Drivers' Meeting

[UlTiMaTeP]

This driver meeting thoroughly disgusted me.

1. Any robot that has anything that extends past the original size constraints (28x38x60) (not in the bumper zone) and touches by accident, coincidences or on purpose, will be penalized. The word incidental is not used in its proper definition in the rules. The definition of incidental touching means a robot will not be penalized if it touches the bumper zone first, stays in contact with the bumper zone, and then touches higher up. True incidental touches WILL STILL BE PENALIZED. That means if you have a dumper, expanding hopper, arm, wing, blocker, stick, tie wrap, something that sticks out by accident, you will be penalized if someone else touches that object.

2. Clarification of pinning rule. You can pin a robot for a few seconds and then you have to back away in any spot except for on top of the ramp. The clarification states that if you push a robot on either ramp, you can hold it forever. This gives big power robots lots of room to do whatever they want. If you were to push a robot up the ramp and say it was sideways you could hold your robot against it the entire match and get the points for the robot as well as "disabling the robot the entire match" Even though this rule may have been in the book the entire year, this is a serious blow to GP.

3. Bumper zone contact, (please if anyone knows this better than I do please comment) As I heard, if a robot pushes another robot in any position as long as the pushing was done in the bumper zone, and the opposing robot flips over, it is not the aggressors fault. Another serious blow to GP. This is giving the ability to easily disable a robot for the entire match. With the sharp ramps this year pushing a robot onto the ramp makes it very easy to tip. This makes me feel like this is turning into a destruction derby.

4. Autonomous and Corner Goals, Intentional ramming in auto is now illegal, and I firmly back this rule and this was a very good one. While that is a great addition, The rule considering robots protruding into a goal is absolutely ludicrous. Obviously the protruding rule was based first on safety. But the consequences are terrible, an entire robot alliance DQ'ed? While we can legally tip other robots. But the real ugly problem comes in with robot aggressors. If a robot were to push another robot into the goal, well you think there would be no penalty or maybe a penalty against the aggressor, right? Wrong. The team that gets pushed in gets the penalty, most people have pieces on their robot that extend more than 3 inches in a certain angle or even straight on. You could so easily push a robot straight into a goal beyond the 3-inch penetration with no effort. This is absolutely ludicrous, allowing robots to disqualify robots on purpose. We might as well have not put the time, effort, blood, and sweat into making shooters and ball handlers.

I would like to take this time to thank all the volunteers and referees that make FIRST possible. One of the great things I have learned this season is how to work with material handling. I am so thankful for that, FIRST basically gave me the opportunity to work on it. I feel with this current rule I believe everything has gone to waste. Many, many of us were not happy. Gracious for all the time the refs put in, but not happy campers. The situation has upset some teams designs so much, some feel that this group of new additions/clarifications have turned FIRST into battlebots. Some go so far as not coming back next year. This is a dire situation that needs to addressed for the sake of Gracious Professionalism. I know we can all do better than this.

-- FIRST team alumni, FIRST team mentor, FIRST volunteer, and FIRST Vex Judge
Peter

[sw293]

Originally Posted by UlTiMaTeP

The definition of incidental touching means a robot will not be penalized if it touches the bumper zone first, stays in contact with the bumper zone, and then touches higher up.

This the definition of "incidental" the refs are using, right? So this type of contact is not penalized, correct?

Intentional ramming in auto is now illegal, and I firmly back this rule and this was a very good one.

As recently as this Q&A "Robot strategies intended to disrupt the aim of an opposing robot are acceptable and to be expected as long as they are not excessive." Where in the rules has this changed? The refs are not banning all disruptive autonomous strategies despite the rules and the Q&A are they?

I'm really confused .

[UlTiMaTeP]

The refs are making new rules as the game goes on. And they must be using the elastic clause on the word excessive, to mean ramming.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by UlTiMaTeP

The refs are making new rules as the game goes on. And they must be using the elastic clause on the word excessive, to mean ramming.

You're kidding right?

Just because you don't like how the rules will be called doesn't mean that they haven't existed for the last 4 months.

[UlTiMaTeP]

I 100 percent agree with that, as stated in my earlier post.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by UlTiMaTeP

Intentional ramming in auto is now illegal, and I firmly back this rule and this was a very good one.

Just to be clear about what was said at the meeting - intentional ramming in autonomous mode only applies when the offending robot performs a long-distance, high-speed ram into a robot that hasn't moved from the starting box. If a robot intercepts a robot that has moved out of the box, all bets are off as far as intentional ramming. So if your robot consistently drives to the edge of the ramp to pour in ten balls, and a defending robot knocks you out, don't expect a ramming penalty to be called.

[UlTiMaTeP]

Yes if it was accidental it is fine, I believe, disruption of auto will be ruled as fine, as long as these robots aren't driving full speed into another bot. It may be case by case depending on the infraction after the opposing bot is out of the box. We will have to see how it gets ruled if another bot rams one at fullspeed out of the box.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by sw293

"Robot strategies intended to disrupt the aim of an opposing robot are acceptable and to be expected as long as they are not excessive." Where in the rules has this changed? The refs are not banning all disruptive autonomous strategies despite the rules and the Q&A are they?

It seems to me that a robot that is stationary in its starting box is protected against a high speed smash. An acceptable disruptive autonomous strategy (as I think may have even been described in the meeting) would be for the disrupting robot to slow down just prior to contact with a stationary autonomous shooter. Programmers, sharpen up those lines of code!

[UlTiMaTeP]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

It seems to me that a robot that is stationary in its starting box is protected against a high speed smash. An acceptable disruptive autonomous strategy (as I think may have even been described in the meeting) would be for the disrupting robot to slow down just prior to contact with a stationary autonomous shooter. Programmers, sharpen up those lines of code!

I think you hit the nail on the head

[Mark Pierce]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

An acceptable disruptive autonomous strategy ... would be for the disrupting robot to slow down just prior to contact with a stationary autonomous shooter.

Nope. The earlier post is correct. It appears that essentially "all bets are off if the target has moved out of the starting box."

Almost nothing in my 8 years of FIRST has been so discouraging as to be tipped in autonomous two matches in a row. I've got mentors and parents asking how this is different than Battle bots. I sincerely wish that when the first questions were asked that FIRST had changed the rules to prohibit autonomous motion on the defensive side of the field. At least at the regional level, teams were afraid of a DQ or other penalty.

[Spikey]

Wow that rule for expanding bots is terrible! If any of you have seen SPIKE we expand with our net, and now people can just hit the net, and we get penalites, that is really dumb. Why start using this rule now? It was not in effect at the two regionals we attended.
Luckily we were able to constrain our expanding hopper, but this new rule/interepretation is ridiculous.

[ScoutingNerd175]

Originally Posted by Spikey

Wow that rule for expanding bots is terrible! If any of you have seen SPIKE we expand with our net, and now people can just hit the net, and we get penalites, that is really dumb. Why start using this rule now? It was not in effect at the two regionals we attended.
Luckily we were able to constrain our expanding hopper, but this new rule/interepretation is ridiculous.

Seeing Spike's robot with the smaller net was thoroughly depressing. At Chesapeake, everyone knew who Spike was. They had a great machine and I applaud them for playing hard. I am sorry that they had to change an excellent robot to conform with rules that had been enforced differently at previous competitions. I know that with the game changing every year and all the different people responsible for enforcing the rules, these sorts of things do happen. Thanks to the refs for all their hard work.

[TomBurr]

I, too, was thoroughly disgusted by the drivers meeting. However, I feel like I am against the majority. I was not offended by the rules, they are what they are, and there is little use to arguing with the referees over moot points. I was shocked by the complete lack of gracious professionalism by some of the drivers/stage crew. No respect was shown to the referees or FIRST.

Worst of all though, everyone applauded the repeated, unsportsman-like conduct. I've seen a lot better out of first.

Also, everyone needs to remember that you are representing your entire team, not just yourself.

[sw293]

Originally Posted by TomBurr

I, too, was thoroughly disgusted by the drivers meeting. However, I feel like I am against the majority. I was not offended by the rules, they are what they are, and there is little use to arguing with the referees over moot points. I was shocked by the complete lack of gracious professionalism by some of the drivers/stage crew. No respect was shown to the referees or FIRST.

Worst of all though, everyone applauded the repeated, unsportsman-like conduct. I've seen a lot better out of first.

Also, everyone needs to remember that you are representing your entire team, not just yourself.

I was not there, but I can understand people getting upset when they are forced to completely change their strategy on very short notice when FIRST could well have issued a "point of emphasis" in an update or the head ref. In any event, I try to avoid accusing others of lacking gracious professionalism. Here are a couple of spotlighted quotes that I find relevant (though I based on what I just said I can't really associate myself with the first one):

Originally Posted by boiler

It's not very graciously professional to point out the un-gracious professionalism in others.

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

- Only think of Gracious Professionalism as a standard to work toward personally. - Never use it as a gauge to point out someone else’s shortcomings.

[anna~marie]

it was long and spiteful, full of people who need to learn to read... and it made me miss dinner with my team >_<
Seriously, the manual is out for a reason... um... to read it maybe?