Disabling a robot

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Personally, I loved having more robots disabled for issues on the field than we've seen in the past - do that for a few years and I think we'll see some drastic improvements in areas that typically get very little attention from teams (bumpers!).

I think field disables should be limited to safety issues, such as bumpers and battery. Other than that, the foul points can adjust, and let the game play out.

That said, one of my biggest challenges as an LRI this year was in begging leniency from the head refs for a match or two while a team worked on a fix.

That is why I believe in 2 levels of passing inspection. If you pass a Safety inspection, then you can compete only in the Qualifying Matches. If you pass Safety and Compliance, that would be equivalent to the current Pass, and you can que in the filler line, and participate in Alliance Selection and Elimination Matches.

I don't see the harm in allowing a safe robot to compete. The kids worked their hardest to build the robot. Let them see how it performs.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by rich2202

I think field disables should be limited to safety issues, such as bumpers and battery. Other than that, the foul points can adjust, and let the game play out.



That is why I believe in 2 levels of passing inspection. If you pass a Safety inspection, then you can compete only in the Qualifying Matches. If you pass Safety and Compliance, that would be equivalent to the current Pass, and you can que in the filler line, and participate in Alliance Selection and Elimination Matches.

I don't see the harm in allowing a safe robot to compete. The kids worked their hardest to build the robot. Let them see how it performs.

What about a team that passes safety inspection, does great on the field during qualifications, gets picked by another team, then finds out they have to change something that's illegal, causing their performance on the field to tank? Is it fair to their alliance members, who would have picked someone else if they had known? Is it fair to the team themselves to ruin their eliminations by not getting the full inspection through at the start of the event?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by dmaciel10123

I should also add that I feel very strongly about this because my team lost the finals at the Pine Tree District event while an opposing robot was driving without bumpers.

Which match was this? I don't recall it happening in F3 (I recall 133 entangling 125 with the surgical tubing after a cross field ram). I just watched F1 and didn't see it. And you won F2... Soooo

[dmaciel10123]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Which match was this? I don't recall it happening in F3 (I recall 133 entangling 125 with the surgical tubing after a cross field ram). I just watched F1 and didn't see it. And you won F2... Soooo

In F3, 663 (I think that was their number) had a bumper that fell off. Their bumpers were constructed to cover the corners only, and one corner fell off.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by dmaciel10123

In F3, 663 (I think that was their number) had a bumper that fell off. Their bumpers were constructed to cover the corners only, and one corner fell off.

Ah, that's why I didn't see it. Thanks for refreshing my memory. I was also on the opposite side of the field from where they tended to play.

[StevenB]

I was scorekeeper in Arkansas, and disabled a handful of robots for bumper issues over the course of the weekend.

Originally Posted by dmaciel10123

The rule is in place to encourage teams to take care of their bumpers, and alliance members should be willing to help fix them if there is anything wrong.

The problem is that this rule hurts the teams that need the most help. I and my two siblings (all of us volunteers) spent several hours with a team on Thursday night helping them build legal bumpers so they could pass inspection and play on Friday. Unfortunately, their blue bumper covers weren't stuck on very well, and came part way off at some point, causing them to be disabled. The bumpers were still functionally intact, and there was no practical reason - safety, damage, or otherwise - to disable them.

The rule as I understand it is to penalize robots who lose a whole bumper segment, preventing them from leaving a large item on the field and continuing to mix it up with other robots. I see no reason to disable a robot because their cloth sags a little bit, and I hope this rule will change next year to reflect that. Making the penalties stricter will not help teams do better (G40, anyone?), it just punishes those who are already struggling.

[dmaciel10123]

Originally Posted by StevenB

I was scorekeeper in Arkansas, and disabled a handful of robots for bumper issues over the course of the weekend.



The problem is that this rule hurts the teams that need the most help. I and my two siblings (all of us volunteers) spent several hours with a team on Thursday night helping them build legal bumpers so they could pass inspection and play on Friday. Unfortunately, their blue bumper covers weren't stuck on very well, and came part way off at some point, causing them to be disabled. The bumpers were still functionally intact, and there was no practical reason - safety, damage, or otherwise - to disable them.

The rule as I understand it is to penalize robots who lose a whole bumper segment, preventing them from leaving a large item on the field and continuing to mix it up with other robots. I see no reason to disable a robot because their cloth sags a little bit, and I hope this rule will change next year to reflect that. Making the penalties stricter will not help teams do better (G40, anyone?), it just punishes those who are already struggling.

I understand how if a part of cloth is under the 2 inches then it shouldn't be disabled, and I'm pretty sure that by Worlds that was the general consensus. But some events didn't seem to share the same idea, and didn't disable robots who were missing or dragging bumpers, batteries, or other parts that weren't supposed to be dragged around. I also understand that it's hard to make a rule against this that couldn't be misinterpreted.

Hopefully next year any rule like this will be much more clarified and less "open to interpretation" as this one was.

Also, a quick question. If a robot's bumper fell off, and the opposing team questioned why the robot wasn't disabled, is the referee allowed to say "It's my call and I didn't see any risks", even if the missing bumper made it terrifying to even go near the bot?

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by dmaciel10123

Also, a quick question. If a robot's bumper fell off, and the opposing team questioned why the robot wasn't disabled, is the referee allowed to say "It's my call and I didn't see any risks", even if the missing bumper made it terrifying to even go near the bot?

The head referee's rulings are final and not in any way up for debate. If it was the head ref that told you that (even if it's the wrong call), you have to live with it. You might be able to discuss their reasons with them, but it really depends on the person. Some unfortunately just aren't willing to discuss much with teams.

[EricH]

As I recall, the way it was called at L.A. was this: If the INTENT of the bumper rule--protection of the corners, ID of the team and alliance, etc.-- was met, without unduly endangering the other alliance, then no disable was issued. Thus, if a team had half of a side bumper dragging on the floor, but turned in such a way that they kept that bumper over their corner, they would be allowed to finish the match; after the match, of course, they'd be sent off to fix their bumpers, probably along with one of their friendly neighborhood inspectors.

On a few occasions, a robot was disabled for bumper violations.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

What about a team that passes safety inspection, does great on the field during qualifications, gets picked by another team, then finds out they have to change something that's illegal, causing their performance on the field to tank?

A robot that has not passed compliance cannot participate in alliance selection. Maybe set the deadline for passing compliance in order to participate in Alliance Selection as the 2nd to last qualification match for that robot.

How about giving the team 0 Qualification Match Points for any match they played while non-compliant. That would keep their rankings low, and the teams that scout would have fair warning that they are potentially buying an unknown robot.