Drive-over penalties still being called

[Drivencrazy]

Yeah I watched parts of about 6 different regional webcasts today and I saw more yellow cards than I did in week one.

The matches that I listened to that had penalties were still almost all infractions of G46.

The following is the new wording of the rule and in my opinion alot of these incidents would be considered non-penalties under this rule.

"<G46> BALL Penetration Restriction – The BALL must not extend more than 3 inches inside the FRAME PERIMETER as defined in Rule <R19>. Incidental protrusions of the BALL within this boundary will not be penalized if the TEAM corrects the condition before resuming game play. Violation: PENALTY for a basic infraction, plus a YELLOW CARD if no immediate attempt to remedy and/or the action is deemed intentional."

Hopefully we see refs begin to follow the update in the qualifying matches and into the elims tomorrow.

Good luck.

[Wayne Doenges]

My advice, FWIW, is DON'T DRIVE OVER THE BALLS!!!!

[JHSmentor]

Originally Posted by Wayne Doenges

My advice, FWIW, is DON'T DRIVE OVER THE BALLS!!!!

You're kidding right? I mean - why didn't we think of that! Jeash - it's so obvious now.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by JHSmentor

You're kidding right? I mean - why didn't we think of that! Jeash - it's so obvious now.

If everyone had thought about it when designing their robot...this wouldn't be such a common a problem. Sorry to say, but I think the blame of this issue is 50/50. Just cause the GDC went lax, try to still make your robot ball resistant. I have to agree with Wayne on this one.

[JHSmentor]

Originally Posted by Molten

If everyone had thought about it when designing their robot...this wouldn't be such a common a problem. Sorry to say, but I think the blame of this issue is 50/50. Just cause the GDC went lax, try to still make your robot ball resistant. I have to agree with Wayne on this one.

you honestly believe that teams that are incuring this penalty didn't TRY to design their robot in such a way as to keep the ball out? I dare say that EVERY robot was designed with that in mind. I saw robots that really should have no business getting a ball under them (very low, 6-8 wheels on the sides or sides that nearly go to the ground, not even capable or trying to go over the bump, small kicker in front or a mechanism in front that blocks the entire area) being pushed on (we were pushed over 3 at one time and were penalized), landing on, and driving over the ball and being penalized. Sure there are robots that are more open under them than others - that's a consequence of trying to go over the bump and also trying to have a kicker mechanism but EVERY robot I have seen is making an attempt at protecting themseves from this rule.

It's also one thing to drive over the ball and quite another to get one stuck under the robot or inside the robot and not be able to dislodge it. while I understand being penalized for the later case (and, yes, this is a design issue in most cases), being penalized for landing on or driving over and being pushed over a ball is rediculous and unavoidable. Unless, of course, you just avoid the balls all together - which is like avoiding the game all together.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by JHSmentor

you honestly believe that teams that are incuring this penalty didn't TRY to design their robot in such a way as to keep the ball out? I dare say that EVERY robot was designed with that in mind.

My point was, in a dysfunctional relationship...the blame is always on both. You can't throw all of this on FIRST when it is a part of the challenge.