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

[Steve W]

<G21> ROBOT Incursion into the Corner Goal - 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.

This could mean 2-4 inches. I saw some that were marginal that were not called because, I believe, they didn't cause a safety concern. You will also note that there is no penalty defined if you go past the 3". I believe that the rule probably is read that if a robot is pushed in then it would be the refs decision on how to call. It may be that the pushing robot only pushed a bit and barely infringed or that they just pushed as hard as they could, knowing that the other robot was inside the coral. This may not be written in the rules but I am sure that the refs have discussed. The head ref should explain in the drivers meeting and if he/she doesn't then the drivers should ask the question.

I believe that the rule was written that way so that if a bumper went in then there wouldn't be a penalty but if a ball delivery system did then a penalty would be assessed.

If someone gets an answer this week it would be good of you to post.

[A. Snodgrass]

Originally Posted by Steve W

<G21> ROBOT Incursion into the Corner Goal - 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.

This could mean 2-4 inches. I saw some that were marginal that were not called because, I believe, they didn't cause a safety concern. You will also note that there is no penalty defined if you go past the 3". I believe that the rule probably is read that if a robot is pushed in then it would be the refs decision on how to call. It may be that the pushing robot only pushed a bit and barely infringed or that they just pushed as hard as they could, knowing that the other robot was inside the coral. This may not be written in the rules but I am sure that the refs have discussed. The head ref should explain in the drivers meeting and if he/she doesn't then the drivers should ask the question.

I believe that the rule was written that way so that if a bumper went in then there wouldn't be a penalty but if a ball delivery system did then a penalty would be assessed.

If someone gets an answer this week it would be good of you to post.

This rule also seems somewhat to deal with preventing the scoring system from getting screwed up. Bumpers counted as part of the robot when they went into the goal at Portland, because they could interfere with scoring, as was stated at the end of the rule. Whether bumpers will count as part of the robot when they incur into the goal in the future regionals, I can't say for certain.
I know we had one corner goal in Portland break. What caused this seemed to be too much ramming...but robots going into the goal doesn't help either, and that does include bumpers. Past 3" you are going truly into the light table, or possibly a little to close to the light table for comfort.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Steve W

You will also note that there is no penalty defined if you go past the 3". I believe that the rule probably is read that if a robot is pushed in then it would be the refs decision on how to call.

If someone gets an answer this week it would be good of you to post.

In the Q/A, and I know I posted it somewhere, there IS a penalty defined for a robot going past the 3".. I specifically asked that in a Q/A because the G21 didn't specify, and while they say Q/A aren't "official", they did say they can be used to make decision. Some may not accept any Q/A as official ruling until they make an update, but the penalty is a DQ for going past approximately 3".

The Q/A also showed that no matter how you got in the goal past 3" (pushed or by yourself), you are DQ'd. The decision the refs make is whether or not it went past 3" or caused a safety issue. The penalty amount is not the refs decision.

[Lil' Lavery]

As for autonomous ramming, the Q&A clearly stated that is the same as operated ramming. So therefore, it is once again referees discretion on what is "excessive". Also note that, autonomous defensive programs do NOT have to "ram". A "clip" to the corner of their bot to rotate them often works (provided they are dead reckoning) or blocking the bot (especially when it's attempting to score in the corner goal) by simply getting in front of it also often work. On the other hand, these strategies are often harder to set up during autonomous as you have a smaller margin of error (trying to hit the corner 6" of a bot is alot harder than trying to hit their full 38" side).

[Brindza]

Well I just got back from the Pittsburg Regional...and well I was a little dissapointed to say the least.

I don't know how the other regionals were called, but at Pittsburg the pinning rule (G24 i believe) was COMPLETELY disregarded. If this was the case at the other regionals i would like to know before we go the the Annapolis Regional.

Team 888

[Kit Gerhart]

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>

DELIBERATE HIGH SPEED ramming was completely legal at UCF DURING AUTONOMOUS. The explanation given to our calm and collected student who asked was that there was no way to prove intent. When you consder the way the robots are placed in the squares, etc., it may well be easier to tell intent on autonomous than the driver portion of a match, given the nature of the "busy" end of the field during most matches. How has this been ruled at other regionals?

[George1902]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

DELIBERATE HIGH SPEED ramming was completely legal at UCF DURING AUTONOMOUS.

1604 and 710 were warned and penalized respectively for ramming us during autonomous.

Hearing that this ruling wasn't consistent even at our own regional is discouraging.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

DELIBERATE HIGH SPEED ramming was completely legal at UCF DURING AUTONOMOUS. The explanation given to our calm and collected student who asked was that there was no way to prove intent. When you consder the way the robots are placed in the squares, etc., it may well be easier to tell intent on autonomous than the driver portion of a match, given the nature of the "busy" end of the field during most matches. How has this been ruled at other regionals?

It was called a few times at UTC as mentioned above.

The difficulty is if your trying to get in front of a shooter to block them (because they shoot lower than the height of your bot) but instead collide is it intentional ramming? If you get there first in auto to block a shooter and they hit you at full speed are they ramming? There was a reason they pushed the bumper issue this year. The middle of the field gets busy in auton and many teams can change their auton quick so just driving to a position to be ready for human control you can hit some one.

I think they are being leanient because of these many reasons.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd

It was called a few times at UTC as mentioned above.

The difficulty is if your trying to get in front of a shooter to block them (because they shoot lower than the height of your bot) but instead collide is it intentional ramming? If you get there first in auto to block a shooter and they hit you at full speed are they ramming? There was a reason they pushed the bumper issue this year. The middle of the field gets busy in auton and many teams can change their auton quick so just driving to a position to be ready for human control you can hit some one.

I think they are being leanient because of these many reasons.

In the case we experienced, we were rammed by a fast robot which was pre-aimed to intersect the path we normally took to shoot balls at the high goal. The collision bent our 1/4 inch aluminum side panel. Our lesson was that we need bumpers on our robot, which we have added. However the rules may be interpreted in the future, something similar could happen, so our top priority was to protect our robot from further damage.

Our match in question was an early match on Friday, and hearing George 1902's experience, things were called differently later during the UCF event.

[Dan9874123]

The ramming penalty was called on my team during a quarter final round, we were trying to beat 181 to the corner goal,(a move we had been doing all day to great success) our intention was to hit the wall infront of them and block them but we ended up hitting them. We certainly didn't injure 181, only stopped them. The 5 point penalty caused us to lose the match and get knocked out of the competition. We weren't even opperating at top speed and most people were shocked at the call, the corner goal ref even apologized to one of my team mates after the competiton, saying it was a bad call. When team 20 was knocked out of the competition we went over to talk to them, their frame had been bent in an inch THROUGH a bumper and no penalty was called. It seems to me that this particular rule hasn't been called fairly.
I think this competition is alot like football, esspecially in auto mode. Your gonna get hit and hit hard, no matter what happens. FIRST even mentioned making your robot robust for this game in their animation.

[nehalita]

One thing I noticed wasn't called was penalties due to contact outside of the 28x38x60 area (aka due to extensions).

Personally, I think there are just too many things to fully take account of when there are 6 robots on the field, making contact, and doing their own thing.

I'm sure every team has their story of a time that a penalty was not called that could have changed the match or an error occurred that wasn't their fault (ex: one team's switch was pushed somehow when a robot went full speed into the lexan and they couldn't operate their robot after that) and it really isn't anyone's fault. The judges make their call on the spot and can't change it for obvious reasons.

I mean, suppose after every match, teams were allowed to go up with disputes with the scores and calls made. This means more distractions to the current game occurring (and therefore more possible complaints) and we'd probably need a whole other day of matching to redo the matches that weren't "perfect." Even if we do have proof, the only thing the judges can do is give us a rematch and I'm sure every team would desire a rematch of some sort or another (and how would you do a rematch during the elimination round? that would mess everything up). There's just a lot going on in a small given amount of time.

Lesson: Control what's in your hands and just take what happens. You can't do much more than that and if you try to, you'll just probably lose more brain cells than anything else.

note: you might notice that I'm a little sore, yes, it's true. I'm not going to mention what or when because i know it's not the opponent's fault nor the judge's fault. things happen.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Dan9874123

The ramming penalty was called on my team during a quarter final round, we were trying to beat 181 to the corner goal,(a move we had been doing all day to great success) our intention was to hit the wall infront of them and block them but we ended up hitting them. We certainly didn't injure 181, only stopped them. The 5 point penalty caused us to lose the match and get knocked out of the competition. We weren't even opperating at top speed and most people were shocked at the call, the corner goal ref even apologized to one of my team mates after the competiton, saying it was a bad call. When team 20 was knocked out of the competition we went over to talk to them, their frame had been bent in an inch THROUGH a bumper and no penalty was called. It seems to me that this particular rule hasn't been called fairly.
I think this competition is alot like football, esspecially in auto mode. Your gonna get hit and hit hard, no matter what happens. FIRST even mentioned making your robot robust for this game in their animation.

I'm sorry to hear you lost a match. But not as sorry as I am the hear that one official put themselves above another. Please say it wasn't so! I hope your team mate (sic) was mistaken. Officials have no business apologizing for another's call.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by nehalita

note: you might notice that i'm a little sore, yes, it's true. i'm not going to mention what or when because i know it's not the opponent's fault nor the judge's fault. things happen.

We all need to take a lesson from nehalita. FIRST (and CD) needs more of this and less whinging.

Changing topics abruptly:

I saw what struck me as a very interesting (!?) call by our head ref at STL yesterday. I didn't observe the play itself, but did see the position of the robots just afterward. Bluabot had pushed Redabot so that Redabot extended more than three inches into a corner goal. Redabot was DQ'd for the incursion and Bluabot was DQ'd also. One ref thought that Bluabot's DQ was called for ramming, while another thought it was called for intentionally causing the incursion. Since it occurred in the elimination rounds, the result of this double-DQ was a replay.

Can someone who was directly involved please offer clarification, or correction if I got the story wrong?

[thesse]

Rule G22 was commonly disregarded throughout the Pittsburg regional. Rule G22 establishes guidelines and penalties for contact with other Robots. It clearly states that “Contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE is generally not acceptable” but then undermines itself with a loophole stating “Incidental contact will not be Penalized”. All damages to our Robot during the Pittsburg Finals were classified as “Incidental contact” and not a single penalty assessed. To give you an idea of the level of damage you may consider “Incidental contact” we had a ½ inch wide piece of angle aluminum, which supported our ball hopper 6 inches above the bumper zone bent back and forth so many times the aluminum was actually severed.

Team 888

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by nehalita

One thing I noticed wasn't called was penalties due to contact outside of the 28x38x60 area (aka due to extensions).

Neha is being very kind in her post, by speaking in generalities - her team was on the receiving end of what I felt was an obvious violation of the tipping rule during elimination matches. Another team with a long, high blocking "wing" that extended outside the base footprint came alongside them, turned around and used the force of their wing against the top of 1345's robot to tip them over. Intentional or not it happened right in front of the head ref who immediately signaled that there was no foul. If that's not a tipping violation I don't know what is.

I had an issue with the same robot and the 60" max height rule. This wing was statically within the rules but when used for blocking it would continually deflect several inches higher - it was made of PVC and contact with the other robot would bend it up. I must say, however, that this is an excellent feature and very effective so a simple modification could prevent violation of the 60" rule.