Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I do not think ramming should be called in autonomus mode.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

If ramming is to be called for a penalty (no ramming penalties or warnings were called at the regionals I have attended), and here we are talking about ramming at a high speed such that parts on a well constructed robot break, why should there be any difference between the call for human player mode and autonomous mode. If the driver team sets the robot up in autonomous mode specifically to hit another robot in a high speed collision, why is this any different than when the the driver team is at the controls.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

For the first time in my 5 years in FIRST I have found a rule I have no stance on. Well.. let me rephrase that. I have stances, but I have no clear view on this.

In one instance, I see how ramming is bad and should be called in Autonomous every time no matter what. We personally have been affected by ramming, where we could have scored 15 points at least in a center goal, but because we were rammed, we lost them all.

The penalty was called on the other team, but comparing 15 points to a 5 pt penalty, is a very tough to call. You could just "play the system" and ram all you want to make 15 points worthless, and only lose 5.

But, staying on track of ramming, on the other hand; I disagree with the penalty by saying that if you are set up to move in autonomous, you are likely to touch certain parts of the field that other robots will touch. Whether or not you get there at the same point is indeed a factor, and uncontrolled in most instances.

I think it is up to the refs to call it as intentional, or unintentional, and that's truly the best way it could be done.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I have a question about ramming...
if two robots both going at high speeds collide is it a ram? why would the defensively minded team be penalized in this case?

I can see where if a robot is sitting somewhere not moving and another robot flies across the field into it full speed as a ram, but in the case of two teams both going full speed colliding into each other, who has the right to the space that two robots are trying to occupy?

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I think teams should consider autnomously slowing down thier bot before making contact with another bot. In Pittsburgh, my team played a lot of autonomous defense. We have a shifting transmission and we would use HIGH gear to get to the opponent quickly. Then, we would down shift into LOW gear before making contact with our opponent. Just like with a driver-controlled bot, if you slow down before hitting your opponent it is not considered ramming (by most refs Ive ever talked too).

Most programmers could impliment this with a simple timing routine. You should know about how long it takes to drive to the intercept point. Just slow your motors down in code about a second before you get there. If you show concern for the other bot the refs are not likely to penalize you.

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I’ll answer your question with a few of my own…

If a Patriot missile hits a Scud, is there not an explosion?

Was that Patriot launched to intercept the other missile, or simply to get to the other side of town?

Was that Patriot traveling at such a rate for you to assume that the intent was to damage or destroy the target?

The Patriot was just doing what it designed to do. All is fair in love and war! OTOH, claims that there is no right of way are an attempt to rationalize a way around <G22>, which says in no uncertain terms that NOT ALL is fair in FIRST!

Re: 2006 Penalties
 

I'm not sure that this analogy sufficiently describes the situation with <G22>. After all, what is a Patriot, but a surface-to-air missile? It exists to intercept missiles and aircraft, and by all accounts, does a reasonably good job of communicating its intent.

A robot, on the other hand, could be designed to intercept another robot, but alternatively, might legitmately be designed to get to the other side of the field quickly (and maybe do something once it gets there). There's no question (in my mind) that a strategy aimed solely at the destruction of robots is illegal—that's what the rule says. But what of a strategy aimed at doing something else, which might, as a side effect, cause a robot to be damaged? For example, let's say that I want to position myself six feet from the base of the ramp, so that my operator can shoot balls in the first period; if I go there quickly during autonomous mode, and by coincidence, another robot hopes to occupy that space, there might be a collision. The net result is high-speed, long-distance ramming, and yet, the intent to destroy wasn't necessarily there; only the knowledge that a collison might reasonably occur. <G22> doesn't preclude strategies for which the intent is unclear—it only bans strategies solely aimed at carnage. It restricts other damaging actions at the discretion of the referee, which means that teams might reasonably expect their strategy to be legal in theory, but still subject to its consequences in a given match.

Basically, unless the referee can say with great certainty that the sole intent was to damage, destroy, tip or entangle (we're talking chainsaws, shotguns, and gladiator nets, here), a strategy is not illegal unless the consequences are deemed inappropriate. I can, legally (if maybe not ethically) make the full-speed charge, knowing full well that anything that gets in the way is probably going to suffer damage. But as long as my intent is unclear (so that "sole intent" is not established), the referees have to evaluate the damage suffered, and not the fact that my strategy was not very courteous.

Worse still, though the sole intent to destroy, etc. strategies are banned, there is no penalty specified. (No, I'm not crazy. Read <G22> carefully.) Only in cases of robot-to-robot contact are penalties described (5 pts. or disqualification). So if I make a 15 fps charge at the starting location of another robot, with reasonably clear intent to flatten it, and the robot gracefully eludes it, it's a case of no harm, no foul. It's like a Patriot missile trying to intercept an airliner, except that if it misses (by sheer dumb luck), there's no declaration of war.