Keepers in Teleoperated mode

[burkey_turkey]

so the rules make it very obcious that keepers placed after autonomous are 'ignored during the scoring'. my question is, if a keeper is placed on the rack after autonomous, thus making it useless, and a ringer is placed over the keeper during the match, will this count for whichever team has placed the ringer?

the reason i ask this is because of the rule about only 2 tubes on a leg at a time. if a worthless keeper is below a ringer, then that leg is basically a keeper because it cannot be spiled (because it would require a third tube)

there is probably a rule somewhere that talks about something like this or gives a penalty for the placement of keepers after autonomous but i overlooked it. i apreciate any responses because the stratgey could proove effective if legal

[Kristian Calhoun]

You're right in that the keeper placed after autonomous would not count, only the outermost ringer. The last page of section 7 of the manual has a nice little chart on tube placement and how it would be scored, here's an excerpt:

[dtengineering]

Teams that do not drop their keepers immediately after the start of teleoperated mode are penalized, I believe, by disqualification (rule G14)

I am sure you will discover lots of other things, too, if you actually read the manual before posting.

Jason

[gillejr]

Ok I read through rule G14 and it does not say exactly what will happen to a robot who does not drop a keeper once autonomous period is over. It says the keeper must be dropped, but what is the penalty?

Also another question, the rule G04 does not state exactly what will happen penality wise if a robot does not start with a keeper at the begining of the autonomous period. Say if the keeper falls off the robot before the match begins.

[Nicole_N]

Are the keepers just used durring the autonmous mode or durring the whole game?

[vic burg]

Originally Posted by Nicole_N

Are the keepers just used durring the autonmous mode or durring the whole game?

The keepers, the one that say "FIRST" on them, are only used during autonomous. Since there is only one per team. The other red and blue plain ones are used during the whole game. And the spoilers, the black ones, are in the last 15 seconds, after the warning noise.

[DanDon]

Originally Posted by vic burg

The keepers, the one that say "FIRST" on them, are only used during autonomous. Since there is only one per team. The other red and blue plain ones are used during the whole game. And the spoilers, the black ones, are in the last 15 seconds, after the warning noise.

You can theoretically place a spoiler at any point in time. The only thing special about the end game (The last 15 seconds) is that you are not allowed in your opponents home zone.

[akshar]

Originally Posted by gillejr

Also another question, the rule G04 does not state exactly what will happen penality wise if a robot does not start with a keeper at the begining of the autonomous period. Say if the keeper falls off the robot before the match begins.

[quote= FRC Manual 07 <G04>] KEEPER locations - Each ROBOT starts the match in POSSESSION of a KEEPER. The
KEEPER does NOT need to be contained within the ROBOT'S starting volume, however it must be in contact with the ROBOT and be entirely within the HOME ZONE. The head referee will require that KEEPERS that do not meet these criteria be removed from the game. It is the responsibility of the head referee to verify that this rule is satisfied prior to the start of the match.[/]

no penalty. if you dont use a keeper it will be removed, the rule just tells you the correct way to place a keeper if your team decides to use it.
^ my interpretation of the rule

[dbell]

at the BAE GSR, after the autonomous mode the head ref would come out onto the field and take away the tubes that robots were holding. this might happen at other regionals too. you can't score a keeper in tele mode anyway so I don't know why he did that.

[Wayne Doenges]

Something funny happened at the NJ regional. During autonomous, a robot went out towards the rack and was just getting ready to place the keeper when time ran out. When the teleoperated mode started he dropped the keeper and it fell onto the spider and scored. The refs left it there and continued play but the match was stopped. I don't know if it was because of the illegal keeper or another problem. When they replayed the match the same robot went out and still didn't drop before time ran out. Before the teleoperated mode started a ref came out and had to forcibly remove the keeper frome the robots grasp.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by Wayne Doenges

Something funny happened at the NJ regional. During autonomous, a robot went out towards the rack and was just getting ready to place the keeper when time ran out. When the teleoperated mode started he dropped the keeper and it fell onto the spider and scored. The refs left it there and continued play but the match was stopped. I don't know if it was because of the illegal keeper or another problem. When they replayed the match the same robot went out and still didn't drop before time ran out. Before the teleoperated mode started a ref came out and had to forcibly remove the keeper frome the robots grasp.

The match was stopped due to the Late Keeper. I'll say here what I said in the other thread.

Programmers and operators : Do not let your robot drop the keeper as the first thing it does in teleoperated mode; before an operator even touches the controls.

This late keeper is grounds for disqualification!

Set your program and/or OI switches so that the robot keeps the keeper in its death grip until the operators can properly dispose of it.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Wayne Doenges

Something funny happened at the NJ regional. During autonomous, a robot went out towards the rack and was just getting ready to place the keeper when time ran out. When the teleoperated mode started he dropped the keeper and it fell onto the spider and scored. The refs left it there and continued play but the match was stopped. I don't know if it was because of the illegal keeper or another problem. When they replayed the match the same robot went out and still didn't drop before time ran out. Before the teleoperated mode started a ref came out and had to forcibly remove the keeper frome the robots grasp.

When I watched that event happen my first thoughts was that the rules as stated meant the NJ ref should have DQ'ed the team instead restarting the match. Each new match the ref continued to prevent the DQ offense from happening by walking onto the field and wrestling the tube off the robot after autonomous. My thoughts were that this is not what the rules says. But wait am I going defend a rule which I believe is too harsh? What I believe now is, we were seeing the ref was trying not to DQ a team due to a rule which carries an undue and too harsh Penalty and needs updating.

Why should this carry a DQ penalty? This is the goal of the autonomous and if you just missed but accidentally put the keeper on after, why a DQ? Usually a DQ is due safety or equipment damage or unfair advantage; I do not see that here.

I think FIRST should rethink this harsh penalty. From the actions of the NJ refs, I believe, that they DID NOT wanted to make that DQ call either.

GOOD CALL NJ REFS!!!

[Spider-Man]

Here's a post I made about this in another thread about this. Basically, not only do the rules say nothing about removing keepers from robots that can possibly be dropped and not scored, but this issue was addressed very clearly in the Q&A forum.

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Luke

When I watched that event happen my first thoughts was that the rules as stated meant the NJ ref should have DQ'ed the team instead restarting the match. Each new match the ref continued to prevent the DQ offense from happening by walking onto the field and wrestling the tube off the robot after autonomous. My thoughts were that this is not what the rules says. But wait am I going defend a rule which I believe is too harsh? What I believe now is, we were seeing the ref was trying not to DQ a team due to a rule which carries an undue and too harsh Penalty and needs updating.

Why should this carry a DQ penalty? This is the goal of the autonomous and if you just missed but accidentally put the keeper on after, why a DQ? Usually a DQ is due safety or equipment damage or unfair advantage; I do not see that here.

I think FIRST should rethink this harsh penalty. From the actions of the NJ refs, I believe, that they DID NOT wanted to make that DQ call either.

GOOD CALL NJ REFS!!!

The NJ match in question was stopped because of a mis-communication between the head ref and the scorekeeper/field controller. The match should have been paused until that keeper was removed from play.

One of the main jobs of the head ref at the end of autonomous is to remove any "precariously perched" keepers to specifically avoid that situation (an inadvertent score at the start of tele-operated period), THEN signal to the field controller to continue the match. You should see this happen regularly at all of the competitions this year. The DQ penalty is in place more for a deliberately placed "late" keeper.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

The NJ match in question was stopped because of a mis-communication between the head ref and the scorekeeper/field controller. The match should have been paused until that keeper was removed from play.

One of the main jobs of the head ref at the end of autonomous is to remove any "precariously perched" keepers to specifically avoid that situation (an inadvertent score at the start of tele-operated period), THEN signal to the field controller to continue the match. You should see this happen regularly at all of the competitions this year. The DQ penalty is in place more for a deliberately placed "late" keeper.

Thanks, that explains what I saw as well.

As an aside, many times actions are not alway communicated clearly or at all to spectator either, I wish they would so we could have the facts too and not be left confused, trying to figure it out.