Suggestions for resolving stuck balls

[Nuttyman54]

I think the robot needs to be e-stopped or disabled by the field in order for the ball to be declared dead, since a radio or cRIO reset could result in the robot becoming active at a later point if not expressly disabled. This doesn't address if the ball comes loose after the disable (eg a mechanism sags, or a forceful hit on the ball later).

The issue is not just how to determine when a ball is "dead" but also deal with what happens if the ball returns to play, since the game is only designed to track one ball at a time in teleop.

I think with how rarely a ball will get stuck on top of the truss, the best recourse is to declare a field fault, similar to jammed nets in 2012.

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I think the robot needs to be e-stopped or disabled by the field in order for the ball to be declared dead, since a radio or cRIO reset could result in the robot becoming active at a later point if not expressly disabled. This doesn't address if the ball comes loose after the disable (eg a mechanism sags, or a forceful hit on the ball later).

The issue is not just how to determine when a ball is "dead" but also deal with what happens if the ball returns to play, since the game is only designed to track one ball at a time in teleop.

I think with how rarely a ball will get stuck on top of the truss, the best recourse is to declare a field fault, similar to jammed nets in 2012.

+1 on every point.

[AndyBare]

My suggestion would just say any ball that cannot be put back into play is "dead." No ball will replace it. This will increase downtime between cycles as an alliance lose their balls to "death" by getting them stuck, etc. It will make teams sure that they do not want to be the problem. This will encourage teams to make sure batteries are charged, autonomous works, etc, without blindly putting a robot onto a field where there is a chance of something going wrong.

[AndyBare]

To elaborate, we know each team has 3 balls that cycle in and out of the field. while 1 is in play, 1 is waiting on the pedestal, and 1 is beside it. As the field ball is scored, the next is brought in and the positions switch. A dead ball will be replaced by the next in line on the pedestal, but no ball will replace it as a third "live" ball. The alliance would then only have 2.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by AndyBare

To elaborate, we know each team has 3 balls that cycle in and out of the field. while 1 is in play, 1 is waiting on the pedestal, and 1 is beside it. As the field ball is scored, the next is brought in and the positions switch. A dead ball will be replaced by the next in line on the pedestal, but no ball will replace it as a third "live" ball. The alliance would then only have 2.

Please state the rule that shows that there is ONLY 3 balls that cycle.

I do believe you are in error there.

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Please state the rule that shows that there is ONLY 3 balls that cycle.

I do believe you are in error there.

3.1.2 MATCH Logistics
Although an ALLIANCE may start a MATCH with up to three (3) BALLS, the PEDESTAL will only be illuminated when the last BALL that started the MATCH is SCORED, effectively reducing the number of BALLS in play per ALLIANCE to one (1).

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by AndyBare

3.1.2 MATCH Logistics
Although an ALLIANCE may start a MATCH with up to three (3) BALLS, the PEDESTAL will only be illuminated when the last BALL that started the MATCH is SCORED, effectively reducing the number of BALLS in play per ALLIANCE to one (1).

I believe that just means on the field at the start of the match, that does not necessarily mean that there are only 3 balls available and those 3 balls are in a rotation of any sort.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by AndyBare

3.1.2 MATCH Logistics
Although an ALLIANCE may start a MATCH with up to three (3) BALLS, the PEDESTAL will only be illuminated when the last BALL that started the MATCH is SCORED, effectively reducing the number of BALLS in play per ALLIANCE to one (1).

All that states is that there are 3 balls that start in play (during autonomous) not that there are only 3 balls of a specific color that are cycled.

[Aaron.Graeve]

When I read 3.1.2, It seemed to me that the rule is only refering to balls in play on the field or with the human player (bearing in mind my interpretation is far from official). I trust that the field crew would have more than 3 balls per alliance. If one were to go flat in an irreparable way, that would adversely affect high powered alliances that intended to use all of their balls in auto later in the tournament.

I would compare this to the number of discs at competitions last year. Events had disks to spare on off chance that one was destroyed or damaged beyond reasonable use, even though the game manual only specified a particular number of game pieces to be in-game. I think (again in no official capacity) that there would be more that three balls "in cycle" at any given time but only one of them would be in-play. I have seen nothing indicating that the pedestal would be empty and lit at the same time (the condition if a there was a shortage of balls) and the field tour videos seem to indicate there would always be a ball waiting.

This is just my unofficial opinion.

[AndyBare]

Oh. Thanks. The way I read it, it was unclear. I do believe you are right though. More than 3 cycle. Apologies.

[GaryVoshol]

A ROBOT is carrying a BALL and commits an offense that results in the ROBOT being DISABLED. I don't want to seem heartless, but really, why should the alliance get another ball in play? They should have encouraged their partner to play correctly and not get DISABLED.

A ROBOT is built to carry a BALL, but sometimes the BALL gets stuck in the ROBOT. Again, tough luck. That's the way you designed it.

A ROBOT unexpectedly stops running while carrying a BALL. Unless it can be shown to be a field fault (comms) and the match replayed, then it's another case of "too bad".

A BALL gets stuck on the TRUSS - I'd rather see the TRUSS redesigned so that a ball can't get stuck, but that raises the height of the top of the TRUSS. So I could see a "semi-field-fault" called here, with a unique remedy of introducing a new BALL. The one on the TRUSS is declared debris. It will make it a little harder for the refs to track the POSSESSIONS, but that's why we get the big bucks.

So we're left with E-stopping. I am wary that if a ROBOT is acting sluggish (low battery maybe?) the team will E-stop. That's not what it's for. In the past, there were even rules for a red card for E-stopping when it's not an emergency. For a true emergency, I can see introducing a new BALL or declaring a replay of the match. But I don't want to be deciding if the E-stop was required or not. And I don't want to tempt teams that are having less than desired performance to push the red button. If the GDC can figure out that problem, then they can decide what the remedy will be for an E-stopped ROBOT.

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

A BALL gets stuck on the TRUSS - I'd rather see the TRUSS redesigned so that a ball can't get stuck, but that raises the height of the top of the TRUSS. So I could see a "semi-field-fault" called here, with a unique remedy of introducing a new BALL. The one on the TRUSS is declared debris. It will make it a little harder for the refs to track the POSSESSIONS, but that's why we get the big bucks.

What happens when the team uses the newly entered ball to knock the "debris" one off the truss. Then there are two balls on the field.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

A ROBOT is carrying a BALL and commits an offense that results in the ROBOT being DISABLED. I don't want to seem heartless, but really, why should the alliance get another ball in play? They should have encouraged their partner to play correctly and not get DISABLED.

A ROBOT is built to carry a BALL, but sometimes the BALL gets stuck in the ROBOT. Again, tough luck. That's the way you designed it.

A ROBOT unexpectedly stops running while carrying a BALL. Unless it can be shown to be a field fault (comms) and the match replayed, then it's another case of "too bad".

A BALL gets stuck on the TRUSS - I'd rather see the TRUSS redesigned so that a ball can't get stuck, but that raises the height of the top of the TRUSS. So I could see a "semi-field-fault" called here, with a unique remedy of introducing a new BALL. The one on the TRUSS is declared debris. It will make it a little harder for the refs to track the POSSESSIONS, but that's why we get the big bucks.

So we're left with E-stopping. I am wary that if a ROBOT is acting sluggish (low battery maybe?) the team will E-stop. That's not what it's for. In the past, there were even rules for a red card for E-stopping when it's not an emergency. For a true emergency, I can see introducing a new BALL or declaring a replay of the match. But I don't want to be deciding if the E-stop was required or not. And I don't want to tempt teams that are having less than desired performance to push the red button. If the GDC can figure out that problem, then they can decide what the remedy will be for an E-stopped ROBOT.

I understand the sentiment of "too bad" as a design challenge but I think it is unfair to punish so harshly teams in qualification rounds for the design failures of their randomly selected partners.

In most FRC games, having bad partners is part of the game: If someone doesn't move, they can't score points and your alliance can't reach it's maximum potential. However, if the combined power of your alliance's two robots is better than the three of the opposing alliance, you will still win. This is how it should be and leads to mostly accurate rankings.

In this years game, if your randomly selected alliance partner fails to move at all like so many excellent teams have done in the past, even on Einstein, none of the other alliance robots are allowed to play the game through no fault of their own.

This is not fair. Many teams only get 8 or 9 matches per season to play. How can you take one away from them due to the fault of another robot? Not only will they lose but they don't even get to play.

Now, in eliminations, I would argue that "you failed, too bad" as a design challenge is fair. You pick your partners and you shouldn't have picked someone who isn't reliable. That said, I don't think it is a good gameplay element. As we've seen in Einstein 2011, 2012, and 2013, robots very often become incapacitated before or during matches even at exceedingly high levels of play. For teams it is already discouraging enough to have an alliance partner not working, should we put the nail in their coffin by saying "sorry, you aren't allowed to score any more points by yourselves either"? And to spectators, it isn't fun to not watch one robot move but it's even fun to realize that an entire alliance is not allowed to score points anymore due to one failed robot.


My proposition:

Add a new button with a different connotation from E-Stop, call it E-Disable or something. When it is pushed, it disables the robot connected to it for the rest of the match and specifies that anything that the robot and anything it is possessing is considered field debris for the rest of the match. Restart the cycle by entering a new ball into play immediately as if a ball had just been scored. No penalty for using other than robot is disabled for the rest of the match.

Put a blue box underneath the rule specifying that this should be used in cases where teams believe they will be unable to restart their robot and wish to declare it dead in the water so their alliance may play on. Utilizing it in cases to gain a competitive advantage otherwise is prohibited. Violation: Red Card.


If "you failed, too bad" is the challenge the GDC was going for then don't allow the use of this button in eliminations. My personal opinion is they should allow it, because it makes it a more interesting game for everyone involved.

As for the truss, construct a very slight incline (maybe 1") with the same material used for the incline in the low goal so a ball rolls off. Don't make a new rule for what happens if the ball gets stuck because it won't.

[atucker4072]

I read the game manual and may have missed this but couldn't the robot drive to the hp and the hp take the ball out? Not sure if this is a safety issue or not.

[TheMadCADer]

Originally Posted by atucker4072

I read the game manual and may have missed this but couldn't the robot drive to the hp and the hp take the ball out? Not sure if this is a safety issue or not.

Human Players are not allowed to contact a ball also in contact with a robot (G41).