Safety Zone on Playing Field

[alectronic]

Manual 2.2.2; ZONES and LANES are areas safe from incursion by ROBOTS from the opposing ALLIANCE. The tape boundaries are considered “in” the bounded areas.

I agree, all the way across the tape line

[Josh Goodman]

While it is true for an opposing robot not being able to hit you AT ALL, you need to be fully in. Any part of your robot that is outside the safe zone, is hittable/intractable. Due to:

<G32> Neither ROBOTS, HOSTBOTS, nor MINIBOTS may break the planes of the vertically projected borders of the opponent's ZONES.

However, it's my prediction, that since the safe zones aren't always the easiest to see, if most of your robot is in the safe zone, opposing robots won't risk getting the penalty.

But yes by ruling, as long as part of your robot is outside the safe zone and the opposing robot DOESN'T break the vertical plane of the safe zone, you are still completely hittable.

[BJT]

that will be a tough line to see from 50 feet away.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by BJT

that will be a tough line to see from 50 feet away.

Not for an on-board sensor.

Jason

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Not for an on-board sensor.

Jason

do the line sensors work at an angle? otherwise you'd have to be over it to see it.

[45Auto]

Might be worth a 3 point penalty to stop someone from completing a logo on the top row .....

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Might be worth a 3 point penalty to stop someone from completing a logo on the top row .....

Knowing breaking the rules to gain a strategic advantage is a Yellow Card.

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Knowing breaking the rules to gain a strategic advantage is a Yellow Card.

Can you show me the rule for this?

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

Can you show me the rule for this?

Can't find it in the rules but a couple of years ago I brought up something I saw at the DC Regional where a team purposely carried four moonrocks and accepted the one penalty for getting four supercells.
The ref I talked to said the referee at DC had made a mistake and should have given a penalty for EACH moonrock they had possessed and he would have given them a Yellow Card for purposely violating the rules to gain an advantage.
Perhaps it's to the referees discretion. But if that's the case I wouldn't risk openly defying the rules. It's certainly not going to impress any judges or other teams for that matter.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

Can you show me the rule for this?

Rules <T06> and <T09> give referees the ability to award yellow or red cards at their discretion for "egregious" behavior.

<T06> The Head Referee may assign a YELLOW CARD as a warning of egregious ROBOT or TEAM member behavior at the ARENA. A YELLOW CARD will be indicated by the Head Referee standing in front of the TEAM’S PLAYER STATION and holding a yellow card in the air after the completion of the MATCH. In the first MATCH that a TEAM receives a YELLOW CARD, it acts as a warning.

<T09> If the behavior is particularly egregious, a RED CARD may be issued without being preceded by a YELLOW CARD, at the Head Referee’s discretion. The TEAM will still carry a YELLOW CARD into subsequent matches.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Rules <T06> and <T09> give referees the ability to award yellow or red cards at their discretion for "egregious" behavior.

Thanks Kevin.
I can't see FIRST endorsing behavior where teams are given an option to completely disregard a rule that was a major part of the game just brazenly ignored without consequences.
At the very least it would cause an updated rule change.

[45Auto]

I can't see FIRST endorsing behavior where teams are given an option to completely disregard a rule that was a major part of the game just brazenly ignored without consequences.
At the very least it would cause an updated rule change.

Nice theory. I used to be equally naive. It's the Ref's call and there's nothing you can do about it.

In 2007 Rule G35 specifically prohibited robots from climbing the opposing alliances ramps. The rule specifically stated that doing so would be interpreted as an attempt to damage the opposing robot, which was not in the spirit of FIRST.

We lost our Regional by 2 points (fifth game of the series - we each had one win and there had been two ties) when an opposing robot climbed up our ramp and knocked off and tipped over our alliance robot that had been lifted for the 30 point bonus. We protested but it was over ruled. Got a huge "BOO" out of the whole arena when they announced that the results would stand. Anyone could see that it should have been a minimum of a 10 point penalty.

There was a big thread about it here. The opposing Drive Coach stated that it was obvious that their only chance was to risk the penalty. If he didn't stop the lift they lost.

FIRST has nothing to do with it, it all comes down to what the Ref at the regional decides. Each team will make it's own decision on whether risking a 3 point penalty to win a game is worth it. I don't see this years "Safety Zone" rule being any different than Rack-n-Roll's "Can't Climb Opposing Ramps" rule.

2007 Rule G35:

[Tom Line]

"You haven't won the race, if in winning the race you have lost the respect of your competitors." -- Paul Elvstrom

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Nice theory. I used to be equally naive. It's the Ref's call and there's nothing you can do about it.

In 2007 Rule G35 specifically prohibited robots from climbing the opposing alliances ramps. The rule specifically stated that doing so would be interpreted as an attempt to damage the opposing robot, which was not in the spirit of FIRST.

We lost our Regional by 2 points (fifth game of the series - we each had one win and there had been two ties) when an opposing robot climbed up our ramp and knocked off and tipped over our alliance robot that had been lifted for the 30 point bonus. We protested but it was over ruled. Got a huge "BOO" out of the whole arena when they announced that the results would stand. Anyone could see that it should have been a minimum of a 10 point penalty.

There was a big thread about it here. The opposing Drive Coach stated that it was obvious that their only chance was to risk the penalty. If he didn't stop the lift they lost.

FIRST has nothing to do with it, it all comes down to what the Ref at the regional decides. Each team will make it's own decision on whether risking a 3 point penalty to win a game is worth it. I don't see this years "Safety Zone" rule being any different than Rack-n-Roll's "Can't Climb Opposing Ramps" rule.

2007 Rule G35:

So because one referee made a mistake and did not enforce the rules you feel that the rules don't matter any longer?
I wish you luck with that. Because there are plenty of refs who will follow the rules to the letter and if you do something obvious to gain an advantage I think there will be a price to pay.
I don't think it's a risk worth taking.

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Not for an on-board sensor.

Jason

Hmmmm unless you are projecting your sensor in front of you... I think you would be in violation if your sensor "saw" the line..

I guess that would be possible.. I have just never done it...usually straight up and down has worked with ours...