Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I don't think that would work. For one thing, it's intended to provide a competitive advantage, and as I recall, that's illegal. For another, the OI console is counted as part of the robot in everything except size and weight. One of the robot rules is that it can't grab, grasp, grapple, or otherwise attach to the field elements other than the game objects.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

If this is all true, wouldn't using the velcro strips on the OI be grasping the field other than the game pieces :-D Just kidding.

I would like to know what options for different glasses are legal, where you can purchase ansi aprooved rule-following glasses that could help reduce this glare, etc. I'm looking around myself and i will post some links if i find some decent pairs.


EDIT:
http://www.discountsafetygear.com/bawamle.html
Thats the cheapest pair ive come across with some sort of tint or shading. They are ansi aprooved with an amber tint, meeting 3.3.3. Will this do the trick to help lessen the crazy inviso-glare?

http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?actio...il=&lpage=none
those are more expensive, but they are available locally for me. I would love some confirmation that the amber tinting actually helps the glare.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Polarized glasses are not legal:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9011

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I was wondering about something last night regarding this issue.

If the teams are getting penalized for breaking the plane while simply attempting to turn, how is that in violation of the intent of G22?
I realize that the rule has been in place since day 1, and that everyone should have read and understood it.

If they are simply continuing their turn and the corner of their robot crosses the plane - and they didn't "back up" to do it, I would think that it would simply be considered completing the intended directional motion - a continuation of the turn (not a change in direction). That wouldn't hurt anyone, and it would help eliminate alot of unintended penalties.

If a team has to stop, go "backwards" and crosses the line while doing so - then I would consider that a violation of G22.

Anyways - just a thought.

I doubt that the rule will be changed, but perhaps clarification on the continuation of a turn, would be in order.

Another alternative solution would be to make a safe turning zone at the end lines, such that the taped area is 6 to 8 inches wide - which would allow the turn continuation to be completed without being penalized. Then, use the far edge of the tape as the plane that cannot be broken.

Either way, I can live with the outcome. Just seems like something as simple as that would eliminate alot of the inadvertant and non-backing up penalties being called.

my 2 cents,
Mike

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Which way is "backwards" on a robot like 148?

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

The opposite of the way it is currently driving I would assume.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I've held my thoughts on this until they were complete, but here's my take on it.

This is one of those things that seems like its intention is good but actually practicing it has many unforseen effects. Another possibility is that the GDC doesn't care about the adverse effects because it's extremely difficult to word it such that it disallows clockwise travel AND allows breaking the plane by a specific amount.

That said, the way this rule is playing out is still terrible. Spectating a match that has 4 penalties that happened in HYBRID mode isn't much fun. At least in football when there's a penalty, it's obvious to both the player(s) that did it and the crowd WHAT the penalty is, WHY it happened, and HOW to avoid it in the future. FIRST is different in many better ways, however when the drivers get penalized for that which they feel like they have VERY LITTLE CONTROL OVER it is the teams and the crowds that get frustrated. There were some great matches in week 1 but then again there were some terrible ones that left teams feeling hung out to dry. While watching the webcasts at one point I felt that teams who simply went with the flow in qualifications and avoided penalties (and adrenaline, i.e. it's boring) did better than those teams that actually tried to engineer & strategically use something hard.

That's not exactly something you want to call the papers about.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Gary - "Which way is "backwards" on a robot like 148?"
That would be - moving in a clockwise direction on the field right?

Yes - on some teams it would be difficult to apply the term "backwards" to.

But, 148's shape probably helps it avoid continuation turning line violations.

Where as almost all rectangular based machines could potentially get penalized simply by turning part way, then adjusting by turning in a different direction.

It just seems to me that continuation turning line violations, caused by the rear most corners - due to forward directional adjustments - shouldn't be penalties.

Mike

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Mike, I agree that a corner twisting over the line as the robot turned is unfortunate. In the same way that an arm hanging down just a little too far changed a 12-inch lift to a 4-inch.

But when we have problems even defining what "ROBOT" is, I hesitate to try to define a trivial vs. non-trivial breaking of a plane. Give the team the benefit of doubt, certainly - if the ref can't tell if the line was broken or not, there's no penalty. But as they said in the FLL rules, we're not going to define "slight" - that just moves the line.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

So... you just defied your own blood oath? Hmmm I see.

As for the rule, what's there not to understand, you cross, you can't recross the other way, tada, the end. Sure it adds a kink into your "MOVE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AROUND THE FIELD TO GET POINTS! QUICK!" 'strategy', but so what? No part of the game is easy, it's designed that way. So quit yer complainin and adjust.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I completely agree with some sort of rule change... breaking the plane is just to easy and most of the time teams don't know that they do it.

I also wanted to point out, as a driver, if I put my controller in station 3, and my robot was in the far quadrant I saw three robots in three different positions. Looking through two pieces of plexyglass made looking at the robot, and trying to aquire the ball (or stay inside the quadrant,) pretty impossible.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

We all understand the rule; we simply do not like it. I was watching some archived matches of the St. Louis Regional and saw a left-most bot start in hybrid mode and clip the front pole of the inside wall. The bot stopped dead in its tracks. To fix it, the driver adjusted in teleop, at which point the tail end of the bot re-crossed the line. That bot got 2 penalties for that 1 incident. It's downright ridiculous.

I also saw a bot shoved backwards across a line by an opponent, without penalty at first. The opponent separated, the shoved bot turned a ways to go around, was temporarily in the correct quadrant, turned slightly more, broke the plane with only a corner and BAM red penalty flag goes up from the ref. It makes me glad we have a low gear capable of (theoretically) shoving around 160lbs to "kindly" bump people out of our way. In all honesty, the end result for getting penalized for shoving someone out of your way when you've already made low speed contact is the same as the situation described in the beginning of this paragraph.

The GDC could amend the rule such that the finish lines are the lines where the planes cannot be broken, yet bots cannot fully re-cross the two other quadrant lines. Wording it like this would achieve the apparently desired result of preventing bots from passing a finish line then turning around to place on or block the overpass, yet it would also compromise with the actual drivers who are getting dinged for every little uncontrollable infraction in the turns.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

i support this to it's not for safety and it's slowing down reset

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Why is it rediculous? The robot broke the rules twice ... they should be penalized twice.

Being shoved across the line isn't a penalty ... ref got it right.
Crossing the line afterwards is a penalty ... again ref got it right.
Whats the issue?

Penalized for shoving??? Where is that in the rule book? As long as you push within the rules (and there are rules around pushing) you can do it without penalty.

Everyone knew these rules. They were there since kickoff. If your team did not plan for how the track was set up and did not plan for how you were going to cross the lines, do not complain when you start racking up penalty points.

Fact is, if you have control of your drivetrain you should not get any penalties from <G22>. The problem is that there are many robots out there where their drivers cannot control their drivetrains because they are either too fast or not responsive enough.

I'll (again) use my team as an example. 16 matches running laps with skid steer and a wide frame ... 1 penalty. Understand the game, your control system and the situation your driver is in and you will do well. Ignore it at your own peril.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I agree with Paul. The rule is fine, at Midwest, the referees appeared to enforce it uniformly. Drivers need to adapt their play.