Running over a boulder foul

[philso]

Originally Posted by Jake177

Based on what I saw from the stands, the way the refs at the Hartford District called G38 seemed very fair. If a robot was in possession of a boulder and happened to drive over a second boulder, a ref would signal a five second count (similar to a pin count). After five seconds, if the robot was still in possession of two boulders, a foul was called. This kept the refs from having to judge "intent" while still allowing a case for a no-call on incidental violations. It also gave the drivers a clear signal that they were doing something wrong with time to correct it before the foul was called.

This seems to be the most fair thing, especially with the Defenses (and robots, even low ones) blocking the drivers vision. Our robot sometimes got stuck for short times on the Boulders that started at the mid-line after pushing hard to get over the Defenses back in the the Neutral Zone. Occasionally, it would end up on top of two Boulders. I also saw a robot that was supposed to play defense against us come over the Defenses into their Courtyard and got stuck on top of a Boulder. Their robot had very little ground clearance so the Boulder supported most of the weight of the robot, leaving only one wheel barely touching the carpet. They ended up stuck on "the Soft Terrain" for almost half of the Teleop period, slowly spinning in circles until the Boulder rolled out. I suspect that the driver probably thought the Boulder would just get pushed out of the way rather than going under his bumper.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by catmanjake

Going back to original question - have any other regionals had a head referee state that carrying a boulder and running over a boulder was automatically a foul? We are just trying to get an understanding since it was so different between the 2 regionals we participated in.

I can tell you this generally speaking. For many questionable, grey area rules, you shouldnt be surprised by different interpretation of rules.
We address it when it occurs, but if the head ref says they will call it a certain way, its best to just adjust for it and move on during that time.

We had many concerns this past weekend at our own event as well which differed vs. our 2 previous regionals.
Scaling this past weekend was a big issue. Watch clips of our regional and you will find many scales where a robot was partially below the low goal height/black line. Refs called it a 15 point scale.
LRI specifically told certain teams to put on blockers to block our alliance vision tracking. This is fact told right in front of our mentors/students. The team's head mentor that put on the blocker is a great friend of mine. The team had specifically put on a polycarbonate sheet. That is legal and fine as it was below the 4 1/2 ft height. However,the LRI then (not make a suggestion) but told them to put pool noodles in the center of the blocker in order to block our vision. Teams that played against us during qualifications used the same blocker and handed them off to the next team's defensive robot. No reinspection done for adding parts to their robot.
Some qualification matches of 368 had opponents not feeding balls back into the safe zone doing ball starvation. They kept pleading their case and I witnessed it myself watching from the sidelines.

In the end, we adjust where we must and move on. If its something very impactful and match affecting, communicate your concerns with your regional director to have them get you clarifications/explanations.

[svpracer]

We have had multiple cases where balls get stuck under our robot, mostly while crossing defenses as the balls in the center tend to get pushed around. I think it's a grey area that can be debated for a long time. Personal view, the refs should be able to see that stuck balls are unintentional (because who wants to tip their robot) not call fouls.

[philso]

Originally Posted by svpracer

We have had multiple cases where balls get stuck under our robot, mostly while crossing defenses as the balls in the center tend to get pushed around. I think it's a grey area that can be debated for a long time. Personal view, the refs should be able to see that stuck balls are unintentional (because who wants to tip their robot) not call fouls.

The robots I saw stuck on top of a Boulder were clearly not getting any strategic advantage from their situation, just like being Tortola'd on the Defenses typically gives no strategic advantage. Common sense would say that they probably were not getting stuck to provide comic relief.

[NathanCJohnson]

This was ruled a foul at both of our events (Kettering #2 and Howell). At least a few times, we had a boulder in our robot and accidentally drove over another one and a foul was called. I wish they wouldn't rule this as a foul as we aren't really "controlling" the boulder - we would drive off of the other boulder ASAP.