2005 - Radio Communication

[Tristan Lall]

There have been incidents in the past where team members were observed signalling their driving team from the stands. I remember one particular case in 2003 where a team was disqualified for allowing a mentor to use hand signals to indicate their robot's position, as observed from an elevated position in the opposite-side bleachers. The rules-based justification was, I believe, that he was acting as a coach, and was therefore outside of the driving station, was not wearing a badge, and there was already a coach in the driver's station. The reason for the convoluted justification was that there was no rule that simply said "no information may be deliberately sent to any drive team from outside of the playing field and alliance stations; violators will be disqualified".

[Covey41]

In the "old days" before IFI, the old RC systems operated on the UHF band, the same band those little disposable radios (FRS) operate. Any type of radio freq. interference would do crazy things to the robots. The current IFI systems operate in the 900 mhz band, and go crazy if an 800 Mhz 5 watt portable is used next to one. At the risk of upsetting someone at IFI, they are not the best in terms of RF. Rumor has it that IFI maybe going to 2.4 Ghz. (As if there is not enough there already! Then look out you will not be able to run your WiFi. That last statement was a joke!)

One of the problems that concerned everyone at the championship event was the lack of channels available with 6 robots on the field at once. At one time it was thought that they would have to stager the matches to have everything work right.

[Ethulin]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

There have been incidents in the past where team members were observed signalling their driving team from the stands. I remember one particular case in 2003 where a team was disqualified for allowing a mentor to use hand signals to indicate their robot's position, as observed from an elevated position in the opposite-side bleachers. The rules-based justification was, I believe, that he was acting as a coach, and was therefore outside of the driving station, was not wearing a badge, and there was already a coach in the driver's station. The reason for the convoluted justification was that there was no rule that simply said "no information may be deliberately sent to any drive team from outside of the playing field and alliance stations; violators will be disqualified".

Thanks Tristan!
Very interesting, hand signals, makes since for the 2003 game. I do wonder how detailed they could get as "acting as a coach". I think this is pretty clear if your interpretation is that you can be acting as a coach from the stands. but take this theoretical situation:
A robot tips over on the far side of the 2003 field (unable to be seen by the drivers). The entire team in the stands emits a groan from the stands. The drive team knows exactly what happened, it happened quite a few times in practice. They do their righting manouvers and get on with the match, win by a hair on a last minute play by them. The team would have taken well over a few seconds to figure out what had happened if they had not heard the crowed groan, therefore probably would have lost the match.

I know this sounds extreme, but as a soccer referee I deal with these kind of theoretical all the time, deciding how I would call it

So are the referees going to get into the "intent" of the crowed or call it like it is, a signal from the crowed, whether intentional or not, which impacted the result of the match.

Just a lil' brain food!

[EricH]

And not only do you get situations like Ethulin described, but then there's where a whole team starts yelling at the drivers to do something. Of course, the refs and drivers have a hard time hearing it over the other teams and music and crashing of robots, and this is extremely common, so they will likely let it slide.

Back to the original question, I think the general rule of thumb is, no talking to the coach during the match unless you are a driver, and definitely not by radio/cell phone/flashlight(Morse code and equivalents)/hand signals. Yelling at him is likely not a good idea because he may get distracted, and you don't want that, do you?

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by EricH

flashlight(Morse code

If anyone is truly capable of reading and understanding Morse code while playing an FRC match, I think we should let them. I mean, that would be some crazy skills. Someone as skilled as that deserves to have a rule exception in their favor.

[N7UJJ]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

If anyone is truly capable of reading and understanding Morse code while playing an FRC match, I think we should let them. I mean, that would be some crazy skills. Someone as skilled as that deserves to have a rule exception in their favor.

Actually, we have a number of team members who have ham radio licenses and a bunch are studying to pass their test. A few do know Morse code, although they are not very proficient.
Part of mastering Morse code (or voice communications) is tuning out everything else. It is a skill a lot of people master.
Anyway, a lot of Morse code communications use abbreviations, not a lot of text (eg: SOS instead of " I have an emergency and need assistance") Just sending a "R" could mean turn right, "L" left and a few others. It would be real simple. Its a real advantage when the sender and receiving person speak different languages. They can still communicate a lot of information.
Morse code is alive and well.
There have been a number of times when the kids are queuing up and they need something from the pits (we forgot a battery once) We thought if we had a few kids to relay sign language messages, we could quickly communicate with the pits. Several kids learned sign language, but we were not fast or accurate enough. We even contacted a local school for the deaf to see if a few would join our team. It never materialized though.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I have been reading through this thread hoping to agree with some of the items and I am not sure I can. None of us have a clear idea what might have taken place from the stands to the driver's station when the that team was called for the communication infraction. That being said, I don't think that it should be interpreted as a blanket rule against communication from team or alliance members to the coaches or drivers. This has gone on as long as I have been part of this competition and likely since the beginning. I think the two issues here is one, no wireless communications and two, no communication from off field coaches to on field coaches. The first is a simple issue of interference with wireless robot communications and the second is a violation of the "one coach, two drivers, one human player" allowed per team. If a ref interpreted the actions of that mystery team as a violation of the second issue than he was correct in his enforcement.
Learning Morse Code is not that big a skill, even I have done it. At one time it was a requirement for boy scouts to know both the Morse Code and semaphore (flag code) for rank advancement. Millions of people worldwide have learned the code for their amateur radio licenses and use it regularly for their hobby. (Myself included, WB9UVJ)

[mechanicalbrain]

How about communication between the two drivers? Our have complained about not being able to hear each other and I'm considering making a pair of headsets so they can talk without distraction.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

How about communication between the two drivers? Our have complained about not being able to hear each other and I'm considering making a pair of headsets so they can talk without distraction.

If you're able to do that without a radio or cell phone, or any other device transmitting a signal, feel free.

[ConKbot of Doom]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

How about communication between the two drivers? Our have complained about not being able to hear each other and I'm considering making a pair of headsets so they can talk without distraction.

I don't think there could be much said about that, as long as it was wired. Get a few good pairs of the headsets meant for helicopters, noise reducing ear cups, and noise canceling mic, and wire them together. Though I'm sure the refs would like to have at least one look at your circutry to make sure there isnt any rf stuff hidden in there.

[KenWittlief]

communcation within the drive team could be accomplished with something like the old air tubes they used on ships and in large factories

its really nothing more than hose and you speak into and listen to the other end. It should be possible to make a set for 3 or 4 people - and the headset would also block some of the crowd noise.

BTW - Morse Code - when you learn morse code your brain is in a different space. You can pick out morse code from a very weak radio signal better than you can hear a human voice, so in a noisy environment it would actually be easier to comprehend (if you had a lot of practice with it).

After using it for a while you dont hear beeps or dots or dashes, you hear letters, and if you are really good, you hear whole words

just like when you listen to english, you dont hear the phonics separately, and think to your self " that was the K sound, that was an E, that was an N -Oh, he said my name!" you hear the words as a whole.

-Ken (KG2ET) :^)

[Ethulin]

Originally Posted by EricH

And not only do you get situations like Ethulin described, but then there's where a whole team starts yelling at the drivers to do something. Of course, the refs and drivers have a hard time hearing it over the other teams and music and crashing of robots, and this is extremely common, so they will likely let it slide.

Back to the original question, I think the general rule of thumb is, no talking to the coach during the match unless you are a driver, and definitely not by radio/cell phone/flashlight(Morse code and equivalents)/hand signals. Yelling at him is likely not a good idea because he may get distracted, and you don't want that, do you?

Agreed. But I really wonder what will happen when something like my situation DOES happen and the loosing team protests.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Ethulin

Agreed. But I really wonder what will happen when something like my situation DOES happen and the loosing team protests.

Absolutely nothing, because you described the most outlandish, implausible situation ever.

People are reading way too far into the rules.

All it means is no blatant forms of communication between the drive team and members not on the field. Ie: no radios, cell phones, or other verbal communication. No signaling to the drivers from off the playing field.

If you move on to "implied communication", so to speak, FIRST would need to find twice as many refs so half of them could police the stands and make sure nobody groaned in the wrong place at the wrong time

[Ethulin]

Originally Posted by Cory

Absolutely nothing, because you described the most outlandish, implausible situation ever.

People are reading way too far into the rules.

All it means is no blatant forms of communication between the drive team and members not on the field. Ie: no radios, cell phones, or other verbal communication. No signaling to the drivers from off the playing field.

If you move on to "implied communication", so to speak, FIRST would need to find twice as many refs so half of them could police the stands and make sure nobody groaned in the wrong place at the wrong time

If they meant blatant they would have said blatant. The reason they did not is because one man's blatant is another's covert.
As a soccer referee we get into situations far more outlandish than this and do not disregard them as "outlandish" but we apply the rules and find the correct course of action.

In soccer we have things called "FIFA clarifications" similar to what FIRST has just for these kind of situations, but nothing is just disregarded for being improbable or unlikely.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Ethulin

If they meant blatant they would have said blatant. The reason they did not is because one man's blatant is another's covert.
As a soccer referee we get into situations far more outlandish than this and do not disregard them as "outlandish" but we apply the rules and find the correct course of action.

In soccer we have things called "FIFA clarifications" similar to what FIRST has just for these kind of situations, but nothing is just disregarded for being improbable or unlikely.

FIRST has told us to take what the rules say at face value--ie: don't become lawyers. It seems like the intent of the rule is fairly clear.

As for the exact situation you describe, everytime I've seen a robot get flipped, the opponent ends up cheering and the flipped team stops cheering. I don't see how this could possibly be interpreted as violating the spirirt of the rule. The odds of this ever occurring are so low as to be a non factor. In fact, it's probably never happened once since 1992.

Speaking from experience in last years game (which was probably one of the hardest ever to ref), referees have way too much to deal with already to add something as subjective as interpreting crowd noise as being unfairly advantageous to a team in such a situation.

If every rule contained verbiage to cover every single situation that may or may not come up, there would be multiple phone book sized volumes. Instead we just refer to situations using the basic guidelines given, and common sense.

$0.02