2006 Penalties

[Greg Perkins]

Originally Posted by cmaccoy

My concerns are as follows:
-There are no "instant replays" so we can't have the refs look at the incident a few times to confirm.
-If you interrupt the sensor system (go further then 3 inches in the side goal) your entire alliance is disqualified.
The rules aren't that bad this year but still they could be edited.

Replays...are you serious????
This topic has been discussed to death. FIRST has always had a problem with time, there never is enough of it...adding 1 extra minute to every qualification match to look at video is inconcieveable. I was once a supporter of this, until I understood that if it was used, it would be used so much for EVERY penalty that we would need an extra day of competition (or deliberation as the case would be). I assure you, when the ref's meet up in the center of the field to discuss a penalty, I can attest we are not talking about what's for lunch. So please....lets drop the whole NFL way of the game, and let's just start playing by the rules; because then who knows, penalties might never show up.

[Cody Carey]

A cable tie... You mind pointing out where a cable tie was placed on our robot so that it could possibly go into the goal? Because I don't see any.

[AcesPease]

Originally Posted by indieFan

Team 1070 was DQ'd at the AZ regional during seeding matches this weekend because of this. We ended up getting another warning about it during the quarterfinals. However, both Jason Morrella and Dave Lavery were looking at our robot asking how this was possible since it clearly wasn't designed to be able to go in. I'm hoping that there will be changes made to this rule, but I'm not holding my breath.

indieFan

In Hartford some teams made minor modifications to their bots to avoid incursion penalties. The refs were firm on the calls. I didn't count, but there were a lot of 5 point and DQ incursion penalties called. I think many of us thought we had 3 inches to spare and never thought how hard it was going to be to call it, so if you somehow planned on using the 3 inch cushion, you were almost guaranteed to be called for the incursion.

Bill Pease
Teacher Mentor
Aces High
2006 UTC New England Champions with 177 and 1124
2006 BAE Granite State Finalists with 319 and 562

[Imajie]

Originally Posted by AcesPease

In Hartford some teams made minor modifications to their bots to avoid incursion penalties. The refs were firm on the calls. I didn't count, but there were a lot of 5 point and DQ incursion penalties called. I think many of us thought we had 3 inches to spare and never thought how hard it was going to be to call it, so if you somehow planned on using the 3 inch cushion, you were almost guaranteed to be called for the incursion.

Bill Pease
Teacher Mentor
Aces High
2006 UTC New England Champions with 177 and 1124
2006 BAE Granite State Finalists with 319 and 562

That happened to us once. We were DQed but we didn't think it was possible for us to go into the goal. But we took our bot to the practice field and tried to figure out how it could have gone into the goal, and when we realized that it was possible we made a modification to prevent it.

[Adam Shapiro]

Originally Posted by Cody C

A cable tie... You mind pointing out where a cable tie was placed on our robot so that it could possibly go into the goal? Because I don't see any.

You're taking this way too far. The fact of the matter is two separate people saw the incursion. It is a quick thing to decide and both concluded the same. The penalty disqualified you that match and that is unfortunate, but it happens. Just let it be a lesson for next year: instead of designing such that you avoid a penalty by half an inch, design so you will avoid it by three or four inches. It's just too hard to argue something like that, especially under such a tight time constraint; it's on you to plan for such things in advance.

[Dan Petrovic]

I put "Yes, but a few could be changed", but I believe they are all fine.

These are the rules we agree with at the beginning of the season and none of them are irrational.

Be careful. That's all you have to do. These penalties make sense.

The rules are fine, but some refs can be hard and some can be real easy on the teams.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Cody C

A cable tie... You mind pointing out where a cable tie was placed on our robot so that it could possibly go into the goal? Because I don't see any.

If you wanted to clarify the call on the field, you should have sent a student member of your drive team to the head ref at the time of the incident.

There is no point in dragging out this specific incident even more by continuing to argue that you were in the right. What's done is done, and no amount of griping about it is going to change what happened.

[Cody Carey]

I am taking this too far, and whats done is done... but I don't appreciate being told that I am wrong when I have concrete evidence showing that it is impossible... no zip-tie, you can see in the pic that there are not 3 inches to intrude with, and to their two oppinions, I have the other teams drive-team as well as our own. I have shown that our incursion into the center goal is impossible, and when I did, I am just met with "I don't care if it is impossible, you did it."

As anybody can see, the call that was made was unfair, and I am not blaming anybody or anything but the pressure that is put on the refs to make split-second decisions... and that cannot be changed. In answer to the thread... It is made obvious that all the calls that are made are DEFINATELY NOT correct.

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by Cory

If you wanted to clarify the call on the field, you should have sent a student member of your drive team to the head ref at the time of the incident.

There is no point in dragging out this specific incident even more by continuing to argue that you were in the right. What's done is done, and no amount of griping about it is going to change what happened.

We did, they wouldn't listen. anyways. I'm done... no more arguing

[Adam Shapiro]

Originally Posted by Cody C

I am taking this too far, and whats done is done... but I don't appreciate being told that I am wrong when I have concrete evidence showing that it is impossible... no zip-tie, you can see in the pic that there are not 3 inches to intrude with, and to their two oppinions, I have the other teams drive-team as well as our own. I have shown that our incursion into the center goal is impossible, and when I did, I am just met with "I don't care if it is impossible, you did it."

I can see there isn't much of a way to change your opinion, but I'd just like to point out that a photo of your robot in the pit is hardly evidence. First, it could have been taken either before or after the zip tie was added or removed respecively. Second, there is no way to judge the length of the front of your robot from that photo unless you had a ruler or another object placed next to the robot to compare with. Again, it is unfortunate that you got disqualified for this penalty, and it is additionally unfortunate that the driving teams were in agreement, but the call was at the discretion of the refs and they decided against you. End of story.

[Cody Carey]

You're right

The refs make perfect decisions all of the time

There is no possible way we could have been right...

There definitely was a zip-tie... the robot obviously exceeds the three inch limit, and solid steel can, in fact be bent and re-bent in the same match... The driver of the opposing team was obviously not paying attention to the goal at that time, neither was the coach to see how many points we scored. Two opinions are always better that five, and zip ties not spontaneously generate.

I don't know why I couldn't see it until the argument was over, I mean, I DEFINITELY, all by my self escalated this thread to the point it was at.

You, Adam Shapiro are ALWAYS right, and in future threads, I know not to dispute everybody elses' absolute knowledge

I am sorry... please accept my humblest apologies.


Cody C.
--Team 306 Captain/Driver

[indieFan]

Originally Posted by AcesPease

In Hartford some teams made minor modifications to their bots to avoid incursion penalties. The refs were firm on the calls. I didn't count, but there were a lot of 5 point and DQ incursion penalties called. I think many of us thought we had 3 inches to spare and never thought how hard it was going to be to call it, so if you somehow planned on using the 3 inch cushion, you were almost guaranteed to be called for the incursion.

We were originally DQ'd because we had a bumper on our back side only that got pushed into the goal. We removed the bumper immediately after it happened. Our front and back sides are flat (save any damage that may have occurred to our hopper). I believe that that DQ occurred during the practice rounds because there was a question that was raised about the bumpers thinking that we (the team) had misread the rules. We hadn't. The following day, without any bumpers on the robot, we still received a DQ during a match. And, we got the warning I mentioned earlier during the quarterfinals. We never, to my knowledge, planned on using the 3 inch cushion.

indieFan

[Cody Carey]

Post: Re: 2006 Penalties

Reputation Score: negative

Reputation Reason: I see your "team role" is listed as leadership. I pity your team if you are one of their leaders. You are making a fool of yourself in this thread - it is OVER - let it go ...

That was VERY rude. In this thread, I said nothing to offend anybody. If I did, point it out to me.

I am simply saying (as this is what the thread is for) that the refs calls are not always fair, and giving an example of why I think they are not...



Not once did I say anything about anybody that might even be construed as offensive until something was said to me that was offensive.... and several times I said that I was glad that the refs are doing the best that they can.



The regional is over... I agree with that. This thread, however IS NOT. I am VERY upset that a TEAM MENTOR has the complete lack of self-restraint that is required to give negative rep with such a rude message attached, without first contacting me, or posting anything in the thread to tell me that I was offending him. This rep was in no way constructive, and has only caused hard feelings.





Once again... Please tell me what I said that was so offensive as to deserve the rep/abusive message?

If I am not making ANY SENSE with what I just said, then please tell me... also please tell me if I am. I would like some closure on this matter.









P.S I guess this proves that some Chief Delphi users are indeed thin-skinned if posting on a thread about the subject of that thread merits being told that I don't deserve to be a leader on my team.

[Jessica Boucher]

I have been asked to close this to cool off the thread, and after reading it I agree with the request. I'm going to give it a couple of hours and we'll go from there.

Update: Reopened. Sorry for the terrible delay

[Cactus_Robotics]

Originally Posted by indieFan

Team 1070 was DQ'd at the AZ regional during seeding matches this weekend because of this. We ended up getting another warning about it during the quarterfinals. However, both Jason Morrella and Dave Lavery were looking at our robot asking how this was possible since it clearly wasn't designed to be able to go in. I'm hoping that there will be changes made to this rule, but I'm not holding my breath.

indieFan

Yea we were with you in that match, we couldn't tell how that happened, still a pretty good match though