Re: FRC 2010 Team Update #5
 

I was thinking about this as well. Strategically, it makes sense to block the opposing tower to prevent the 8 point hang. Is it an "appropriate" use of the e-stop? I wouldn't think so.

What I do know is, if I spent 6 weeks designing/building/debugging/perfecting a creative hanging mechanism, I'd like the opportunity to show it off without some "box on wheels" skirting the intent of <G34> and <G35>. It's pretty clear from those rules the GDC intended for robots to be able to hang without interference.

I do agree the drive team members should be able to e-stop if they feel something isn't right with the robot. However, if I were a referee, I'd find it very suspicious if a robot conveniently "broke down" in front of an opposing tower every match, and I'd cite the "obviously intentional" part of <G34> and <G35>.

Of course, if there is a clear or obvious mechanical or electrical failure, like popped chains, smoke billowing out, or a battery that came loose, there's no question of intent. I'd sincerely hope no one intentionally causes anything like that for a cheap strategic advantage.

Re: FRC 2010 Team Update #5
 

Being in front of an opponent's tower has always been legal, and that strategy doesn't become more effective by e-stopping. As far as I can tell, all this outlaws is making contact with the tower before the FINALE and then hitting the e-stop to remain there until the end of the game without penalty. I don't think that's enough of a game-breaking play to make this broad of a change. That's a matter of opinion, though, in which case I'd argue that you can eliminate this particular strategy with better language in <G27> while leaving <S03> alone.

Re: FRC 2010 Team Update #5
 

I think what the GDC is getting at is the e-stop should not be a part of any team's strategy or plan for a match. It should be there simply in the event that should things start getting out of hand, teams can shut down their robots...thats all.

-Brando

Re: FRC 2010 Team Update #5
 

The blocking move is far more effective if you stick part of your robot into the tunnel. It is very likely that the only way to dislodge you in that situation would be a tunnel bot from the opposing alliance coming from the other side of the tunnel.

As you are touching the tower, E-stopping would have been the only way to prevent a penalty in this scenario.

Re: FRC 2010 Team Update #5
 

Why can't one just limit the E-stop red card to intentionally doing an action that would gain you a penalty otherwise? This also reinforces the "you can't e-stop in the opponent's zone" ruling. That way any driver doesn't have to go "hmm, will the ref see the wayward movement of my robot as "broken" or not? oh wait, the arm just failed because I hesitated to see if I'd be disqualified rather than immediately hitting the button to keep safe"

Re: FRC 2010 Team Update #5
 

I think you guys are reading way to much into this ruling.

It's just to stop some of the creative uses of the e-stop button like above, or when one robot was placed on another in 2007...

If something is wrong with your robot, and you press e-stop to prevent damage to your robot, the field, or whatever and you explain to the ref, it will be fine.

You start blatantly doing it over and over, then you'll have a problem.

But, if you guys want to keep over reacting...go for it... I'll spend my energy on my team...

Re: FRC 2010 Team Update #5
 

It's easier to ask forgiveness than ask permission. If the e-stop is part of your strategy, you need to rework your strategy. If, on the other hand, your driver needs to use it in exceptional circumstances, then don't feel the need to hesitate because of this change. Use it. If the refs want to talk about it after, that's fine - you can explain why you used it, how it possibly prevented injury, damage to the field, damage to your robot, or damage to another teams robot.

Re: FRC 2010 Team Update #5
 

Bottom line is if my robot is in danger of hurting itself or someone else I'm pushing that button penalties be damned!

Re: FRC 2010 Team Update #5
 

Same here. Safety First.