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

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

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

Thanks Ken, I missed that in my perusing. I guess that the only issue here is what is high speed ramming and when does in occur. There is no definition in the rules on what constitutes HSR. In previous years there have been things saying no more than 3 feet or 5 feet but nothing this year. I believe that leaves everything up to the refs to decide again on a regional by regional basis.

[A. Snodgrass]

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.

Unfortunately, that was what was defined to the referees at the event itself. However, looking back at the rules and the manual I could not find an actual POINT amount for deduction into the goal. Its something I couldnt find at the time either. Which I find interesting because all the regular ref's were told to call was the corner incursion, and which team incurred into the goal. We were never given the decision on what penalty was given for that incursion.
You have to understand, we had to work with the interpretation of the rules that we were given by our head ref, and unfortunately that was how he interpreted those rules. Specifically though, there is no place in the rules or in the referee manual that specifically states that its a 5 point penalty. Neither is there in the game rules that I can see.
I can state at Portland regional, the penalties on both cases were meant to try to deter teams from going into goals that were having difficulty with heavy impact. During one of the matches we did have a goal break, and have to do a playover.

[Lil' Lavery]

Ramming, oh boy ramming...
The biggest change in rules from prior years to this one, in regards to defensive contact, it the one dealing with bumper zones. Whether this rule should or should not effect ramming is a debate that will likely rage long into the season. Here's my interpretation:
The bumper zones deal more with contact area than the bumpers dampening the blows themselves. Generally, base-to-base contact is not incredibly harmful, aside of maybe a wire coming unplugged, a couple bolts becoming loose (if not loc-tited etc) and that level of damage, even when it is a high speed collision from 10-15 feet away. The issue becomes of robot damage typically becomes involved when a robot tips or suffers a blow to lesser protected area, such as a shoulder, arm, shooter, etc. A majority of these infractions occur when contact is made high on the robot.
With the establishment of penalties for almost ANY high contact (the exception I beleive is when it is obviously un-intentional, such as your robot tipping, or your robot being shoved; and/or when your robot is helping an alliance member onto the ramp) you have taken away the biggest cause of damage, disabling, cripping, and tipping caused to other robots. Thus why more liberty can be applied to LEGAL contact in the "bumper zone".

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

With the establishment of penalties for almost ANY high contact (the exception I beleive is when it is obviously un-intentional, such as your robot tipping, or your robot being shoved; and/or when your robot is helping an alliance member onto the ramp) you have taken away the biggest cause of damage, disabling, cripping, and tipping caused to other robots. Thus why more liberty can be applied to LEGAL contact in the "bumper zone".

Yeah, what he said!

I like to see matches with good defense. This year my team built a shooter that launches from near the top of our nearly 5 ft. tall robot. I expect that we will be defended hard, if we appear to be shooting accurately when left alone.

What I don't like to see is strategic ramming; i.e., ramming with intent to disable. I would approve of referees applying stiff penalties, including DQ, to discourage strategic ramming.

[AmyPrib]

Regarding the incursion corner goal thing, I asked this in Q/A just now - waiting for answer.

Due to some penalty calls at 1st week regionals, we'd like to have this cleared up before next regionals so that refs can make calls correctly.

Regarding incidental incursion beyond 3" into the corner goals, will there be a DQ for either team if BlueBot pushes RedBot into Redbot's corner goal such that they pass beyond the 3" allowance?
It seems at some regionals there was no call made in this situation.

Also, there are some regionals calling 5pt penalties for corner goal incursion. Nowhere does it say 5pt penalty for anything relating to the corner goal.

Based on the rules and Q/A here is what I've gathered:
- Incursion into goal less than 3" - no penalty
- Intentional incursion into corner goal, beyond 3" - DQ
- Unintentional incursion into corner goal, beyond 3" - DQ

Is that correct? And if so, what team if any, will get a penalty for pushing their opponent into the corner goal such that they go beyond 3"?
Thanks.

I have no idea why 5pt penalties suddenly appeared for this. The rules do not call for it. The incursion into goal less than 3" is ok. Incursion into goal beyond 3" is a DQ, whether it's intentional or unintentional. Now the big question, which I asked, is whether or not it's situation-based, if an opponent pushes you into the corner goal. If I had to interpret the rules, I would call that unintentional incursion beyond 3" and DQ - and maybe DQ both teams for causing it. I base that off of this Q/A:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...ight=incursion

saying it should be designed and driven to stay out. So the opponent needs to drive such that they don't unintentionally cause the incursion, and the scoring bot needs to design such that they can't go in beyond 3". I saw someone's comment about bumper size making it easy to go in past 3", but I haven't look at that closely yet.

We'll see if Q/A comes up with a quick answer before this week's regionals.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Generally, base-to-base contact is not incredibly harmful, aside of maybe a wire coming unplugged, a couple bolts becoming loose (if not loc-tited etc) and that level of damage, even when it is a high speed collision from 10-15 feet away...

that is the normal intuitive view of things, but if you work out the math, a robot going 10mph and hitting frame to frame can experience (and impart) over 1,000 gs of impact

having a few inches of foam between the frame drops the impact down to a few gs.

when frames hit metal to metal batteries can be broken loose, victors and robot controllers broken free from their mounts - you can even break printed circuit boards inside the control components. It all depends on how everything is attached to the frame that is accelerating at 1000 gs for a few mS.

a 130 lb robot going 10 mph has a LOT of kinetic energy*. That energy has to be absorbed by something, if not the bumpers, then the functional parts of your robot.

*edit: if I did the math correctly, it has the same momentum as a 5 pound sledge hammer travelling at 50mph!

[Stu Bloom]

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.

Actually Steve, I believe it was the referee that showed you in the rules where I (oops) ... I mean HE was w..w..w..w..wrong about those ball-dumping doors.

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.

As Steve correctly pointed out in his later post (and to me on the field in NJ - which won him a Mountain Dew BTW) the last sentence in rule <R04> states:

<R04> ... 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.

And also, Steve, while I am here ... I enjoyed meeting and working with you, and look forward to seeing you in Atlanta ... just make sure you bring your rule book!!

In fact, I am now having second thoughts about the interpretation of <R04> ... but that is a discussion for another day ...

[Richard Wallace]

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.

(emphasis added)
I expressed an opinion on this subject in an earlier thread:

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't have specific direction on this from FIRST (yet). I was simply saying that, until I get another interpretation from FIRST, I would read <R04> as disallowing any surface in the bumper zone that is more than 10 degrees from vertical. So I would flag any such surface as an issue that the team would have to correct before their robot could pass inspection.

Of course, FIRST could direct me and other lead robot inspectors to use some judgment as to whether a particular surface that is more than 10 degrees from vertical 'might push against another robot'. I would not like to be in that position, since my judgment might differ from that of another lead robot inspector at another event. Uniform application of the rules at all events should be an important consideration in whatever FIRST decides to do about this.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I've got the same issue with <R04> as Richard; the much-vaunted common-sense approach suggests that we apply a reasonable interpretation of the rule, and yet, it requires us (as officials) to determine what "might push against another robot". If I were to take a literalist approach, it would be useless (encompassing far too much to be practical, e.g. the radii of the bumpers themselves); on the other hand, if I apply my judgement, it will inevitably be different from others' appraisal of the same design. Looking at my own team's robot, I can concieve of many possible opposing robots that might contact it at an angle greater than 10° from vertical. And yet, the robot is positively slab-sided, and can hardly be considered a wedging threat.

What is clear, however, is what's going to come of this, absent a clearly worded and well-thought-out clarification: different teams will interpret this rule differently, and all but the most blatant violations will be permitted to play, either on the grounds that they were allowed at another event (which, technically, isn't relevant unless the inspectors want it to be, since there is no rule or universally accepted practice for applying precedents), or on compassionate grounds, because it would be rather impractical to make them all attach extraneous vertical surfaces to every exposed aspect of their robot.

Maybe the lead inspectors' teleconference tonight will provide some guidance.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

a 130 lb robot going 10 mph has a LOT of kinetic energy*. That energy has to be absorbed by something, if not the bumpers, then the functional parts of your robot.

*edit: if I did the math correctly, it has the same momentum as a 5 pound sledge hammer travelling at 50mph!

If it's a frame on frame hit, a majority of that force is absorbed into the frame itself, which a majority of frames can take (the kitbot one can, and there is no doubt about welded frames like 116's). Besides, from my time both on pit and flight, 116's robot has both dished out and received some hard tips, and hits, and rarely did we suffer damage from the hits, but the tips often caused significant damage.

[mtaman02]

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.

At the NJ Regional The Majority of the calls were:

Off Sides

At the NJ Regional there were Team DQ's but I do not remember on what basis

At the NJ Regional due to a very buggy scoring system and faulty IFI Equipment close to 7 matches were replayed b/c teams felt they were cheated out of who won the autonomous mode, not to mention the time between the autonomous mode to switch to the second portion of the match (probably like 15 seconds or so). If the scorers started the match the Arena Controllers would not get the signal that the match has started. During the Finals the Final Score would be tallied up as let say blue 25 red 35 but for the final score it would say blue 25 red 0 even though there was no penalties thrown.

As you can see we are just into the 1st week of regionals going on to our 2nd set of regionals and many of these issues will probably not get resolved till nationals. The refs can only do so much with what they have to work with. I believe the Refs at the NJ Regional did an outstanding job including head ref Sky. I hope they all return next year because they made this regional Fun, Fair for everyone. My hats off to these guys.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by mtaman02

At the NJ Regional due to a very buggy scoring system and faulty IFI Equipment close to 7 matches were replayed b/c teams felt they were cheated out of who won the autonomous mode, not to mention the time between the autonomous mode to switch to the second portion of the match (probably like 15 seconds or so). If the scorers started the match the Arena Controllers would not get the signal that the match has started. During the Finals the Final Score would be tallied up as let say blue 25 red 35 but for the final score it would say blue 25 red 0 even though there was no penalties thrown.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but please be aware that neither the scoring system nor the arena control system were developed by Innovation First Inc (IFI). If problems with the field control and/or scoring system were experienced at your regional event (and where were they not?), then please do not blame IFI - they didn't have anything to do with it.

-dave

[Bob Steele]

a 130 lb robot going 10 mph has a LOT of kinetic energy*. That energy has to be absorbed by something, if not the bumpers, then the functional parts of your robot.

*edit: if I did the math correctly, it has the same momentum as a 5 pound sledge hammer travelling at 50mph![/quote]

Sorry but the physics teacher (that evil voice..) is coming out in me now...

Your math was pretty good but the kinetic energy of the robot and the sledge hammer are about the same... not the momentum... (mv<2 vs mv)
and you are indeed right in that the kinetic energy is what is important when considering an exchange in this collision. Sorry to correct you but there are children listening...

The energy is transferred via whatever comes into contact. The bumpers act to increase the contact time between the robots during the energy transfer therefore increasing the impulse with the same energy. This increase in impulse has the direct result of decreasing the acceleration. Which is what does the damage...

Sorry but being just a teacher I rarely get to say anything half as interesting as any of you engineers on here!! I couldn't resist!!

smile

[KenWittlief]

oops, Bob is right. I said kinetic energy, and I used the equation for kinetic energy, but then I referred to the momemtum being the same.

the kinetic energy of a 130 lb robot going 10mph is the same as a 5 lb sledge hammer going 50 mph. Imagine someone taking a wack at the frame of your bot with that sledge hammer at that speed, then decide if you want them to wack the frame, or the bumper with the hammer?

Some other terms I twisted and strained. The frame of your robot will only 'absorb' the energy if the frame is dented in the process. Most of what happens is your robot is accelerated in a very short period of time (milliseconds) to the velocity that is the result of the collision. (this is where the conservation of momentum comes it).

Thats where the damage occurs to the other parts of your robot: the battery holder, the electronics... These parts are not designed to withstand 1000 gs of acceleration, not even for a short period of time, so components and screws and bolts start breaking.

[mtaman02]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Not to make too fine a point of it, but please be aware that neither the scoring system nor the arena control system were developed by Innovation First Inc (IFI). If problems with the field control and/or scoring system were experienced at your regional event (and where were they not?), then please do not blame IFI - they didn't have anything to do with it.

-dave

nope mr lavery i don't blame IFI things do go bad and its to be expected but as far as the the 2006 scoring system is concerned it was very buggy and the program froze up easily and virtually un noticeable and when the score table wanted to start the match they couldn't b/c the program froze with out them noticing it. I think i witnessed the score table reboot the systems at least 1 or 2 times every 3 matches.

[AmyPrib]

See post 122
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...607#post466607
for incursion ruling. DQ regardless of how you got in the goal past 3".