View Single Post
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2014, 10:19
KrazyCarl92's Avatar
KrazyCarl92 KrazyCarl92 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Carl Springli
FRC #5811 (The BONDS)(EWCP)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 521
KrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: IRI Rule Changes

Inflate balls to a nominal diameter. This can be easily tested by having a square rig that you shove a ball through. If it goes through without getting snagged but still touches all 4 sides, it would be in spec. It just seems like such an easy thing to do that can make the experience better for teams that it baffled me as to why this was not implemented at some point during the season.

Also, change G12:
"The intent of G12 is to prevent an ALLIANCE from inhibiting an opponent’s ability to interact with their BALL, but accommodate accidental and inconsequential actions by way of fewer FOUL points. Actions which are perceived as consequential and extended are distinct violations, as there are scenarios where POSSESSION of an opponent’s BALL could be consequential or extended but not necessarily both."

In QF4-1 on Archimedes, we were assessed a 20 point foul when the red ball inbounded by the red alliance human player landed directly in our robot. I have no doubt this was unintentional, they were clearly trying to inbound to the Killer Bees. We immediately launched the ball directly back to the red human player who caught it, then re-entered it into play at the next possible opportunity (if anything we saved them time and they were better off than if they had just missed and the ball been on the floor). If the intent of G12 is as stated, no action by our team could have changed the fact that we had possessed the ball and the rule is ineffective at preventing an alliance from inhibiting an opponent's ability to interact with their ball in cases where it is the direct result of the opponent's actions. Why should we be penalized for their human player missing an inbound?

I understand why the foul was assessed, but my problem is with the rule as written. I suggest it changes such that actions by the opposing alliance which directly cause your possession of the opponent's ball result in 0 foul points as long as the ball leaves the robot in a timely manner. I would like to see it changed to define an exact amount of time when it goes from being "inconsequential" to "consequential" for cases of accidental possession. Somewhere in the 3-5 seconds range sounds reasonable and it gives the refs a concrete standard to go by.
__________________
[2017-present] FRC 0020 - The Rocketeers
[2016] FRC 5811 - BONDS Robotics
[2010-2015] FRC 0020 - The Rocketeers
Reply With Quote