Team update 16

[pathew100]

Originally Posted by martin417

I was surprised at the <G46> penalties, not because the penalties were called, but because teams did not design their bot to prevent it. How hard is it to design a bot that doesn't allow a 3" penetration? Did teams not do testing prior to ship? The rule existed from the beginning. I hate to put blame on teams, but that was an easy thing to fix.

Before I get flamed, I am not talking about getting forced over a ball on a hump, or something un-avoidable. But if the ball can get under your bot just driving around, you need to make a change. You should have tested for this possibility. The rules were clear.

Obviously teams need to prevent the ball from going under completely, and that is still a penalty.

The situation that U16 addresses regarding <G46> is a 'transient'-type ball incursion. This happened many times and was the cause of most of the <G46> penalties last week (that I saw).

For example, when a robot drives up to a ball and a traction wheel grabs it and they 'ride up' on it for a a second and then immediately back down and off the ball. Or a roller bar grabs a ball and starts to suck the ball under but they back off immediately.

[Conor Ryan]

I think Team Update 16 was a result of the Referees doing an excellent job at week 1 regionals. They called the penalties by the book at least 95%+ of the time and because of that the GDC was able to make appropriate rule changes.

Also of note, I hope Bill's Blog updates to give us more insight to the changes.

Good job GDC, I support these changes, despite being unfair to week 1 regionals (hindsight is always 20/20), I think this will improve the spirit of the game a great deal.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by JesseK

... Even so, we only ever got one 3" incursion penalty and it was because we went head-to-head with another robot and they pushed their possessed ball under our robot.

Interesting that you got a penalty for that. Our assesment of the rules would indicate that there should have not been a penalty under <G13>:

<G13> Causing PENALTIES – The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.

Did you protest the call?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Chuck,
Don't forget this...
<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3 inches inside
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5),
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed or used to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE.

R19 remains unchanged and may have played into the decision.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by DeepWater

Did you protest the call?

No, it was deemed insignificant at the time considering it was Saturday and it was only our 2nd penalty total (the first being incidental contact with a flipped robot within the grace period).

[Sumathi]

So they are still using the coopertition ranking system to award points, but the winner gets 5 extra points? Correct me if I am wrong.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

It could be argued that for most robots, driving over the ball was not really an incursion violation anyway. If you think of the bottom of the robot in the same terms as the top of the robot, the ball could pass under the bottom without actually penetrating the frame volume by 3", just as it can roll across the top without doing so.

The bottom of the robot is not the same as the top, in terms of <R19>.

Originally Posted by jspatz1

The rule is not that the ball cannot come into a verticle projection of the frame perimeter

Below the bumper zone, that is actually the rule. <R19> spells this all out.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Chuck,
Don't forget this...
<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3 inches inside
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5),
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed or used to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE.

R19 remains unchanged and may have played into the decision.

Absolutely, which begs the question is this an inspection issue or a referee issue? As an inspector we required the robots to have some reasonable protection on the top and sides such that the balls couldn’t enter the robot more than 3”. We required several teams to add some sort of netting, Lexan, or other cover on their tops and/or bars or something on the lower parts of the sides so that the balls didn’t have a reasonable chance of entering the robot by more than 3”. We assumed this to be the intent of <R19>. However, we didn’t require all the bots to be solid on the bottom as this would inhibit going over the bumps in most cases. If you incurred a penalty by riding up on the ball and trapping it under/inside your robot the inspectors considered that to be a field issue for the refs to deal with. I guess I am wondering what "normal operation" means? <R19> would seem to be an inspection issue as it is a robot rule not a game rule. If you designed your robot to go over the bump then is that not "normal operation"? If in "normal operation" a ball can go under and end up trapped inside your robot is this something the inspectors should fail or is this something to be left to the refs to penalize on the field?

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The bottom of the robot is not the same as the top, in terms of <R19>.

Below the bumper zone, that is actually the rule. <R19> spells this all out.

I stand corrected.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Even with an army of brainstorming sessions, going over a bump onto a ball resulting in a penalty never even crossed our minds. We're not geniuses, but we do consider ourselves to be "smart". It's simply impossible to play out every possible scenario beforehand, thus designing to be adaptable was higher on our priority list than designing to be perfect. I'm sure there were many other teams in the same boat. Even so, we only ever got one 3" incursion penalty and it was because we went head-to-head with another robot and they pushed their possessed ball under our robot.

As I said in my post, I was not talking about going over a bump onto the ball. Most of the penalties I saw at Peachtree were caused by robots in the open field trying to push a single ball all by themselves, and driving over that ball. This could be tested with a $10.00 soccer ball in 5 minutes of testing prior to ship. I know we did a lot of such testing to insure that it couldn't happen to us.

[anyheck]

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by anyheck

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

It is the beginning of the season, not the middle. NOT changing the rules after flaws are uncovered would have been a fundamental fail.

[anyheck]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

It is the beginning of the season, not the middle. NOT changing the rules after flaws are uncovered would have been a fundamental fail.

The beginning of the season was more than 6 weeks ago.

[BIGWILLI2081]

Originally Posted by anyheck

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

When were they to know some of the rules were not the best? Before the regionals started? They had to observe it before they could change it. Although, I do agree the seeding point system was not the best to begin with, it just took some examples (and complaining) before the GDC realized they had to do something to make it better. Unfortunately for week 1 teams, they were the guinea pigs. It's better they change them now than never. I give props to the GDC for fixing the rules.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by BIGWILLI2081

Unfortunately for week 1 teams, they were the guinea pigs.

Sounds better if you call them beta testers.