|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2005 Team Update #4 posted
Quote:
Bottom line, STAY AWAY FROM ROBOTS IN THE LZ. Finally, I like the examples. I think the intent and the implementation will be pretty clear. Joe J. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2005 Team Update #4 posted
I'll throw in a little more detail i got from FIRST at kickoff about why such a steep penalty. They are discouraging incidents in the loading zones partially due to it being a personal hazard. At all the Loading Zones, human player or 'automated', there will be people right there while the robots are interacting potentially 'outside' of the field. If a robot has a tetra in their grip on a 6' arm and is hit on the side and winds up hitting the human player or field reset crew member whos loading the automated zone, it can be a very dangerous situation. This should also be pointed out, a 30 point penalty can sway a whole match easily. So its as easy as if a robot is headed to or is in the loading zone, keep away from them, by doing this you will keep all the people around the field safe and keep yourself from being penalized.
This should be one of the rules where we dont ask how will the refs call it if its intentional or not. Thus should be a rule that is taken very seriously and hopefully followed strictly by all teams. |
|
#3
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2005 Team Update #4 posted
Quote:
Example 6 Robot "RED01" is in the red alliance loading zone, is already loaded with a tetra, and is waiting for a path to clear to the center goal before moving in to the rest of the field. Robot "BLUE01" approaches the loading zone, and blocks RED01’s attempts to leave the loading zone and score on the center goal. The robots come into contact several times while BLUE01 blocks RED01. No penalty is assessed to either alliance, provided BLUE01 acts within the limitations of <G21> that prohibit pinning for more than 10 seconds. RED01 is not retrieving a tetra, so no violation of <G15> has occurred. So as FIRST currently has defined it, the situation outlined in Example 6 is a valid defensive option for teams. However, I agree with Mike, you better be dang sure humans are safely out of the picture before employing it. If your robot contacts an opposing robot in their LZ that's disabled because their human player hasn't yet returned to his/her pad, you deserve every bit of that 30-point penalty. Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 22-01-2005 at 15:27. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Kettering Kickoff | Matt Attallah | Off-Season Events | 19 | 27-09-2004 22:40 |
| FYI: Team Update #14 is posted | Aidan F. Browne | FIRST E-Mail Blast Archive | 7 | 03-03-2004 09:05 |
| The 2003 Index of team's post about their robot... | Ken Leung | Robot Showcase | 4 | 28-02-2003 00:18 |
| More 'Best' Robots (a well thought list) | archiver | 2000 | 2 | 23-06-2002 23:11 |
| Disqualifications | archiver | 1999 | 13 | 23-06-2002 21:53 |