Palmetto Regional Week 0.5

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by Jetweb

We didn't press the issue as it didn't affect the outcome of a match.

I'm fairly confident as the events move on this will be watched more closely and called more often. There were very few attempts made at shooting from the outer-works this weekend and they can't catch everything.

Ref's did a great job keeping track of defense crossings which was way more important in my book.

Concur again congratulations awesome 0.5 event and a well deserved win.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Boltman

So Erich is it legal in your opinion like many of us envisioned to cross pause/shoot to then score both a HG and a successful cross in one action? (5 +5=10) then rinse repeat as long as we complete the crossing each time?

I have no delusions this is easy but do want to know if its an option to get those points efficiently.

You're sure you want to risk giving your opponents points based on my opinion?

To tell the truth, I saw that one myself, too. I actually want to say that I saw a Q&A about the topic, but I can't find it now (Q&A is really annoying to search through--don't they teach spelling in schools anymore?).


If I was you, I'd double-check at the drivers' meeting.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by EricH

You're sure you want to risk giving your opponents points based on my opinion?

To tell the truth, I saw that one myself, too. I actually want to say that I saw a Q&A about the topic, but I can't find it now (Q&A is really annoying to search through--don't they teach spelling in schools anymore?).


If I was you, I'd double-check at the drivers' meeting.

I know you read the rules like I do and trust your judgement... I think its ok but that's just me, I'll have my drivers check



I think its legal based on attached rules Q532 and 900


Game Manual - Game » Game Rules » Defense Rules
Q532 Q. "A robot carrying a boulder crosses a defense into their opponents' courtyard. They then move back such that a part of its bumpers are within the opponent’s outer works while their robot is still in contact with the courtyard carpet. They attempt to line up a shot, but an opponent contacts them. Does the opponent incur a G43 penalty?"
FRC3322 on 2016-01-14 | 16 Followers
A. This situation does demonstrate a violation of G43. Per G43: "A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS." Even if you are shooting a BOULDER, you would be protected by G43 if your BUMPERS are within the OUTER WORKS. <-----Rangles scenario OK

Q900 Q. In Regards to Rule G-39 My question is I have seen teams at Week 0 events parking on the COURTYARD side of the OUTER WORKS and in contact with one of the OUTER WORKS ramps and shooting the BOULDER, in my opinion this violates rule G-39 because the OUTER WORKS or sitting on top of carpet and the OUTER WORKS are defined as having an infinitely tall volume. We just need a clarification as of how this rule will be enforced.
FRC0313 on 2016-02-23
A. G39 prohibits launching BOULDERS unless a ROBOT is: "in contact with the opponent’s TOWER or carpet in the opponent’s COURTYARD, and not in contact with any other carpet." A ROBOT which is contacting the carpet in the opponent's COURTYARD and also contacting the PLATFORM ramps (or any other non-carpet part of the OUTER WORKS) meets these criteria and therefore is not in violation of G39 <---My scenario seems OK but will clarify

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by EricH

You're sure you want to risk giving your opponents points based on my opinion?

To tell the truth, I saw that one myself, too. I actually want to say that I saw a Q&A about the topic, but I can't find it now (Q&A is really annoying to search through--don't they teach spelling in schools anymore?).


If I was you, I'd double-check at the drivers' meeting.

Is it either of these Q&A

Q532 in my judgement establishes that no matter what you are currently doing (lining up a shot in this case), if your bumpers are in Outer Works you in a protected traversal.

Q702 in my judgement establishes that Boulders entering the Courtyard (and possibly goal) and Crossings are independent events and in many cases the Boulder enters first. It builds upon the G40 Blue Box example B that robot must complete the Crossing after entering the Boulder, or at least not leave the Outer Works (abort the Crossing)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

Is it either of these Q&A

Q532 in my judgement establishes that no matter what you are currently doing (lining up a shot in this case), if your bumpers are in Outer Works you in a protected traversal.

Q702 in my judgement establishes that Boulders entering the Courtyard (and possibly goal) and Crossings are independent events and in many cases the Boulder enters first. It builds upon the G40 Blue Box example B that robot must complete the Crossing after entering the Boulder, or at least not leave the Outer Works (abort the Crossing)

That would be them.

The big problem is that neither one refers to G40 directly. Still a good question to ask the head ref (ideally with reference to these two questions in hand).

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by JG1902

Any updates on the awards? TBA isn't updating anything on my end.

Small week 0.5 bug on our end... They're up now (:

[Keefe2471]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

We assumed like everyone else that as long as your bumper was over the outer works you could not be touched, from our perspective that was not how the rule was being called, attached is a screen shot from the stream of quarterfinal 1 match 1 where it is very obvious we have are actually contacting a defense, and yet no penalty was called, ironically it was announced as an "even more impressive, penalty free match". When we questioned after the match we were told the referees couldn't see it.

I just want to make it clear, I am not trying to bad mouth the volunteers at the event, in fact this was the first event I have ever attended where every volunteer, and employee of the venue were extraordinarily pleasant. I just wanted to show what was meant above.

Perfect example James. This is exactly what I was talking about. The Q629 (https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Que...the-outerworks) seems like it very clearly defines what qualifies as traversing and therefor protected. I'm hopeful that as high goal scoring becomes more popular this is a more heavily stressed penalty. It seems like something that should be clearly visible to the ref in each corner of the courtyards.

It is a fairly specific reading of the rules that defines the safe zone and I can see how it could be missed. Is the training for the referees something FIRST releases to the public or something they keep in house?

Thanks for putting together this reply.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Keefe2471

Is the training for the referees something FIRST releases to the public or something they keep in house?

I haven't personally taken the training, but I'm managing 30 volunteers at North Dakota State University, and three of them are referees. I will say that the test for referees takes over 3 hours, and it is far from easy. I heard from one head referee that it was the hardest test he's ever taken, bar-none.

FIRST has taken many steps to improve the program, and a big focus seems to be volunteer training. Have faith that the referees have been thoroughly screened, and know the game well. I can't speak to how open the referee test is to the public.

[Keefe2471]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

I haven't personally taken the training, but I'm managing 30 volunteers at North Dakota State University, and three of them are referees. I will say that the test for referees takes over 3 hours, and it is far from easy. I heard from one head referee that it was the hardest test he's ever taken, bar-none.

FIRST has taken many steps to improve the program, and a big focus seems to be volunteer training. Have faith that the referees have been thoroughly screened, and know the game well. I can't speak to how open the referee test is to the public.

I'm sure it's great. I was honestly just curious, and want to take a look at it. I was not attempting to be critical of any volunteers or refs.

Sorry if it came of that way.

[Bluman56]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

I haven't personally taken the training, but I'm managing 30 volunteers at North Dakota State University, and three of them are referees. I will say that the test for referees takes over 3 hours, and it is far from easy. I heard from one head referee that it was the hardest test he's ever taken, bar-none.

FIRST has taken many steps to improve the program, and a big focus seems to be volunteer training. Have faith that the referees have been thoroughly screened, and know the game well. I can't speak to how open the referee test is to the public.

I don't know about the referee test, but the inspector test is still far too easy. There are going to be scenarios that inspectors should be ready for and the test should point out pitfalls that teams usually overlook. Inspectors should be able to know from the test to look for certain things on robots that teams think is legal but is actually not. I still don't feel the test covers those scenarios well enough. Maybe I'm alone on this one, considering I don't see much discussion on it.

[rberglund]

Originally Posted by Boltman

I agree I'm surprised they lasted until Pick 24 what happened with them breaking down? What was the mechanical issues your team had?

Our robot lost robot code for entire F3 match. We (team & FTA) could not find problem even after match. We suspect a loose wire somewhere. My recommendation is make sure all your wire connections are checked and double checked between matches. STRONGHOLD can be a rough/violent game at times

[fargus111111111]

Originally Posted by rberglund

Our robot lost robot code for entire F3 match. We (team & FTA) could not find problem even after match. We suspect a loose wire somewhere. My recommendation is make sure all your wire connections are checked and double checked between matches. STRONGHOLD can be a rough/violent game at times

We struggled to make and maintain connection throughout the finals. I for one am no longer a fan of the new radio as it takes so long to boot and between now and Rocket City we will be trying to come up with some better ways to keep our wires in their connectors.

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by Bluman56

I don't know about the referee test, but the inspector test is still far too easy. There are going to be scenarios that inspectors should be ready for and the test should point out pitfalls that teams usually overlook. Inspectors should be able to know from the test to look for certain things on robots that teams think is legal but is actually not. I still don't feel the test covers those scenarios well enough. Maybe I'm alone on this one, considering I don't see much discussion on it.

You're not alone. imo the inspector test is far too easy; it's mostly parroting the rules.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

I was talking about specifically about scoring a high goal while your bumpers are resting in the outerworks. Finishing the cross doesn't mean anything since you only get points for going one way. This Q&A clarification helps reinforce the idea that you don't have to go over a defense to have the traversing benefit.

https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Que...the-outerworks

Launching the boulder while your bumpers are in the outerworks, then failing to complete the cross into the courtyard will result in a technical foul under G40B or G41 (depending on the exact order of activity), without regard to whether the defense is damaged.

Originally Posted by G40

A ROBOT may not cause a BOULDER to move from the NEUTRAL ZONE into the opponent’s COURTYARD unless:

• A. the ROBOT contacts the BOULDER within OUTER WORKS, and
• B. the ROBOT completes its CROSSING (i.e. doesn’t completely back out of the OUTER WORKS into the NEUTRAL ZONE)

Violation: TECH FOUL per BOULDER

Originally Posted by G41

During each CROSSING, a ROBOT may not cause more than one (1) BOULDER to move from the NEUTRAL ZONE into the opponent’s COURTYARD.
Violation: TECH FOUL per additional BOULDER

As the courtyard is defined as infinitely tall, launching it towards the goals would cause it to pass through the courtyard.

(Usual disclaimer about this being an unofficial ruling)

Edit: Q912 posted.

[Duncan Macdonald]

Is there video of the eliminations posted anywhere? Apparently http://www.htcinc.net/portal/streams/robotics/ was only for watching in real time