Re: 2006 Penalties
 

No - thank you, for a period of relief. ;)

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

We where DQ because we tried to push a robot up the ramp that was on it's back.

The rules say we can push another robot within the bumper zone. which is like 8" above the ground. If a robot is on it's back we should be able to push it with out being DQ. no matter where we push the down robot. the robot was next to the ramp.

after this DQ same thing happen in another match but what we did was push it away from the ramp and did not get a DQ.


I think because the robot we tried to push on the ramp was damaged is why we where call for it.


I think everybody has to make a robot to take the impact of another robot. and if your robot does tip over it has to be prepare to be pushed. every robot is worth points.


The final call was a Judgment call. I guess the Chief judge can change the rules if he has to. I just wish then they make it very clear what is good and what is not. before it happens.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

The rule <G22> is pretty clear, just make sure you read it thoroughly and literally. Compare it to last year's interaction rule <G25>, which is neither clear nor specific, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I have read this rule many times. Where in the rules say you can not push a robot after it is tip over. if that was the case then robots would tip themselves over in front of the ramp to stop you from going on.

our robot is not made to tip other robots over it is made to score quick and then play defense. Why can I not use your robot as points. If you are up right I can why not when you are on your back?

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

Hundreds of dollars of electronics and controls coupled with hundreds of man hours is why you can't push tipped robots up the ramp. If you don't take the chance in damaging a robot, the potential damage in said situation doesn't happen.


To my best estimates,
-Henry

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

If the robot is made good, you would protect your electronics even if it is tipped over and I hope in those hundreds of hours you made your robot strong enough to take a hit.

If you made your robot top heavy then you would pay the price. I would of loved a shooter at the top of our robot but we new you would have a chance of tipping over. Why should teams that make a good robot that does not tip over be punished for a robot not build to take a hit.

FIRST came out and said this year that there will be contact and make sure your robot can withstand that contact.


I would like a ruling where you can push a robot from, if it is on it's back

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

Just about any robot can tip, regardless of the design. It's not a matter of whether or not a team designed it to "take a hit," it's that things happen. Even with the highest level of protection there's a chance of damage. It's not just the electronics, a part could bend or a number of other, unexpected thing could happen. Nobody designs a robot to be robust when pushed along its side on a ramp. I'm sure your own team would be rather upset if your robot got pushed in such a way and a part (not necessarily the electronics) was damaged or destroyed. It's a matter of safety towards the robots.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

The key part of the rule is: "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage..."

The referee made the right call.

Even if you disagree with the referees, you need to adjust the way you play to the way the game is being called by the referees. If you don't, the penalties you get will not only hurt your team, but the two teams you are allied with. All the teams need to be aware of how the penalties are being called, not because some of the calls may be questionable, but because all of us want to play clean rounds that are not decided by penalties or disqualifications. We won a semifinal on a DQ and it was a strangely empty feeling. This can be an exciting game. Lets make it as exciting as we can by playing well and when necessary laying off robots that are down.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

First of all we do play a clean game. and not all robot will tip over. When we did get DQ it was us only us not the whole team.

Do you think by scoring in auto mode and then play defense is being destructive? we do not plan on damaging robot, but if a team plans on building a weak robot and it break we should not be DQ.


In the past this has been brought up. I have seen arms going into robots and ripping out controls without being DQ because the arm was used for something else. I remember the wedges tipping over robots and breaking them with out DQ I know you could not do that this year because it was stated you couldn't. But they told you that you could hit outside of the bumper zone if the robot was on the ramp or tipping.


So to us FIRST wanted to see contact this year. the way they made this game. So for team that do not think they will get hit are not being realistic.

If for some reason our robot tips over and someone smashed our robot we would be able to fix it very quickly because of our design. So the game is to build a robot that will not break under any condition.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

It's not that teams "plan" to build unrobust robots, it just happens as a consequence of a specific design. This shouldn't give another team permission to go ahead and attack them in a way that could knowingly cause damage.

It's one thing to accidentally break a robot's components with an arm or other device when the other robot is up and running, but it's entirely another to go after a robot (even simply pushing it) once it is on the ground. It is unnecessarily dangerous and destructive; even if you believe a team should be able to fix parts, you can't be sure they will be. Also, the rules have never, to my knowledge, allowed for hitting while another robot was tipping. This has always been a penalty of some sort that I can remember. The bottom line is you're better safe than sorry.

Actually, the game is to built a robot that can handle balls and defend against other alliances. Yes, robots should be built as robust as possible, but this is not as easy for all teams as it may have been for yours.

The rules are in place to make the game more fair, and to give more teams a chance at competitive matches. If they weren't there we wouldn't have FIRST, we'd have BattleBots (not to mention chaos).

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

last point:

This is the first year FIRST made the opponents robot worth points. Do you not think that this is part of this game. So if a robot does not want to be points to the other team they should tip over and prevent the other team to use them to score?


So yes you have to make your robot to take a hit and not to tip over and if you do tip over your robot will have to be able to take a hit. Unless you read more into this game then we did.

25 points is very big in this game. So for other robots that had to lighten their robot and use very light stuff on their robot to be able to have a good shooter will have to pay the price of maybe getting damaged.

everybody has a choice and FIRST this year stated make your robot to take a hit.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

2002 was the first year. Dead robots due to the main breaker popping (lots of discussion was generated on this problem) were prime candidates to be pushed back behind the line. Same rules as this year, any robot in the near zone counted.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I pretty sure you had to get your teammates back behind the line not your opponents. you did not get any points because your opponents where behind your line.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

i heard from my friend who is a ref at nationals(dont trust this info cause they might not enforce the rule) that they might call penalties in autonomus for the defensive autonomus' that people are using because they are in violation of the rule for ramming another robot (rule <G22>) but again dont quote me on this or plan on them enforcing it

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

Already happened at GLR. One team got a 5 point penalty for ramming us in Autonomous.