Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?

[Mike Soukup]

While watching the VCU webcast I believe I heard the following ruling during the first or second match:

"A robot drove into its endzone with a tetra raised above the height of the player station glass, therefore they received a 10 point penalty."

Did I hear that correctly or was it worded differently? Where can I find this rule in the documentation? I need to know the specific rule. Can we not raise a tetra above the height of the player station glass while in the endzone, or can we just not drive into the endzone with a tetra raised that high? Or did I completely misunderstand the ruling?

[Ricky Q.]

I cannot find that rule anywhere in the manual. Might just be a midunderstanding, or a horrible call.

[Dave Campbell]

Originally Posted by Ricky Q.

I cannot find that rule anywhere in the manual. Might just be a midunderstanding, or a horrible call.

Mike,
Jeff explained it before the matches, if the robot dangles a tetra above the operators, past the driver station barrier, during the match, it may be disabled and will be penalized. (safety of the operators) Seems that it happened yesterday while trying to score on endzone goals or returning for 10 pt bonus at end.

[Kevin Sevcik]

This scares and upsets me. There's nothing about this in the rule book at all. There's <S01> which says a robot can be disabled if it is deemed to be operating unsafely. There's nothing there about a penalty. Was this an on the spot decision? Is this going to be enforced at all regionals? Will FIRST send out an email blast notifying teams of this new penalty? Can Wetzel or someone at VCU get us an answer on this?

I really don't like last minute changes to rules like this.....

[Wetzel]

The official word is that if a robot is in the end zone with a tetra over the player station, then it will be disabled as a safety precaution. After Thursday, it was determined that this is necessary.

There is no penalty assessed.

Wetzel

[Dave Campbell]

After discussing with co-advisor, he said he only heard about the disable on the webcast, not a penalty. I can not verify the penalty. Sorry for the rushed answer. Thx for the clarification Wetzel.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Thanks for the quick update Wetzel. Sorry about flying off the handle like that, but a new penalty would be a very odd thing and I was worried.

[Mike Soukup]

Ok, I may have heard it wrong because I was watching it in the background. I thought he said it was a penalty, but it looks like it's a disable instead.

What exactly is illegal? Raising a tetra above the height of the top of the player station glass while in the endzone? Or does the tetra have to break the plane of the player station glass to be illegal?

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Mike Soukup

What exactly is illegal? Raising a tetra above the height of the top of the player station glass while in the endzone? Or does the tetra have to break the plane of the player station glass to be illegal?

It was made as a warning to teams that there is a safety risk when you come in with a tetra above the height of the player station. The refs will watch and will tell us to disable the unsafe robot. It is a safety issue, and as such, the refs have the discretion to make the call of unsafe.

Wetzel

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

It was made as a warning to teams that there is a safety risk when you come in with a tetra above the height of the player station. The refs will watch and will tell us to disable the unsafe robot. It is a safety issue, and as such, the refs have the discretion to make the call of unsafe.

Now, I didn't see the incident in question, but did you (or whoever else was manning the kill switch) wait for the offending robot to move back over the field, before killing it? We can't know what the robot would do, if turned off--it might drop the tetra. This is certainly an unenviable position to be in, because if the safety-oblivious driver doesn't move it, the scorekeeper who takes the risk of killing it might himself make quite a mess of whoever's underneath....

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

We can't know what the robot would do, if turned off--it might drop the tetra. This is certainly an unenviable position to be in, because if the safety-oblivious driver doesn't move it, the scorekeeper who takes the risk of killing it might himself make quite a mess of whoever's underneath....

I hate to say this.. But I told you so.

And that is a great point. If it is shut down by a field ref, and someone gets hurt cause the robot is designed to let go at the end of a match when power is cut, who is to blame? The players? The field attendant who killed the power?

This is something I predicted a week or two ago, and making the ruling this late in the game (even if it in the best interest of the safety of the players) is just a bad thing to do.

I believe it should be phased into the regionals, and left to the head ref to make the individualized calls, with risk of blame on their part (for if when they do hit the stop, then the tetra drops) since this was obviously not a rule from the manual from the beginning of the season.

I don't want to see anyone getting hurt but the standardization and the conformity of rules are there for a reason.

I see this as unfortunately duplicating the tether ruling in 2002.

I say bring back the ball chute from last year as a safety shield over the players.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

And that is a great point. If it is shut down by a field ref, and someone gets hurt cause the robot is designed to let go at the end of a match when power is cut, who is to blame? The players? The field attendant who killed the power?

Your teams have all bought hard hats for their drivers and human players, right? I still cannot believe FIRST does not require hard hats (McMaster-Carr, page 1663).

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

And that is a great point. If it is shut down by a field ref, and someone gets hurt cause the robot is designed to let go at the end of a match when power is cut, who is to blame? The players? The field attendant who killed the power?

This is something I predicted a week or two ago, and making the ruling this late in the game (even if it in the best interest of the safety of the players) is just a bad thing to do.

I believe it should be phased into the regionals, and left to the head ref to make the individualized calls, with risk of blame on their part (for if when they do hit the stop, then the tetra drops) since this was obviously not a rule from the manual from the beginning of the season.

Originally Posted by 4.3.2

<S01> If at any time the ROBOT operation is deemed unsafe, by the determination of the referees, the ROBOT

This rule has not changed since day one. The announcement by Jeff at the beginning of the day was NOT an official rule change. It was a warning to the teams that the refs would be watching their actions near the player station carefully. This was intended to be a warning to teams that they need to exercise caution at a particular location, that it had shown itself to be a problem.

While you raise valid points about auto release dropping a tetra onto a driver, disabling the robot will create a static situation shortly.

Wetzel

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

Your teams have all bought hard hats for their drivers and human players, right? I still cannot believe FIRST does not require hard hats (McMaster-Carr, page 1663).

OUR team wears hard-hats ... with horns ...

(See attached mascot)

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Mike Soukup

Ok, I may have heard it wrong because I was watching it in the background. I thought he said it was a penalty, but it looks like it's a disable instead.

What exactly is illegal? Raising a tetra above the height of the top of the player station glass while in the endzone? Or does the tetra have to break the plane of the player station glass to be illegal?

What I heard on the webcast was that the robot "could" be disabled if the bottom of the tetra it held was above the level of the top of the player station window. Unless I missed it, the tetra didn't have to actually be over the window for the robot to be disabled. Is this correct?