VCU DISQUALIFICATION!

[Chriszuma]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

It says right there what happens during autonomous mode, which is the same as driver controlled time.

414 was far enough into the goal that they were over the light panel, which happens to be a more than 3 inches inside the goal. At that point they were potentially interfering with the counting system hence the DQ.

Wetzel

It really seems like they (FIRST) could have designed that system better so they wouldn't have to make such a minefield of disqualifications. I know nobody wants to hear more complaining about first, but this is kind of ridiculous.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Chriszuma

It really seems like they (FIRST) could have designed that system better so they wouldn't have to make such a minefield of disqualifications. I know nobody wants to hear more complaining about first, but this is kind of ridiculous.

What is so ridiculous? FIRST made a rule, don't go into the corner goal. They listened last year and said we'll spot you ~3 inches.

What would you have them do better?

Wetzel

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by Chriszuma

It really seems like they (FIRST) could have designed that system better so they wouldn't have to make such a minefield of disqualifications. I know nobody wants to hear more complaining about first, but this is kind of ridiculous.

The scoring system this year is real-time. Once points for robots on platforms are added and any penalties are given, the score is ready to be displayed.

The scoring in the lower goals is counted by a camera (of course with a human back-up in case a robot goes into the goal). There are lights under the goal, with a camera mounted at the top of the player's station. A wire mesh is mounted inside the goal to keep the HP's from reaching over the light (one swipe of a hand across the light and the camera counts 5-7 balls). The 2-3 inch margin teams are given for going into the goals is the space from the outer edge of the goal, to where the camera begins scoring. Anything that crosses that light can be scored by the camera, including a robot.

[Lil' Lavery]

FIRST designed a system which allows you 3 inches of space, so follow it. Almost every team at VCU didn't have a problem with it, why should it be changed to help the few that don't follow the rules? This isn't by any measure a new rule. It's been in place for the entire season, you should plan accordingly. In 2004 there were similar rules, that didn't even give those 3 inches.

[Chriszuma]

What is so ridiculous? FIRST made a rule, don't go into the corner goal. They listened last year and said we'll spot you ~3 inches.

What would you have them do better?

Wetzel

All i'm saying is that they should strive to make disqualifications as rare as possible, since they really make the game less spectatorish. What they could have done differently is design the scoring mechanism so that it can't be thrown out of whack by a robot accidentally sticking something in there 3 inches.

Just my 2 cents.

[Greg Young]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

FIRST designed a system which allows you 3 inches of space, so follow it. Almost every team at VCU didn't have a problem with it, why should it be changed to help the few that don't follow the rules? This isn't by any measure a new rule. It's been in place for the entire season, you should plan accordingly. In 2004 there were similar rules, that didn't even give those 3 inches.

After spending Thursday, Friday, and Saturday standing beside one of the corner goals at VCU I've been wondering how the 3 inch rule is interpreted. The bumpers extend 3-1/2 inches beyond the frame of the robot and end 8-1/2 inches above the floor. The opening of the corner goal is 10 inches high so the bumpers will extend into the goal when the frame of the robot is against the polycarbonate. If the goal starts at the field side of the polycarbonate, the bumpers are 3-1/2 inches into the goal. If the goal starts at the corral side of the polycarbonate then the bumpers extend 3-1/8 inches into the goal.

I could flex the center of the polycarbonate about 3/4 inch with my fingers, so a hit by the corner of a robot would flex it even more. It seems to me that a legal bumper system could easily draw a penalty.

Any refs out there who could tell me how the 3 inches is determined during game play?

Greg

[Nuttyman54]

Presumably, your bumpers wouldn't be ONLY in the section that could go into the goal. if you've got bumpers the entire front of the robot, then that becomes the effective front of the robot, and you can't extend in.

[mrmummert]

hello all..

Its odd how they DQed us as our robot is'nt even designed to be able to go under the goal. Look at the robot in VCU pictures and you'll see why.
When we were told about the DQ were questioned it, but did'nt push the issue. So we lived with it. Luckly we won.

I was told that some robots if they hit the goal hard enough were making the camera think that they had passed into the goal...thats the only thing I can think of that might have caused our DQ.

[BrianR]

Originally Posted by nukemknight

The scoring in the lower goals is counted by a camera (of course with a human back-up in case a robot goes into the goal). There are lights under the goal, with a camera mounted at the top of the player's station. A wire mesh is mounted inside the goal to keep the HP's from reaching over the light (one swipe of a hand across the light and the camera counts 5-7 balls). The 2-3 inch margin teams are given for going into the goals is the space from the outer edge of the goal, to where the camera begins scoring. Anything that crosses that light can be scored by the camera, including a robot.

On this note, if anyone has noticed a few extremely high scores posted in the results of the first week regionals. The one case that stands out to me is a score of 11109 at VCU, but if that were a typing error of a score of 109, there were also scores of aver 200, which I find hard to believe given the other scores we saw, even in the finals. I believe that the reason for these errant scores may be robot incursion into the corner goals. I believe that if a robot enters the goal, it will be counted as much more than a simple hand, and thus even a short infraction would greatly inflate scores. This would make FIRST's position on DQing any violators very reasonable, as it would be a major hassle to figure out the right score, and it may not be possible. Thus they are trying to make it as fair for everyone as possible, so that there is no dispute over scores. This is the most equitable process for dealing with this inherent shortcoming in the ball counting technology, and as they clearly published the penalties for goal infraction, it is by no means unfair to DQ any team found in violation of this, especially in light of the problems that it causes in scoring the matches.

[George A.]

At NJ we actually had a team that accidently waved their hand in front of the camera when they were getting the ball and that resulted in points for their opponents, and incidentally cost them the match.

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by BrianR

On this note, if anyone has noticed a few extremely high scores posted in the results of the first week regionals. The one case that stands out to me is a score of 11109 at VCU, but if that were a typing error of a score of 109, there were also scores of aver 200, which I find hard to believe given the other scores we saw, even in the finals. I believe that the reason for these errant scores may be robot incursion into the corner goals. I believe that if a robot enters the goal, it will be counted as much more than a simple hand, and thus even a short infraction would greatly inflate scores. This would make FIRST's position on DQing any violators very reasonable, as it would be a major hassle to figure out the right score, and it may not be possible. Thus they are trying to make it as fair for everyone as possible, so that there is no dispute over scores. This is the most equitable process for dealing with this inherent shortcoming in the ball counting technology, and as they clearly published the penalties for goal infraction, it is by no means unfair to DQ any team found in violation of this, especially in light of the problems that it causes in scoring the matches.

If a robot enters the goal so far that the camera could see it, it was very obvious to the scoring system. And yes - a robot counted many more times than a hand. This was another reason for real-time scorekeepers at each goal: not just in case the cameras malfunctioned, but in case something entered the goal that shouldn't have been there.

The high scores at VCU were because of camera problems - we restarted the camera software and refocused the cameras and everything worked.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Chriszuma

It really seems like they (FIRST) could have designed that system better so they wouldn't have to make such a minefield of disqualifications. I know nobody wants to hear more complaining about first, but this is kind of ridiculous.

I don't really think it's a minefield...the only DQ's ive seen so far have been from incursions into the corner goals. The rule has been in place since day 1, so it should be no surprise to teams. I know a number of dumper-bots developed guards to keep them from getting pushed in.

[Rombus]

Originally Posted by Chriszuma

It really seems like they (FIRST) could have designed that system better so they wouldn't have to make such a minefield of disqualifications. I know nobody wants to hear more complaining about first, but this is kind of ridiculous.

Personally, i think Triple Play had much more chances for DQ/penaltys than this years game. Who doesnet remember the plexi triangles we had to TOUCH to be able to pickup tetras?

I Saw only one DQ and a small handful of pentalties for the 3 hours i watched on saturday, thats hardly a "Minefield"!

[SURVIVORfan44]

As far as I know, there were about two teams at VCU that kept being disqualified. Once you see how far those robots went into that goal, you would see how and why they were disqualified. The cameras are extra sensitive. They could pick up anything that passes through the corner goals.

[soap108]

Originally Posted by SURVIVORfan44

As far as I know, there were about two teams at VCU that kept being disqualified. Once you see how far those robots went into that goal, you would see how and why they were disqualified. The cameras are extra sensitive. They could pick up anything that passes through the corner goals.

In Match 75, did 1610 get DQ'd?? It's they only way to explain why first lists them as 6-2-0 instead of 7-1-0.