Banging the driver station

[*Rachelle*]

I don't mind the robots hitting the Driver Station Wall too much. We have Velcro on the bottom of the driver station, but I also set my clipboard and the co-driver his Xbox controller up there. My concern is when during Auto the Xbox controller and clipboard fell off and the co-driver and my immediate reflex reaction was to catch it before it hit the ground in order to avoid damage. Now during auto we aren't supposed to cross that plane and especially touch controllers.

I didn't catch if a foul was called, and the match was restarted anyways, but what do you guys think about the foul if it did happen? We put the controller in a different place after that, so is it one of those as long as a ref doesn't see it happening constantly?

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by *Rachelle*

I don't mind the robots hitting the Driver Station Wall too much. We have Velcro on the bottom of the driver station, but I also set my clipboard and the co-driver his Xbox controller up there. My concern is when during Auto the Xbox controller and clipboard fell off and the co-driver and my immediate reflex reaction was to catch it before it hit the ground in order to avoid damage. Now during auto we aren't supposed to cross that plane and especially touch controllers.

I didn't catch if a foul was called, and the match was restarted anyways, but what do you guys think about the foul if it did happen? We put the controller in a different place after that, so is it one of those as long as a ref doesn't see it happening constantly?

They specifically do allow you to touch the operator console for safety purposes (e.g. to rescue it).

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I agree with others that teams should make sure they Velcro down stuff but I also firmly agree that yellow and red cards should be given to teams that repeatedly do it. There is a third of a field worth of error teams can have in their autos so that they don't smack into the wall as hard as they can. Teams need to take responsibility and make sure their auto works without tackling the station. Once or twice fine but the whole regional is unacceptable in my opinion. At that point it is either fully intentional or the team didn't bother or care enough to fix it. A team this week hit the driver station so hard it activated an e-stop and the match had to be replayed. Was that the field's fault or the robot's fault? I'm sure people might answer differently but I completely believe it to be the robot and team's fault.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

Not reading the rules and updates and understanding the consequences is also an action with consequences.

While the head referee is the final interpreter of the rules, they cannot change them & are supposed to interpret them as written. There are no rules against hitting the field hard enough to dislodge driver stations. A bit of grey area for egregious or intentionally damaging conduct, but that is a high bar to cross.

Having said that, intentionally ramming the field with the intent of dislodging driver station is certainly against Gracious Professionalism.

If you replaced the driver station with the robot would your opinion change? Would you still suggest that it is a team's fault if they sit there and a robot drives into them at full speed? If they didn't move out of "the way "it would make it their fault?

Originally Posted by neshera

Interesting thread.
What would the commenters think about a robot that, either in Auto or Tele-Op, unintentionally repeatedly rammed in to other robots at full speed, hard enough to damage/disable the other robot?
Would a notification that robots should be built to withstand high-speed impacts excuse such behavior?
Would a notification that robots should be built to withstand high-speed impacts absolve the ramming robot of yellow/red cards?
Would we condone a team building/driving such a robot?

My point is, the drivers' station equipment is something teams purchase, program, build, modify - just like our robots. It is not inspiring to see your hard work go down the drain because someone else found a task too daunting/difficult.

Our goal is to inspire students. Telling them it is their fault for not securing their equipment well enough, or that they didn't buy robust (read: expensive) enough equipment, or to just "deal with it" when entire matches or entire regionals are destroyed for them does not seem to me to be the right attitude.

This is pretty much what I am trying to say.

[AWoL]

Today in semi-finals a robot on the alliance we faced was known to smash into the driver station wall every match in autonomous. To prepare for that we put our logitech controllers behind our already-velcroed laptop, however when they hit our station they actually managed to bang the lid of our laptop down such that we didn't have control of the robot for about the first 5-10 seconds of the match. After this incident, the head ref told us that in the next match we could hold our driver station (two controllers and a laptop) in place if we saw that they were about to hit us, as long as we didn't give the driver station any input. We ended up not having to do this because of the defenses we selected, but I think this was a great way to deal with the situation on the ref's part.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by AWoL

The head ref told us that in the next match we could hold our driver station (two controllers and a laptop) in place if we saw that they were about to hit us, as long as we didn't give the driver station any input. We ended up not having to do this because of the defenses we selected, but I think this was a great way to deal with the situation on the ref's part.

You didn't technically need the Head Ref's consent to start doing that, though it is helpful. G14/15 do have the clauses to allow you to interact with the Operator Console if it's (or personal/robot safety) are in danger.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

If you replaced the driver station with the robot would your opinion change? Would you still suggest that it is a team's fault if they sit there and a robot drives into them at full speed? If they didn't move out of "the way "it would make it their fault?

I think a reasonable change would be to call a field fault if a drivers station got knocked of during autonomous, but that is not the current rule. I am only reading the rules as they are, not as I would like them to be. But yes if our driver station was knocked off, I would be upset while realizing it is within the rules. If our robot was hitting the wall that hard in autonomous, I would have the my team change the code or disable the autonomous. Hitting the wall with the intention of damaging the field or driver station could be called egregious. The trouble there is knowing the intent otherwise it is within the rules. The only people that can change the rules is the GDC they can be reached here. frcteams@usfirst.org

[tongue in cheek]If a team sits there while a robot drives into them full speed would be at least a little bit the referees fault for letting them on the field during a match.[/tongue in cheek]

As a side note, at the Georgia District Columbus event, teams where hitting the defenses hard enough to damage them. All where warned that after a warning on the field, they would be penalized.