lower goal. I did not throw while up there, I just had my toe hit it and backed off immediately before throwing. Technically, yes, that is a foul and I was flagged for it. The ref was watching the spot carefully, not paying attention to anything else, and as soon as he saw it he flagged it, which is his job. Conveniently it didn't cost us the match because then I would have been truly angered instead of just annoyed, however I then decided that while in queue I would watch the other side and see if the ref was watching as carefully. I saw kids stepping up onto the metal, and the ref flagging for nothing but major infractions which rarely if never occur. Now... why do the refs not change sides from time to time, or at least more consistently decide what they are going to call and not call? I think that different levels of enforcement on different sides is not fair. I am not saying that I shouldn't have been flagged for the penalty I received, because that was in fact a penalty, but I think those breaking that rule on the other side should have been penalized as well.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

We got a penalty for the 3-inch incursion into the lower goal, and our robot could only physically go 2 1/2 inches, we were limited by diamond plate... we got DQed. This is not fair, but I tried to argue it... and they wouldn't listen :rolleyes:
We even offered to show them our robot and the impossibility of it all... oh well.

We were almost DQed for our coach standing between the drivers, not touching the controls.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I agree with these comments. The gist of the rule (as I can remember it, I know, I know I need to cite the rule but I don't have it in front of me) was that ramming intended to destroy another robot is against the rules. Since we cannot read the minds of the drivers to determine their intents, it is very difficult to throw a penalty. If there was defined verbage about what ramming was, the teams would know how far they could go, and how far is crossing the line.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I think the refs are doing the best job they can, and when they see the penalties, they call it. At Pittsburgh I was a real-time scorekeeper (manual counting of the lower goals) and by even having manual scorekeepers its double checking the scoring.

ps: As for your robot Cody, I was at that goal, the left corner did go more than 3 inches into the goal, sorry man.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

Ok, we had Steel preventing us from going too far into the goal... that is how we designed it. By design... It is Impossible for our robot to go more than 2 1/2 inches into the goal, there is only a 2 1/2 inch peice of metal outside of the guard on our robot, and the guard stops us from going into the goal. unless the field gave way, there is no way for us to go into the goal... and in order for us to have bent the taut lexan a half of an inch, we would have broken it. I will put a picture of our robot with a ruler on the corner, showing that it is only possible for us to go 2 1/2 inches into the goal. We only got flagged once, and we made no alterations to prevent it, because it was already prevented. We won't have to worry about it in Philly, though because we are changing our dresign.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

Team 1070 was DQ'd at the AZ regional during seeding matches this weekend because of this. We ended up getting another warning about it during the quarterfinals. However, both Jason Morrella and Dave Lavery were looking at our robot asking how this was possible since it clearly wasn't designed to be able to go in. I'm hoping that there will be changes made to this rule, but I'm not holding my breath.

indieFan

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

The tape is across my mouth, If I say anything it will be pulled off.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

The refs do the best they can and have to deal with many different things at one time. It is extremely difficult to see the difference between 2.5 inches and 3 inches in the few seconds the robot enters the goal. This is the reason for ref calls being final; not only is it very hard for them to see such a difference, they just don't have time to argue it with so many matches to get through. It's unfortunate to be disqualified for such a penalty, but try to put yourself in their shoes: if a robot sped past you, entered a goal, and sped away would you be able to see a half-inch difference?

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I agree things happen really fast and it is tough to make some calls. The dq call you have to be absolute sure of the call. The dq is a killer call.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

Look at the updated G21
"The 3 inches does not include the deflection of the
goal panel or structure."

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

As far as the 3" goal incursion rule goes- well, a dq is a little harsh- 5 or ten points would be more manageable, and appropriate. However, it's not the ref's fault: they're being given an almost impossible rule to enforce correctly. If it's not *obvious*, they face a tough decision, with no opportunity for a second opinion. In the example above, the refs, to my knowledge, cannot reverse their decision.

*P.S.- Hoping this will add some depth to our situation, we had a team, #398, stationed beside the corner goal infringement, who vouched for us. However, tough decision, and the refs had been lenient towards us all day, and they couldn't reverse it anyways. We simply tried to make them aware, because in the finals, a mistake can really suck.

As it was, we should've have been DQ'ed anyways, perhaps just not for infringment- we rammed the goal very hard that match.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I voted 'Definately Not' and let me explain why.

I hate the dq penalty for intruding into the corner goals. Give us a 15+ point penalty or disable the robot but don't disqualify the alliance. It really hurts to have an awsome match and then to find you lost during the results due to a call on the field while in automode. I understand the rule and am not debating any refs calls, I just think its too severe.

Things could have worked out alot easier if the corner goals were as wide as robot but not including the bumpers. Then most would not be able to physically fit as long as it wasn't in at an angle. There was also some confusion on our team that if your robot is pushed into the goal by an oppossing robot then your the one DQ. Certainly doesn't seem right and I was wondering if it was true.

It is a bit personal, seeing Chuck and our alliance was elimnated in the quarters at FLR by this penalty but really I've had a problem with it from the begining. Just my two cents.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

My concerns are as follows:
-There are no "instant replays" so we can't have the refs look at the incident a few times to confirm.
-If you interrupt the sensor system (go further then 3 inches in the side goal) your entire alliance is disqualified.
The rules aren't that bad this year but still they could be edited.