battery re-do match at msf

[johnr]

Wanted to keep this out of thanks/sorry thread. Could someone explain the call for a re-do when the battery fell out but was still connected to bot match at michigan state championship? How do you have a re-do with a different bot on field? Or is this one of those," It happened, let's just move on" things?

[dqmot17]

Originally Posted by johnr

Wanted to keep this out of thanks/sorry thread. Could someone explain the call for a re-do when the battery fell out but was still connected to bot match at michigan state championship? How do you have a re-do with a different bot on field? Or is this one of those," It happened, let's just move on" things?

The battery out was declared an unsafe condition.
There wasn't a redo with a different bot, every alliance is given one sub.

[Enli]

The way I remembered it was, the one bot in the corner was dead, then another bot had a battery outside its box. The match was reset due to the battery outside the box and it was at that point that a sub bot was brought in to replace the dead one. Kind of a happy coincidence for the alliance that had the dead bot because they got a fresh start.

I could be remembering the whole thing wrongly - I don't have the best memory when thingsare moving as fast as they were.

[Richard Wallace]

[disclaimer: I have no inside knowledge of the specific situation. I was at the MI State FRC Championship as a spectator.]

From what I saw, the FTA made the decision to stop the match due to unsafe conditions on the field; i.e., a battery was outside of a robot and still electrically connected. This was not called as a violation of <S01>, so no team or alliance was penalized.

The FTA had the advantage of FIRST HQ management staff and GDC members on site, but I don't think she needed any help to assess the danger; IMO the right decision was made and proper actions were taken.

[Cory]

I've seen countless batteries fall out of robots and continue to be dragged around by the leads, without the match being stopped.

I was very surprised to see that they stopped the match and replayed it due to what amounts to team error.

[Paul Copioli]

They called it an unsafe condition on the field. The robot had the battery hanging from the side of the bumper. The battery was not dragging on the field, but still fully supported by the robot. the robot was in this condition for well over 30 seconds. The match was stopped with less than 15 seconds left.

In no other year have I seen a match stopped and called a replay for a robot induced condition that did not involve a field element. This is the first year I can remember that a match was replayed because a battery was being dragged. This also happened at Troy this year (twice). If it is truly unsafe then the robot should be disabled not the match replayed. FIRST needs to make a formal decision on this. Why? Here is one scenario:

A team makes a "battery ejector" and, knowing FIRST will call the match a replay, will use this ejector when getting beat really badly. Silly, I know, but c'mon a restart for a battery falling out? Who is in danger? The robots? The people behind the glass? Give me a break.

I will be formally asking FIRST what the official position will be moving forward.

[dlavery]

I did not see the match, and have one question: who actually stopped the match? A post above indicates that the match was stopped by the FTA, and not the Head Referee. Is this correct? To the best of my knowledge, the FTA does not have the authority to stop a match (or demand a replay, for that matter). That decision is the responsibility of the Head Ref. Am I missing something here?

-dave



.

[Tom Line]

We (team members and mentors) were all extremely surprised when the foghorn sounded.

We saw the battery come free, and fully expected the robot to be disabled and the match to continue per the rules. When they stopped the match, we figured they would remove the battery and restart the match, leaving the bot disabled.

It reminded us very vividly of a match in 2008 where they let our match continue until 4 seconds remained and then called it because a door came loose on the field. Cost us a birth in the semis.

At least, in the end, everything worked out correctly.

Congrats Huskies, Chickens and Hot.

[Alex Dinsmoor]

I was taking pictures on the field during that match, and was standing next to the table with all of the officials at it and I heard most of the conversation going on.

When the battery first fell out, I saw one of the refs (it might of been the head) signaling to stop the match. Soon after he started, many of the other officials followed. Then the FTA had a very quick discussion on wither they should stop the match or not, and then quickly pressed the button.

This discussion was made by the majority of the officials on the field, including the FTA.

Once the robot were told to be reset, I was standing next to Dave V and he mentioned to a volunteer that that should not have been a reset, just a penalty.


If it was up to me I would have let them play. Hopefully FIRST will release a statement about the specifics of why they restarted the match.

[Molten]

I've seen this many cases. In all honesty, if the robot is designed properly, there really isn't that much danger in a dragging battery.(to people and such) If it were to somehow get busted, then it could become a biohazard. Though, I got to agree with what I've read above. Definitely a bizarre call. Never seen a match stopped over it.

[Wayne TenBrink]

I was also surprised at the turn of events. I expected the match to be completed with only 4 operable robots on the field.

- In a different match involving a presumably unsafe condition (smoking jaguar on 3119), the foghorn sounded, the robot was detached from the trailer, and removed from the field. The match resumed from the point where it was paused.
- In other matches involving dangling parts (not safety related), the robot was penalized for exceeding the envelope and the match continued (saw that at TC, not at MSC).
- 904 was dead in the water from the start of that match - completely unrelated to the safety situation that stopped the match. During the reset, we were granted a time-out and then allowed to call in a replacement. I half expected our requests to be rejected because the request came after the "start" of the match. Apparently a field "reset" is treated like a new match and we got a lucky break.

I agree with Paul Copioli. I would like to know the official position on reset/restart vs. disable/continue.

As for this instance, "it happened, let's just move on". It clearly didn't affect the outcome. 217/67/65 were well ahead in the match when it was stopped. Our alliance's mechanical problems during the reset match were our own doing and would have turned up and killed us in any third match, had we miraculously won the original second match. They deserved the win.

On to Atlanta!

[J-Brock]

The battery has hanging out in an unsafe posision.
If things got bad the battery could have got busted and leaked and harm the robot, the field, other robots, and if it was a huge impact the acid could have hit somebody.

Safety! Share it!

[Paul Copioli]

The battery has hanging out in an unsafe posision.
If things got bad the battery could have got busted and leaked and harm the robot, the field, other robots, and if it was a huge impact the acid could have hit somebody.

That is just not true. You can stick a screwdriver through these batteries and they will not "leak" or "spray" the acid anywhere.

The point is that this exact thing has happened hundreds of times over the past 8 years and the match proceeded with only the robot being disabled.

I just want an official position from FIRST when this happens again.

[Jim Meyer]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

I just want an official position from FIRST when this happens again.

Thanks for bringing this up. It seemed like a very strange way to handle the situation. Regardless of whether a dangling battery is unsafe or not, there should be a fair process for dealing with situations that the head referee deems to be unsafe. Restarting the match completely with no repurcussions for the robot that caused the unsafe condition does not seem wise. There's just too much potential for a team to use this policy to their own advantage. The battery ejection device Paul mentioned is a good example.

In my opinion, pausing the match, allowing the unsafe condition to be addressed, and then continuing the match from where it was paused, would be a much better approach.

[Mike Betts]

The battery falling out is a violation of <S1> and <S4> and should have been dealt with as such. Period.

Having said that, I'd like to caution that these things happen in a virtual blink of an eye. There have been other threads in which Monday morning quarterbacks have also commented on spot decisions made by a field official (example: An FTA stepping onto the field during a match) which seem to go against the "normal" order of things.

However, this was not a "normal" year. There were incredible pressures put on many event officials due to the poor decisions of a few over the last few months.

Was the decision wrong? Yes. But please temper your responses until you have walked in their shoes.

JMHO,

Mike