Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation?
 

OK,

I have a question of rules interpretation. In finals match 1 at Peachtree, The alliances finished the match tied at 7 to 7. As the buzzer sounded, a robot jammed into its goal pushing balls, one of which passed through the scoring box and was scored (creating the tie). the 10 second timer counted to zero with no further changes. The refs gathered around the robot, and found several balls jammed in the goal with the robot, none of which passed through the scoring box.

After a brief discussion, they added the balls that were jammed in with the robot to the alliance score, giving that alliance the win.

My question: based on this definition:

And this rule:

Was this a good call?

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

Sounds like an incorrect interpretation to me.

The rules you have posted are pretty clear, the balls had not passed through the counter so they were not scored.

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

I have to agree with Kevin. I see no place where the rules could be confused. You A precollege student on the losing alliance field should have reported it to the Head Ref.

*Alex goes to download the latest manual to bring to competition.

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

Most definitely a bad call. Down at BAE there were a few last ditch efforts like this, but none of the balls were counted if they didn't pass through the counter. We had a pretty bad call though on a hang one match, as the ref used a piece of paper to check if our mechanism was above or below the plane. They ruled against it, but I felt like an official measurement should have been taken from the ground to see if it was most definitely below.

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

I have to disagree with you steve. To be elevated you have to be above the plane of the platform. The ref used a pice of paper to extend the plane to make a comparison. Should there be a flat piece of lexan, or something that has less bend, to be used instead of paper? Maybe. Since the platform may vary in height, a measurement from the ground would not be an accurate reading.

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

At NJ Regional 2753's eight wheel base got stuck on the bump and could not move - even with all eight wheels on the playing surface (4 on the carpet and 4 on the bump). This put our robot at the 45 degree angle of the bump. We got wedged in a very unusual position. Our hanging arm stayed perfectly straight up relative to the robot base; however, the refs said our hanging mechanism extended beyond beyond our perimeter since the robot was "tipped". Our students unsuccessfully challenged the penalty. The ref's reasoning was something like the following: Since robot could not move for over 10 seconds, the judgement was that our robot was "tipped". Later in the day, the head ref did conclude that the call was wrong (however it was too late to change the scoring).

Unfortunately, the rules do not define tipping. Certainly when all of your wheels are on the playing surface, it can not be tipped.

A definition of a Tipped Robot needs to be included as an update.

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

Tom,

The only place that the word "tipped" appears in this year's Game section of the manual is G37 about when it is legal to contact someone outside the bumper zone. For this rule the definition of tipped should be easy enough to discern.

There is no rule that would assign a penalty to a "tipped" robot for a frame perimeter violation. The vertical projection of the robot is relative to a robot based frame of reference, not a field based frame of reference. This has been stated by the GDC in a Q&A somewhere, but I'm busy and don't want to hunt for it right now.

Let's try not to add any more definitions unless we really need them. Bad calls will happen regardless of if we add even more rules or not.

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

just my two cents, but the design of the goal is a certain way..

in my opinion, if it passes the plane of the goal opening it is scored, and the counter is as far back by the human player as possible to give them PLENTY of time to get a hold of the ball and get it to the return.

imagine if the ball counter was at the very plane of the goal. a lot of the balls that you score would go all sorts of directions and make the human player's job tons harder.

i believe that the goal/scorer were designed with this in mind, but that the rules were written with the intention of passing the plane of the goal to be in.

of course, that's just my opinion.

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

The problem is that your opinion (or anyone except the GDC's and even then only what they actually write down) is not what governs the competition.

The definition of SCORED is in the first post of this thread and it clearly states that to be scored a ball must pass through the Goal Counter.

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

I would just like to say, that despite all this negativity, I had no problems with any of the calls at FLR. We had a great head ref, who obviously knew the rules inside and out.

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

well, i can point you back to another rule that states "if a robot is in contact with their tower during the finale period, and the other alliance bumps it, they get RED CARDED" the intention of that rule is that hanging robots won't be destroyed, but non hangers can potentially use that to DQ their opponents.

also, the opinion that governs the competition appears to really be the head refs' since they are the ones who interpret the rules and call them differently. the rules were written with a specific intention, but that doesn't mean the intention was explicitly explained in the rules.

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

Martin,
The first time I read your post, my thought was "a robot may not possess more than one ball at a time"
<G43> ROBOT BALL POSSESSION - ROBOTS may POSSESS only one BALL at a time. Violation: PENALTY.

Does this apply or not?

I also agree with Kevin, the frame perimeter changes orientation with the floor when the robot is on the ramp. Any determination with respect to the frame perimeter has to be done with this in mind.

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

The situation described was two robots being pushed with no actuation by any posession mechanism. The robot "herded" the balls into the goal.

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

Is not "herding" possession?

POSSESSION: Controlling the position and movement of a BALL.

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

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13793

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=14238

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.

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

One thing to note, a goal is only counted by the scoring system. If it doesn't go through the counter then it didn't pass the scoring line.

Something that I learned at FLR. If the ball goes back towards the field after passing the sensors far enough to activate both sensors again, there is a 2 point penalty and a cancelation of the original point. Teams must make sure that when picking up balls that they don't push any backwards through the counters.

At FLR they moved the deflection board in the goal to an angle that pushes the ball toward the side. This helped to prevent jams and the possibility of incurring penalties. It was sanctioned by FIRST and I hope used at all remaining regionals.

Oh, and BTW, Refs are human and do make some mistakes. I saw one at FLR and talked to the head ref. He did check it out and made sure that it was called correct later on in the tournament. Now if we could only get the drive teams to be perfect we could have a great competition. ;0

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

So you'd rather pretend that you're going to hang for 2 points, and instead run off and score only one point?

That's like faking a shotgun formation to kick a field goal. Makes no sense. :confused:

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

The blue side was also acting up at NJ.
We had the exact same thing: The ball managed to enter the field without passing through the ball return sensor, thereby making it impossible to truly satisfy the DOGMA; 14 penalty points later in Final 1-2, we went to a third match to find a winner.
Unless, of course, you really couldn't hang in the time allotted; then it's a fake for 1 point instead of zero.

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

Saw a few glitches on blue at FLR also. Our alliance mates died during eliminations from communications issues :(

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

CONSPIRICY!!!!!
Sorry, I couldn't resist...

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

More like a possible quality control issue for the blue alliance stations IF they were assembled from the factory or at FIRST HQ by a different group than the red alliance stations. But we'll probably never know that... :p

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

I was doing some testing at FLR. To count as in the ball must pass two sensors. If it only passes the first one then goes back towards the field then it is not counted as in. The ball must be half way in or more for the system to count it. As was stated elsewhere, there is a place to put the trident to free the balls. If it was used at the back of the ball chute then it could push the balls back past the sensor and trigger the sensor again when removing it. That would tell the system that a ball (it doesn't know the difference) passed through the chute and should now be returned to the field.

I have looked at the scoring systems before and this one is by far the best one that FIRST has come up with. If the teams follow the instructions they should have little to no problems.

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

Quoted for truth. YAY no more 10,453 to -32 matches! *cough Aim High*:yikes: