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

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Steve W

... I had a discussion with one of the refs and I showed him in the rules were these are legal. ....

Since you are a mentor, how was this not a violation of <G42>?

Originally Posted by Game Rules

<G42> Any discussions regarding rules, scores, or penalties must be between the DRIVERs or HUMAN
PLAYERs (pre-college team members) and the head referee.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by A. Snodgrass

For unintentional incursion, the penalty that was indicated was 5 points.

Ashlee, do you know where specifically in the rules it says there's a 5 point penalty for unintentional incursions into the side goal?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I can't find it anywhere. I took it to mean that any time a team went into the goal more than 3", it was automatically assumed to be intentional, and a DQ.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by BoyWithCape195

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


Also see <G22>

After re-reading <G22> (http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Man...Game_Rev_D.pdf) it seems like if you stay inside the bumper zone contact is leagal in almost any instance described so far (reference the first bullet under <G22>).The one clear ramming instance given in the rules is the cross-court shot.

Please take a minute to look at the wording of the rule if you have an issue. Also if you want clarification bring it up at the Drivers meeting on Thurday or Friday where the ref should address it to the whole group.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by DjAlamose

There is a HUGE difference between ramming and defending. ... 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..

2ft/S is 1.3mph!!!

Cars are designed to withstand a 5mph collision (rammed) without damage to their bumpers, and many cars can take 10mph with no structural damage.

FIRST has provided a clear rule book of their own. Using kinetic energy (impulse) is allowed to move an opponents robot.

This has been in the rules since the kickoff meeting. If you want to be able to score during aggressive play, you will need a tracking system that can quickly acquire the goal, lock onto it, tell your driver when to fire, or a system that wont fire if target lock has been lost.

Standing at the freethrow line people can shoot baskets all day long - what is the record now, a couple thousand baskets in a row?

In many ways this game is like football: if the quarterback has the ball and is about to throw it, he's fair game to be 'rammed' to the ground.

• Rule <R35> in Section 5.3.4 establishes ROBOT BUMPER ZONEs. Any contact within this zone is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed long distance ramming.

[meaubry]

I don't recall the high speed ramming rule NOT applying during the autonomous period - did I miss that?

In my opinion, the argument will rage on because there are as many opinions as there are teams when it comes to defining ramming - and don't expect that the ref's even see this the same way amongst themselves.

So, just ask for as much clarity regarding all aspects of this AT THE DRVERS MEETING, and pay attention to WHAT GETS CALLED.

I, for one dislike robots pushing on each other, but that's probably because I have to fix the thing after it gets broken.

So, there will always be folks that are unhappy with the interpretation and execution of calling or not calling this difficult to measure infraction - but as long as it is being called consistantly AND that every team was clearly communicated with as to what is and what isn't going to be called - that is all we can ask for.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I was at BAE and just about every shooter could be stopped by hitting them.

Hmm.. interesting.. Very interesting.

Nice to know.

How many of said BAE regional teams are coming to compete against us in Hartford again?

Originally Posted by Richard

Since you are a mentor, how was this not a violation of <G42>?

He wasn't a mentor at the regional he attended, but was helping with the field crew. If he was a mentor, and brought it up after his team's match, it would be against the rules, but since it was a crew person to crew person discussion, it was perfectly legal.

I know cause it was at NJ.

[BoyWithCape195]

Originally Posted by Cory

Ashlee, do you know where specifically in the rules it says there's a 5 point penalty for unintentional incursions into the side goal?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I can't find it anywhere. I took it to mean that any time a team went into the goal more than 3", it was automatically assumed to be intentional, and a DQ.

At BAE, the incursion rule was not called if a robot came up behind a team dispensing and caused a part of their robot to enter the goal past the 3"

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by BoyWithCape195

At BAE, the incursion rule was not called if a robot came up behind a team dispensing and caused a part of their robot to enter the goal past the 3"

Hmm.. can you say loophole? lol Looks like since someone else pushed them into the goal, they were not assessed the penalty? Or.. who was assessed the penalty? The robot being pushed into the goal, or the robot pushing the robot into the goal.

I would penalize the robot pushing the other team into the goal for the simple fact that if red is being pushed into a red goal by a blue bot, the driver for the blue bot is at maximum 20 feet away from the robot behind the player's station wall and knows exactly what they are doing, and should be penalized in the name of a safety violation.

If they were across the field, and pushing, then it would be hard for them to see what they were doing and I would hesitate to give anyone a penalty.

[BoyWithCape195]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

Hmm.. can you say loophole? lol Looks like since someone else pushed them into the goal, they were not assessed the penalty? Or.. who was assessed the penalty? The robot being pushed into the goal, or the robot pushing the robot into the goal.

I would penalize the robot pushing the other team into the goal for the simple fact that if red is being pushed into a red goal by a blue bot, the driver for the blue bot is at maximum 20 feet away from the robot behind the player's station wall and knows exactly what they are doing, and should be penalized in the name of a safety violation.

If they were across the field, and pushing, then it would be hard for them to see what they were doing and I would hesitate to give anyone a penalty.

In this certain match, neither robot was given a penalty and game play continued on as normal.

[DjAlamose]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

2ft/S is 1.3mph!!!

Cars are designed to withstand a 5mph collision (rammed) without damage to their bumpers, and many cars can take 10mph with no structural damage.

This is true but not all teams have the backing of an automaker. Plus people might not know how sturdy they need their robot to be, I know our first year we didn’t know. Plus this is just a personal opinion of what ramming is, yes it is slow, but I see no need for any contact past that point.

Originally Posted by meaubry

I don't recall the high speed ramming rule NOT applying during the autonomous period - did I miss that?

In my opinion, the argument will rage on because there are as many opinions as there are teams when it comes to defining ramming - and don't expect that the ref's even see this the same way amongst themselves.

So, just ask for as much clarity regarding all aspects of this AT THE DRVERS MEETING, and pay attention to WHAT GETS CALLED.

I, for one dislike robots pushing on each other, but that's probably because I have to fix the thing after it gets broken.

So, there will always be folks that are unhappy with the interpretation and execution of calling or not calling this difficult to measure infraction - but as long as it is being called consistantly AND that every team was clearly communicated with as to what is and what isn't going to be called - that is all we can ask for.

I completely agree with this. If the calls are consistent and everyone was informed of the incidents then that is enough to satisfy me. I also agree that it would be difficult to measure the infraction. But it all comes down to how the refs interpret ramming. I will live with their calls because they should know what they are doing. Also it is good that you point out ramming during autonomous because that is even more likely to happen as teams just tell their robot to go forward and not determine a good speed. I just hope the calls will be fair and consistent.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Steve W

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.

Originally Posted by <R04>

<R04> "Wedge” robots are not allowed. Robots must be designed so that interaction with other robots results in pushing rather than tipping or lifting. Neither offensive nor defensive wedges are allowed. All parts of a robot between 0 and 8.5 inches from the ground (the top of the bumper zone – see Rule <R35>) that might push against another robot must be within 10 degrees of vertical. Devices deployed outside the robot's footprint should be designed to avoid wedging. If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots, penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur depending on the severity of the infraction.

As described, they're not actually legal (if they "might push against another robot"), but that's an issue for inspectors to catch before the robot competes. The penalties (on the other hand) require interference during the match; if that occurs, it's up to the referee to make the call. Basically, there are two separate issues, enforced by different officials; if one fails to enforce their half of the rule, the other half of the rule is still applicable.

Originally Posted by Richard

Since you are a mentor, how was this not a violation of <G42>?

188 wasn't competing last weekend; Steve was in NJ as an observer. It looks like the referee is invoking <G43>, which allows the head ref to take advice from any source, even Steve. Besides, even if he did violate <G42>, there's just about nothing that can be done about it, absent a competing team....

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd

After re-reading <G22> (http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Man...Game_Rev_D.pdf) it seems like if you stay inside the bumper zone contact is leagal in almost any instance described so far (reference the first bullet under <G22>).The one clear ramming instance given in the rules is the cross-court shot.

Please take a minute to look at the wording of the rule if you have an issue. Also if you want clarification bring it up at the Drivers meeting on Thurday or Friday where the ref should address it to the whole group.

Long distance does not exclusively mean a cross-court shot. "Long Distance Ramming" has been repeatedly interpreted as meaning "more than about 3 feet away" by the referees. I don't know if anything has changed between last year and this year, but last year they called ramming like that. I saw quite a few hits from a few yards away at VCU.

The rule is much more akin to hockey than football. In hockey, body checking is alright, as is checking someone into the boards, while "Boarding" occurs when the player contributes an excessive amount of kinetic energy into the hit (usually determined by the skates leaving the ice). Ramming is the same way. The intent of the rule is to keep "bonejarring" hits to a minimum. I've also heard that a good rule of thumb is, "If the hit makes you wince, it's probably too much."

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

As described, they're not actually legal (if they "might push against another robot"), but that's an issue for inspectors to catch before the robot competes. The penalties (on the other hand) require interference during the match; if that occurs, it's up to the referee to make the call. Basically, there are two separate issues, enforced by different officials; if one fails to enforce their half of the rule, the other half of the rule is still applicable.
188 wasn't competing last weekend; Steve was in NJ as an observer. It looks like the referee is invoking <G43>, which allows the head ref to take advice from any source, even Steve. Besides, even if he did violate <G42>, there's just about nothing that can be done about it, absent a competing team....

<R04> "Wedge” robots are not allowed. Robots must be designed so that interaction with other robots results in
pushing rather than tipping or lifting. Neither offensive nor defensive wedges are allowed. All parts of a
robot between 0 and 8.5 inches from the ground (the top of the bumper zone – see Rule <R35>) that might
push against another robot must be within 10 degrees of vertical. Devices deployed outside the robot's
footprint should be designed to avoid wedging. If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for
example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots, penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur
depending on the severity of the infraction.

Now as you know Tristan and I love to argue rules and wording. This is my interpretation. As for speaking to the ref, it was after a match where people were dumping balls. The head ref had already ruled about the legality of these robots. I did NOT have any influence or input on the issue. I believe that the talk was later on on Friday. The ref was calling as per the head refs ruling. As you know also, that many people talk about rules and ideas and interpretations during events. This is not new or unGP.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

2ft/S is 1.3mph!!!

Cars are designed to withstand a 5mph collision (rammed) without damage to their bumpers, and many cars can take 10mph with no structural damage.

FIRST has provided a clear rule book of their own. Using kinetic energy (impulse) is allowed to move an opponents robot.

This has been in the rules since the kickoff meeting. If you want to be able to score during aggressive play, you will need a tracking system that can quickly acquire the goal, lock onto it, tell your driver when to fire, or a system that wont fire if target lock has been lost.

Standing at the freethrow line people can shoot baskets all day long - what is the record now, a couple thousand baskets in a row?

In many ways this game is like football: if the quarterback has the ball and is about to throw it, he's fair game to be 'rammed' to the ground.

Quote:
• Rule <R35> in Section 5.3.4 establishes ROBOT BUMPER ZONEs. Any contact within this zone is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed long distance ramming.

Where was this quote from?

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Quote:
• Rule <R35> in Section 5.3.4 establishes ROBOT BUMPER ZONEs. Any contact within this zone is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed long distance ramming.

Where was this quote from?

The part of <G22> that addresses bumpers and robot to robot interaction.