Rules that are [not] getting called at Regionals, the +s and -s

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by Steve W

i was at NJ and the problem was not with the refs. I believe that they did a great job (yeah even you Stu). The rules that I saw not called were on inspections. <R11,R12> were not enforced. The flag rule was not enforced. The bumper rules were not enforced.

<R04> (Wedge Bot Rule) was also not enforced at NJ. I saw at least 2 bots in the elimination rounds whose sides were not within 10 degrees of vertical in the "bumper zone".

Originally Posted by BoyWithCape195

I noticed that at BAE, many shooters where not shielded anywhere close to what was specified in Team Update # 11 or <S03>. Any one know if there was a reason for this, or was it just the opinion of the robot inspectors?

It is the opinion of Robot Inspectors. I saw it at NJ also.

[Pat Fairbank]

Originally Posted by robochik52

Also, there were a couple of robots that had an illegal shooter, but were still allowed to compete. They had their shooter completely exposed, with their wheel spinning at high velocities with no shielding. Personally, I think this is really dangerous, and something should have been done.

Yes. We went to BAE expecting that the inspectors would want us to better shield our shooter, and we hadn't done anything about it up to that point because we wanted to know what they would consider adequate shielding. I was therefore shocked when shielding wasn't even mentioned during the inspection.

There was also a conspicuous lack of shooter speed testing at BAE. I don't even know if they had a testing mechanism on site; I sure didn't spot anything that might have looked like one.

[George A.]

At NJ off-sides were being called very often...in fact in a few matches allainces were penalized 40 points for being offsides...so if that's 5 pts every 5 seconds...then that's the entire defensive period being offsides.

I noticed also that the muzzle velocity was very fast on some of the bots.

[A. Snodgrass]

The rule on corner incursions deals both with unintentional and intentional incursions into the corner goals. I did notice that at the PNW regional, most times when a corner goal incursion occured, it could at least be assumed that the robot wasn't entering the goal on purpose.
That being said, a lot of the corner goal incursions occured either because of bendable mechanisms going in or front bumpers going in too far into the goal, sometimes as a result of other robots pushing from behind. I think I would ask though, what do the teams define as "intentional" incursion of the goals beyond the obvious you made your mechanism so it actually goes into the goal and thats how it effectively dumps balls into there.
For reference Im posting the current version of the rule on incursion into the corner goals.
G21- "Incidental incursion into the corner goal that occurs as a result
of a ROBOT pushing balls into the goal is permitted, not to exceed a distance of approximately 3 inches. Intentional incursion, for example to use a ball gathering mechanism to drop off balls inside the goal, or extending a portion of the ROBOT through the goal opening to activate the ball counting system, will result in disqualification of the offending ROBOT." For unintentional incursion, the penalty that was indicated was 5 points.

[Jack Jones]

From what I could see from the VCU web cast, which admittedly wasn't much, some muzzle velocities were way too fast - I'm talking not even close.
On the one hand, it doesn't bother me because that poofball doesn't have the mass or density to any damage. But if we see it's not enforced, and are at a disadvantage because of it, then we will crank it up. I know we can max our heavy wheel without it all coming loose, but I'm not so sure about the other's.

PS: The thought just occurred to me (and I hope it isn't so) that the velocity and shielding appear to be a pair of CYAs - as is/was the volunteer screening.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

<R04> (Wedge Bot Rule) was also not enforced at NJ. I saw at least 2 bots in the elimination rounds whose sides were not within 10 degrees of vertical in the "bumper zone".

If you mean the ramps that drop down to release balls they are legal. I had a discussion with one of the refs and I showed him in the rules were these are legal. If the ramp is outside of the footprint of the robot then it is OK as long as they don't make contact with another robot. If they do there can be penalties depending on the infraction.

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by robochik52

However, I did notice the lack of ramming penalties. Last year, there were lots of penalties for ramming and contact, but I don't think I saw it called once all day Saturday.

I noticed this on the VCU webcast too. I think the reason why they're letting a lot more go is because of the bumpers reducing the damage, but I still don't like all of the ramming. It takes away from the offense and gives a lot more power to the defense. I don't think this should be. They should call the ramming like they've done in previous years, regardless of the bumpers.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Dan Swando

...I still don't like all of the ramming. It takes away from the offense and gives a lot more power to the defense. ....

well...... yeah, thats what defense is, protecting your goal.

If they wanted no defense they could have required the robots to stay on opposite sides of the field.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

well...... yeah, thats what defense is, protecting your goal.

If they wanted no defense they could have required the robots to stay on opposite sides of the field.

Point well taken but an important distinction is his comment was that ramming gives an unfair advantage to the defense.

I was at BAE and just about every shooter could be stopped by hitting them. Some shooters have powerful enough drive trains to counteract being pushed. However, the act of starting from 5ft+ away and ramming could stop any shooter from successfully scoring in the center goal. With that being said, without any ramming calls from the refs shooters were being hammered in order to stop their offensive prowess.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Cory

The 3 inch intrusion was actually called completely wrong, in the instances I witnessed.

I saw teams getting 5 point penalties, and not DQ's like <G21> calls for.

I see a flaw with this rule <g21> and the allowed bumper design <r35>.
the bumpers are allow to be 3.5 inch extended out from your robot and if
you are a ball dumper and you put bumpers on the side with your ball loader/unloader you have a piece of your robot that can easily protrude
pass the 3" zone. This is even more if you take the fact that you are
on a ramp. The field's designed buffer zone conflicts with the allowed
robot design making a DQ very harsh under those conditions and really
cramps the style of the ball dumpers because they will be forced to
remove their front bumpers.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Point well taken but an important distinction is his comment was that ramming gives an unfair advantage to the defense.

I was under the impression that was intentional in this years game. To make autonomous that much more important in deciding the winner. Auton became theoretically the only time when you would be able to shoot unharassed by opponents and therefore a big scoring advantage after auton could be defended throughout the rest of the game.

[ewankoff]

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd

I was under the impression that was intentional in this years game. To make autonomous that much more important in deciding the winner. Auton became theoretically the only time when you would be able to shoot unharassed by opponents and therefore a big scoring advantage after auton could be defended throughout the rest of the game.

in the NJ finals some teams tried to block team 25's amazing auto mode and some like spike actually succeded making them miss all 10 balls in atleast 2 or 3 matches

[DjAlamose]

Hopefully I don’t blow up in this conversation...

There is a HUGE difference between ramming and defending. When ramming you are using excessive force to move something. You are unleashing a greater amount of energy in a single instant than pushing. This can be harmful to robots. That is why bumpers are helpful, they cushion the impact. But it is still not within the spirit of the game to harm a robot, bumpers or not. I am fine with robots pushing robots around. But any contact between two robots that are going more than 2 ft a second, in my book is ramming.

Instance A: Bluebot A charges across the field only to slam into Redbot C who is shooting into the goal. Obvious ramming.

Instance B: Bluebot A is near Redbot C and pushes on Redbot C moving out of aim with the center goal. No ramming (given that the robot moved to Redbot C without going over 2 Ft/sec)

Instance C: Bluebot A charges accorss the field only to slow down right before it reaches Redbot C. No ramming.

Instance D: Bluebot A repeatedly backs up and moves to push Redbot C. No matter what speed Bluebot is traveling it should be considered ramming because the robot backed up and moved back in to "push".

I saw many times through the VCU feed of instance D. Even if the robot only backs up once and moves in again it is not within the rules. (I can't quote a rule right now but i will work on getting it).

Let’s take it out of context of robots and move it to cars. If a car gets into an accident most likely it’s because of a ramming action. But if a car was to push another car (say a car was broke down and another car was helping it along) then there would be no damage to the car being pushed (or very little).

What I think needs to be defined by FIRST is ramming. It is a very open term that can be interpreted by many people in many different ways. I have just given my interpretations of what ramming is.

[BoyWithCape195]

I remember reading that there could be no HIGH SPEED ramming, meaning that instance D would be perfectly acceptable.


Also see <G22>

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Ogre

At BAE, the refs were calling G21 correctly. In fact, the refs at BAE did a great job. There weren't any controversial calls that I can remember.
Everything was being called accurately. Granted, I wasn't watching Human players, I was watching robots.

Same thing in my case watching the NJ regional.
There was absolutely no controversial calls, and penalties were being assigned for the right things, and DQ's were being assigned for the right things as well.

Originally Posted by ewankoff

in the NJ finals some teams tried to block team 25's amazing auto mode and some like spike actually succeded making them miss all 10 balls in atleast 2 or 3 matches

But what was really funny, was since 25 missed 10 balls in the finals due to someone interfering with their autonomous shooting in this manner, they still came back after losing autonomous and the bonus, and won the match.

So, don't claim that once you lose autonomous, you will never be able to win the match.. cause it did happen in NJ, and most likely will happen again.