Re: Team update 16
 

Obviously teams need to prevent the ball from going under completely, and that is still a penalty.

The situation that U16 addresses regarding <G46> is a 'transient'-type ball incursion. This happened many times and was the cause of most of the <G46> penalties last week (that I saw).

For example, when a robot drives up to a ball and a traction wheel grabs it and they 'ride up' on it for a a second and then immediately back down and off the ball. Or a roller bar grabs a ball and starts to suck the ball under but they back off immediately.

Re: Team update 16
 

I think Team Update 16 was a result of the Referees doing an excellent job at week 1 regionals. They called the penalties by the book at least 95%+ of the time and because of that the GDC was able to make appropriate rule changes.

Also of note, I hope Bill's Blog updates to give us more insight to the changes.

Good job GDC, I support these changes, despite being unfair to week 1 regionals (hindsight is always 20/20), I think this will improve the spirit of the game a great deal.

Re: Team update 16
 

Interesting that you got a penalty for that. Our assesment of the rules would indicate that there should have not been a penalty under <G13>:

<G13> Causing PENALTIES – The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.

Did you protest the call?

Re: Team update 16
 

Chuck,
Don't forget this...
<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3 inches inside
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5),
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed or used to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE.

R19 remains unchanged and may have played into the decision.

Re: Team update 16
 

No, it was deemed insignificant at the time considering it was Saturday and it was only our 2nd penalty total (the first being incidental contact with a flipped robot within the grace period).

Re: Team update 16
 

So they are still using the coopertition ranking system to award points, but the winner gets 5 extra points? Correct me if I am wrong.

Re: Team update 16
 

The bottom of the robot is not the same as the top, in terms of <R19>.
Below the bumper zone, that is actually the rule. <R19> spells this all out.

Re: Team update 16
 

Absolutely, which begs the question is this an inspection issue or a referee issue? As an inspector we required the robots to have some reasonable protection on the top and sides such that the balls couldn’t enter the robot more than 3”. We required several teams to add some sort of netting, Lexan, or other cover on their tops and/or bars or something on the lower parts of the sides so that the balls didn’t have a reasonable chance of entering the robot by more than 3”. We assumed this to be the intent of <R19>. However, we didn’t require all the bots to be solid on the bottom as this would inhibit going over the bumps in most cases. If you incurred a penalty by riding up on the ball and trapping it under/inside your robot the inspectors considered that to be a field issue for the refs to deal with. I guess I am wondering what "normal operation" means? <R19> would seem to be an inspection issue as it is a robot rule not a game rule. If you designed your robot to go over the bump then is that not "normal operation"? If in "normal operation" a ball can go under and end up trapped inside your robot is this something the inspectors should fail or is this something to be left to the refs to penalize on the field?

Re: Team update 16
 

I stand corrected.

Re: Team update 16
 

As I said in my post, I was not talking about going over a bump onto the ball. Most of the penalties I saw at Peachtree were caused by robots in the open field trying to push a single ball all by themselves, and driving over that ball. This could be tested with a $10.00 soccer ball in 5 minutes of testing prior to ship. I know we did a lot of such testing to insure that it couldn't happen to us.

Re: Team update 16
 

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

Re: Team update 16
 

It is the beginning of the season, not the middle. NOT changing the rules after flaws are uncovered would have been a fundamental fail.

Re: Team update 16
 

The beginning of the season was more than 6 weeks ago.

Re: Team update 16
 

When were they to know some of the rules were not the best? Before the regionals started? They had to observe it before they could change it. Although, I do agree the seeding point system was not the best to begin with, it just took some examples (and complaining) before the GDC realized they had to do something to make it better. Unfortunately for week 1 teams, they were the guinea pigs. It's better they change them now than never. I give props to the GDC for fixing the rules.

Re: Team update 16
 

Sounds better if you call them beta testers.