Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Holley
Why this does not deal with bumpers, it does deal with going outside the bumperzone.
At Boston this past weekend, I believe it was the semifinals, team 178's autonomous mode sent them crashing into the wall on the other side of the field. Their robot has a big box on a hinge on the top. The hinge is to allow them to easily access their electronics, battery, etc.
Their robot hit the wall hinge side first, and because it appeared the robot had not been locked down, the top of it tilted over and was actually hanging outside of the field (and bumper zone for that matter). When the match went to teleop mode, 178 moved their robot away from the wall and the top of it hinged back down to its normally configuration and stayed that way for the rest of the match.
What would CDs interpretation of this be? It looked to me that they broke outside the bumper perimeter, and thus should have been penalized.
Video can be found here: They end up near the center of field towards the closer outpost during autonomous mode.
http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv...?matchid=12309
-Brando |
I should think that this would come under G27 and the robot would have a 10 second period during teleop to right itself. Now G27 is only concerned with contacting the surface outside of the field so perhaps if you just tilt over this rule would not cover the robot. Given that teams are SPECIFICALLY allowed to make contact outside the field during autonomous as long as they are righted during teleop I would think that logically one could logically assume that they would receive no other penalty for this type of action.
It would make little sense to me to have a rule that specifically allowed the contact outside the field...with no penalty for that during autonomous and THEN penalize the team for being outside the bumper zone for the same thing.
Now of course I did use the word logically assume... and those are fightin' words...