Entanglement Ruling at VCU

[megabass31]

According to the officials at the VCU Regional, for bots with devices that can reach into other zones. They would not block any such device. However, if the devices goes under the goals, it is a DQ. If someone intentionally pushes a goal over the device, it would appear to be a DQ. So good luck to all and be careful.

[Joe Johnson]

Which team gets DQ'd? The team under the goal or the team that pushed the goal on top of the team?

Joe J.

[megabass31]

The team who pushed the goal on top of the device, but this is only if it is intentional.

[Joe Johnson]

It seems to me that a team that wants to divide the field in half then just has to put a device right down the middle of the field.

Forget about trying to win a pushing match, just get the goals where you need them and open up on the ground making it impossible to move the goals without having the goal get over my robot. Any team that tries to move the goals gets DQ.

This seems to be a ruling that is not quite ready for prime time...

Am I missing something?

Joe J.

[megabass31]

I'm just reporting what I saw on the stream from the competition. It sounds like all of this is a judgement call on the part of the refs. But I did see on robot do something very similar to what you talked about. The team basically had their bot do a spread-eagle formation. It had two arms out-stretched to try and stop any goals from entering the goal zone, with an extension back to their home zone. It seemed like a good idea, but I wondered about any rules violation with this. It almost worked also, but one of the goals was just barely in the goal zone which gave the other alliance the ten point victory in the match. Oh well, good luck to all.

[Sean_330]

What about if a robot and not a goal gets caught up on the send home device?

[ahecht]

I hope FIRST plans on putting out an Update if there is an official ruling on this. It would sure take a load off of our back (and off the judges' back).

[Nate Smith]

Originally posted by Joe Johnson
It seems to me that a team that wants to divide the field in half then just has to put a device right down the middle of the field.

Forget about trying to win a pushing match, just get the goals where you need them and open up on the ground making it impossible to move the goals without having the goal get over my robot. Any team that tries to move the goals gets DQ.

This seems to be a ruling that is not quite ready for prime time...

Am I missing something?

Joe J.

My recollection of the announcement this morning was that the DQ would only occur if, in pushing a goal over a robot's extended arm, damage occurred to the goal as a direct result of pushing it over the mechanism. Now, based on what comes to mind right now, damage to a robot would result before damage to a goal in just about any "push over" case, unless the robot was specifically designed to damage a goal if it was pushed over. In this case, I have a feeling the mechanism would be disallowed under the "intentional damage" rule.

[Nate Smith]

Originally posted by ahecht
I hope FIRST plans on putting out an Update if there is an official ruling on this. It would sure take a load off of our back (and off the judges' back).

One thing I've learned during my 4(not counting this year) years in this...not often will, once the regionals start, an official update be posted. Rather, any rulings that affect future events will be announced at the beginning of subsequent events. Keep your ears open when you head off to your first regional, and bring printouts from FRCTech regarding anything you think may be an issue for your team's design or strategy.

[Matt Reiland]

I hope that a send home device is not 'off limits' to everything out on the playing field, if thats the case in our parts modification time after the regional we will take of the goal grabber and ball grabber and put 10 return to home devices in a star pattern an nobody on the field can move. right??!!! I hope that the ruling from megabass was a special case with other circumstances.

I still fell that any of these long devices are just an extension of the robot and they shouldn't get any other special treatment just like a goal grabber or ball grabber. I really hope first notices this as well otherwise I am going to be busy after our first reigonal

[Kevin Ray]

We have a send home device and, believe it or not, I agree with you Matt!! I don't want any special treatment for the device or its tether for that matter. I think that its part of the robot and should be treated as such. If it's not robust enough, well... that's life and you'll be sure to improve upon that design next time.

What I do hope though, is that the judges are equally easy going when it comes to the tangling issue. Scenario: team "A" has a dual extensions designed to grab three goals (moe) for example, if I get hung up on it, well it's too bad for me--there are no provisions for that. And he is dividing up the field as well. Now, I send home my Jerry mouse (Tom & Jerry) and "A" 's partner gets hung up on my tether. I'm DQ'd and "A" isn't. Would that be fair? We're still talking about extensions of a robot in both cases.

Food for thought.

[ahecht]

This sounds like the judges might have just been restating Team Update #6, which said:

Q) If there is some situation that such a case would be legal, would such a robot be found in violation of rule that prohibits going under the goal (GM20) if the goal was pushed up over the tether by another robot?
A) This would not be a violation of GM20, because the robot did not intentionally put the tether under the goal. However, the alliance pushing the goal over the robot could be penalized if damage to the goal was deemed likely to occur as a result of passing the goal over a robot.

[Matt Reiland]

I hope you are right ahecht that its the goal being damaged that they are worring about. I for 1 will be impressed if someone can ruin one of the goals with thier robot or drive the goal over someone else (I am sure one of the lifters might try it!!)

[gniticxe]

Nothing to fear...
In our match against 384 sparky 3.0, the center goal was pushed on top of our chassis such that the bottom plywood was over part of our 'low rider' frame. We were DQ'd for attaching to the center goal under the bottom plywood, as it is detailed in the rule book. I think this was a fair ruling, and it goes along with what people here seem to think as well.

[Joe Matt]

Thanks for the fun . You guyes were awsome and derserved to be recognized. Great feat of engenering. You guyes also deserved to win the image award. Thank god we were next to you, the orange and kaki sofened the green . Also thanks so you didn't brutily mutilate us because of that rueling. I didn't know that was the reason untill Gabe posteded it up here on the MOEhawk vs. Sparky 3.0 thread. Enjoy Philly and see you at EPCOT!!!!!