[moderated] 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by P.J. Baker

This is the reason I felt that 469 should have been DQ'd in that match. I don't feel that they intentionally entangled or tipped 93, but their arm did become entangled with 93's basket. This did prevent 93 from doing moving for some time and it did appear to cause damage to 93's robot.

However, I glanced through this year's rules and I did not see anything about accidental entanglement and DQ's. The only references in the robot or game sections of the rules talked about clear entanglement risks (469's arm was not a clear risk) and intentional entanglement. As I read it, the rules did not require the refs to DQ 469.

P.J.

This is where I see the problem. 469's arm was clearly not an entanglement risk. If you look at the design, all of the "fingers" of the claw slope outward away from the arm, which should've allowed it to easily slide out of 93's basket. When I review the video, it appears that 93's net was caught on a bolt that attaches a pnuematic cylinder to the gripper. It becomes pretty tough to design a robot if every bolt is considered an entanglement hazard.

On the other hand, 93 has a net. To me, that is an entanglement risk. It's hard to tell 93 they can't use their design because it's an entanglement risk, but at the same time, it's hard to penalize another team for getting tangled in it. If FIRST were to rule that 469 was at fault, then next year I'm going to put a net on my robot and hope to DQ my way through to the championship (okay - I really wouldn't do that, but maybe some team would).

In the past, the "clear entanglement risk" rule existed, and FIRST even stated in updates that nets would be considered entanglement risks and would not be allowed. Of course some teams skirted the rule (afterall what qualifies as a net and what doesn't? it's hard to define). Since entanglements were few and far between, FIRST stopped warning about nets. However, I know from experience that once before a team got too close to a team with a net and the robots became tangled - the team with the net got the blame for being the "entanglement risk". Given this history, I agree with the no-call against 469.