Bumper problems during a match = penalty?!?!

[Elgin Clock]

I'm not sure of the exact specifics of the penalty (since it wasn't on us) but I heard a penalty being called 2 times for a bumper being outside the bumper zone on a robot in NYC. (ie: The bumper was above or below the horizontal plane height limits)

I can only assume the bumper became a problem during the match because of 2 possible scenarios.

1) It wasn't in the bumper zone to begin with to start the match, & in my understanding of the rules, the robot should not have passed inspection & never been allowed on the field - The penaties were both called on the last day of the event for reference.

2) It fell out of the bumper zone during the match, thus was dragging on the foor, & because of that, the robot should have been disabled by a ref, & not penalized - or just given a yellow card, or given both a yellow card & disabled in the match.

I only bring this up, since this was a strange ruling (in my opinion - one I hadn't heard called before) & wanted to see what the rule interpretaion was by others.

[dlavery]

If explanation #1 was the case, then I would agree with your interpretation. But I am more interested in explanation #2. Can you provide any interpretation of the rules that would support this explanation? I do not believe that the logic of this explanation flows in a manner consistent with the rules.

-dave



.

[Brandon Holley]

Why this does not deal with bumpers, it does deal with going outside the bumperzone.

At Boston this past weekend, I believe it was the semifinals, team 178's autonomous mode sent them crashing into the wall on the other side of the field. Their robot has a big box on a hinge on the top. The hinge is to allow them to easily access their electronics, battery, etc.

Their robot hit the wall hinge side first, and because it appeared the robot had not been locked down, the top of it tilted over and was actually hanging outside of the field (and bumper zone for that matter). When the match went to teleop mode, 178 moved their robot away from the wall and the top of it hinged back down to its normally configuration and stayed that way for the rest of the match.


What would CDs interpretation of this be? It looked to me that they broke outside the bumper perimeter, and thus should have been penalized.

Video can be found here: They end up near the center of field towards the closer outpost during autonomous mode.
http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv...?matchid=12309

-Brando

[Elgin Clock]

Hmm... Well (Joey, & all... to actually give you an idea what was running through my head at the time... lol) I was juggling some other Q&A rulings about not assigning a Penalty unless it is strictly stated in the manual in my head along with the <S01> through <S04> rules as well, & I think I got a bit mixed up in the process... maybe.

I didn't think that the Yellow Card went along with the Penalties (I haven't seen the cards come out that often, if at all so far - which is a good thing!!!) & I thought they were treated seperately, but a combination of <S01> & <S04> used in this case is pretty cut & dry - if that's what it was based on.

I'll retract my comment on the 2nd scenario & say that in my (updated ) interpretation, a Penalty should have been assigned (since it violated <S04> and/or <S01>), it should have been Disabled (which I'm not sure if it was or not each match) & at the Referees discretion, if it was a repeat offense, a Yellow card should have been issued.

Makes a little more sense now.
Thanks for the clarification Dave - or should I say, thanks for making me re-think the rules on this one to clarify it for myself.

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Video can be found here: They end up near the center of field towards the closer outpost during autonomous mode.
-Brando

Where's the video?

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

Where's the video?

Fixed. Oops.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

A scene like this was discussed by LRIs last night. At least one or two teams over the weekend had failed to stretch the fabric covering the pool noodles on their bumpers. After a few tough hits, the noodles started to sag but did not touch the floor. It was obvious to refs and observers that parts of the bumper had fallen below the bumper zone. Don't know if this was your regional, but it sounds like it might have been.
As clear and descriptive as the bumper rules are this year, teams do not fully read them or the Q&A. The rules are also written in a way that leaves nothing for the robot inspectors to wiggle on implementation. Your are either in compliance or not (or fall out of compliance). A few teams at each regional thus far have had serious bumper issues particularly the 6" minimum length of the hard back, hard parts in the corners and robot structure behind all of the bumper hard parts.

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Why this does not deal with bumpers, it does deal with going outside the bumperzone.

At Boston this past weekend, I believe it was the semifinals, team 178's autonomous mode sent them crashing into the wall on the other side of the field. Their robot has a big box on a hinge on the top. The hinge is to allow them to easily access their electronics, battery, etc.

Their robot hit the wall hinge side first, and because it appeared the robot had not been locked down, the top of it tilted over and was actually hanging outside of the field (and bumper zone for that matter). When the match went to teleop mode, 178 moved their robot away from the wall and the top of it hinged back down to its normally configuration and stayed that way for the rest of the match.

What would CDs interpretation of this be? It looked to me that they broke outside the bumper perimeter, and thus should have been penalized.

Video can be found here: They end up near the center of field towards the closer outpost during autonomous mode.
http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv...?matchid=12309

-Brando

I should think that this would come under G27 and the robot would have a 10 second period during teleop to right itself. Now G27 is only concerned with contacting the surface outside of the field so perhaps if you just tilt over this rule would not cover the robot. Given that teams are SPECIFICALLY allowed to make contact outside the field during autonomous as long as they are righted during teleop I would think that logically one could logically assume that they would receive no other penalty for this type of action.

It would make little sense to me to have a rule that specifically allowed the contact outside the field...with no penalty for that during autonomous and THEN penalize the team for being outside the bumper zone for the same thing.

Now of course I did use the word logically assume... and those are fightin' words...

[EricH]

On the bumper issue: Penalty both times, Yellow Card the second time as it was evidently a repeat problem. The second time shouldn't have happened, but it did. Grounds for the ruling: <S04> specifies a penalty and possibly a Yellow Card, depending on severity. First time, penalty and "go fix your robot". Because it happened again, they call down a yellow card on themselves for doing the same penalty twice. Assuming that they are allowed to compete, of course, due to inspectors.

On the other: <R11> is clear. You can't go beyond the size limits. You also can't go beyond the bumper perimeter due to <R16>. If a piece of the robot is hanging outside of the field, and the robot isn't completely cockeyed against the wall, I'd say the robot went beyond the bumper perimeter. As it is obviously accidental, no yellow card should be assigned; however, one <S04> penalty should be given for violation of <R16> or <R11>, depending on the robot and the situation. As it did not contact the ground, <G27> does not apply.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by EricH

On the other: <R11> is clear. You can't go beyond the size limits. You also can't go beyond the bumper perimeter.

As this is the second time I see this today I just want to clarify that the rule governing the robot size during gameplay is <R16>. <R11> only covers the max starting dimensions of the robot.

[Bob Steele]

I fail to see how tipping would constitute an R11 or R16 violation...those requirements are for the dimensions of the robot. Tipping on the side would not change the orthogonal dimensions of the robot..unless something was sticking out while it tipped... These rules contain NO frame of reference other than the robot itself.

The robot tipped on its side still has the same dimensions it started with and if they were within the sizing box for inspections they should be even if they are tipped on the side.

Now I could see a bumper violation perhaps... because the bumpers would no longer be within 1" and 7" of the floor... and that regulation ( from definitions in 8.1) is defined with respect to the floor.

I fail to see the reason for the rule that allows the "righting of a robot" after autonomous if the intention all along was to penalize that activity.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I fail to see how tipping would constitute an R11 or R16 violation...those requirements are for the dimensions of the robot. Tipping on the side would not change the orthogonal dimensions of the robot..unless something was sticking out while it tipped... These rules contain NO frame of reference other than the robot itself.

The robot tipped on its side still has the same dimensions it started with and if they were within the sizing box for inspections they should be even if they are tipped on the side.

Now I could see a bumper violation perhaps... because the bumpers would no longer be within 1" and 7" of the floor... and that regulation ( from definitions in 8.1) is defined with respect to the floor.

I fail to see the reason for the rule that allows the "righting of a robot" after autonomous if the intention all along was to penalize that activity.

It's not the tipping, in this case. The robot apparently had a part "flip" over the side of the field, not touching the floor, then "flip" back onto the robot. The only way for a part to do that without breaking either <R11> or <R16> is for the robot to tip sideways. If the robot didn't tip sideways, and the part "flipped", then the call would certainly be made; otherwise, it's up to the situation and the ref.

The "grace period" rule (<G27> this year) has been in the manual since at least 2003. I would suspect that it simply hasn't been taken out, and will return in future years. It has also been invoked very infrequently. This may be due to the fact that very few robots contact the floor outside of the arena autonomously.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by EricH

On the bumper issue: Penalty both times, Yellow Card the second time as it was evidently a repeat problem. The second time shouldn't have happened, but it did. Grounds for the ruling: <S04> specifies a penalty and possibly a Yellow Card, depending on severity. First time, penalty and "go fix your robot". Because it happened again, they call down a yellow card on themselves for doing the same penalty twice. Assuming that they are allowed to compete, of course, due to inspectors.

Just to be clear, these penalties I heard about the bumpers were in near back-to-back matches (less than 3-4 matches apart), so I doubt they were the same team receiving the penalties.
Just the same issue it seems like.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

Just to be clear, these penalties I heard about the bumpers were in near back-to-back matches (less than 3-4 matches apart), so I doubt they were the same team receiving the penalties.
Just the same issue it seems like.

If it's not on the same team, then it's just a penalty both times. If the same team violates more than once, then apply a yellow.

To be honest, I'm surprised <S04> was called at all. I expected that it wouldn't need to be used this year.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by EricH

To be honest, I'm surprised <S04> was called at all. I expected that it wouldn't need to be used this year.

I don't know what the penalty letter/number was, it was just explained by the announcer.
<S04> does fit, but I'm not positive that's the one that was called.
It happened twice in NYC that I heard (bumper called penalty) but I'm wondering how many times it has been called all year long...

Hmm.. maybe a season-long penalty tracking system for the reference of teams & FIRST could be implemented & kept track of by refs next year & the data shared at the end of the season.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

I don't know what the penalty letter/number was, it was just explained by the announcer.
<S04> does fit, but I'm not positive that's the one that was called.
It happened twice i NYC that I heard (bumper called penalty) but I'm wondering how many times it has been called all year long...

Hmm.. maybe a season-long penalty tracking system for the reference of teams & FIRST could be implemented & kept track of by refs next year & the data shared at the end of the season.

There aren't any other bumper penalties, other than outside the bumper zone contact.