Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

Wow, that interpretation would have REALLY changed the scores. I saw numerous balls that broke the plane of the goal, but ended up coming back out. At least 33% our autonomous shots did that (gotta adjust that kicker).

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

Kettering human players were allowed to use tident to unjam balls. They had one field problem during finals with ball counter. This is what i saw on screen for one team- end of auto=3 then 5 then 7 then 5 then 7 then 9...well their final score was 4. They put a person in each corner after that to count balls. Also it just seemed like the blue side was acting up control wise.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

I don't think she's talking about balls that break the plane at some point but do not remain in the goal, completely past the plane of the alliance station wall. There is a lip on the ramp that should prevent a ball from rolling back out onto the field.

The real question is whether a ball inside the goal, on the player side of the plane of the alliance station wall should count even if it has not gone through the counter. It would be folly to assume that a head ref that has a GDC member in the building and the Chief Ref (Aidan Brown) as close as her Blackberry would make such a call in a vacuum. Perhaps this is one of those things that no one expected would happen and will be clarified in future updates.

And do adjust the kicker on your bot. Your bot was one of the few that had any chance of scoring while not in the near zone, if not in the goal itself. I think your bot is an example of what everyone had in mind when designing this years game. With the tweaking I know you'll do, not only to your kicker, I expect and hope you will do well at Championships. We'll see you there.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

Do you mean that the human player was using the trident to unjam balls on the ball return or in the goals themselves? If in the goals, i can understand why the ball count would be off. The trident could have easily tripped the optoelectronic ball sensor.

We had one incident where a human player hit a jammed ball on the ball return (before it had passed through the return counter) and knocked the ball back onto the field without passing throught he return counter. They earned mucho ball return penalty points.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

Trident was used in goals but had nothing to do with the missed count. That ten second return rule/function started acting up.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

do you mean the DOGMA calculation and automatic penalty assessment or the ten second grace after the end of the match when balls could still score? Are the scorekeeper/field power person(s) at your event passing this issue back up to FIRST hq?

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

I talked to the head ref about the call. She explained that earlier in the day, two balls had entered the goal at the same time, and got jammed in the goal and therefore the goal was blocked (no robot was present). They decided that it was a field fault and cleared the jam, allowing the balls to score. I agree with that call.

I have doubts about the second case, where the robot was part of the jam-up. Lets suppose the event occurred early in the match, with the robot and balls all jammed in the goal. For whatever reason, the robot can't move (bot broke, bot stuck, or, at the end of the match and time runs out). What do we do now? Free the stuck bot manually while the match is still going? let it stay until the end, and score the balls?

It is my opinion that if the bot jammed itself in with balls, and is acting as a dam, blocking the goal and preventing the balls from scoring, that is a result of robot action, not a field fault.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

I see your point. Perhaps we will get further clarification and direction on this.

it seems that other regional events allowed the human players to use the handle of the trident between the gap in the rear goal lexan cover and the ball counter to address jammed balls. I am not a fan of this solution, but it might be one more thing to add to our understanding of this years game, for those of us with events still to come.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

All in all, I thought the refs were dead on throughout the day. I even agreed with the red card on my team. From my point of view at the time, our robot's action appeared both intentional and aggressive, and was obviously outside the bumper zone. I would have made the same call. I listened as our drive team made an argument for why they did it, and their argument sounded weak. After the drive team team saw the video we made from the side line, the light bulb went off over their heads, and we all figured out what happened.

When the red bot tipped, their bot blocked the drivers' view, and our drive team could not see our bot. They thought the red bot was resting on top of our bot (it was actually resting on its side). They drove forward and backward in an attempt to free themselves (even though they weren't actually entangled). What it looked like from the side was them backing up and intentionally ramming the tipped bot. It was unfortunate, but it happened.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

Can you suggest a scenario where a team's actions can give the opponent a red card?

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

A robot is attempting to hang during finale, and has just touched the tower. However, a few seconds earlier, during teleop, the opposing team was trying to stop it from getting to the tower. Now, another member of the hanging robot's alliance pushes on the robot formerly blocking the tower, into the almost hanging robot. Red card.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

you can't be pushed into a penalty by the other team.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

There is a specific rule prohibiting the actions of a team/robot from incurring a penalty on the opposing alliance, but in this year's game, a robot with no ability to hang might be in a pushing match with an opposing robot during finale. If they move into contact with the tower and the opposing robot touches them, technically it could be a red card for interfering with an attempt to elevate (by climbing instead of hanging). It seems possible that you could goad someone into touching you in such a situation. A smart driver should steer well clear of the opposing tower and any robots around it during the finale period.

the trouble begins when you substitute the concept of hanging for the game concept of elevated. Even the ref may jump to this conclusion and not call a penalty in this situation.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

Here is a smarter situation.
Attempt an end game climb, the opponent backs off, then you rush to the goal with a ball in sight and score.;)
Then, repeat in later matches.

Re: Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

We had a similar situation at the DC Regional where two balls got jammed in the goal while a robot was trying to score them. The Head Ref decided not to score them since they did not pass the ball counter. Later a GDC member that was present was asked about this and said that the right decision was made in their part. They also commented that the field was designed with the intent that the end of the trident could in fact be used in that gap between the goal lexan cover and the metal frame to unjam balls in the goal. It was also said that they would make sure that this would be cleared up for future Regional events. Although this was nice to know after the fact, I would say that it would have been nice to know this tid-bit of information before hand.