Drive-over penalties still being called

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by golddragon24

I talked with Mike, one of the referees late Thursday night. (I think. It could have been early this morning.) He said that a question had been raised concerning the interpretation of a word in the new rules. He was unsure of what the exact word was, but I believe it was the word "incidental." Specifically, their question was whether an situation where a team, for example, drives over a ball while trying to control it, is incidental, or if that counts as the teams fault. If a team could have reasonably avoided the penalty, is it incidental?

I definitely agree that there are a lot of penalties being called that are definitely incidental, and are completely random chance. It is nice to know the refs point of view though.

The rule update doesn't say anything about who's "fault" it is or if it might have been avoided. It says it is only a penalty if it is intentional, or if the driver does not clear the ball before proceeding with game play. It is pretty clear to any reasonable reader that the GDC's intent was to eliminate drive-over calls unless they were clearly intentional or were used as a tactic in playing the game. Splitting hairs about the meaning of the word "incidental" is just lawyering the update, as we are often told not to do. Referees should be looking for the obvious spirit of the rule, just as the students are asked to do.

[Raul]

First thing I want to say is: I miss Lunacy where penalties were rare and matches were not decided by the refs. G46 reminds me of the cross the line in reverse penalty in 2008.

Secondly, when was the last time there were 15 occasions of DQ's in the first day of a regional and some much higher number (not sure how many) of yellow cards? Does that tell you something?

I agree that refs deserve some love. It is a tough job, especially when the GDC makes a game like this that has the potential for so many penalties. However, it is the ref's responsibility as a volunteer to know the rules well. Just because they are volunteering, does not mean they should be allowed to be negligent in their duties.

Hey folks, keep in mind, we are not disputing a judgement call here. We are talking about the interpretation of update 16.

I am hopeful that the head ref met with FIRST officials tonight and got clarification.

For those of you out there who are just saying - don't run over a ball. Have you played yet? Do you know how difficult it is to not ride up on a ball when it goes against the bump and you do not even know it is there and you give full throttle to get over the bump? Try it. Unless your robot has no opening at all to let the ball in for kicking, it is very difficult.

[Dr Theta]

One thing I did not like about this most recent update is some of the amendments to the 3" incursion rule. While it outwardly appears to alleviate a lot of the problems of putting a match in the hands of the refs I fear that it has also potentially removed a rule that should have been an important part of teams design decisions. I can understand how this change is intended to remove cases such as team 111's misfortunes in which case the incursion is resultant of an truly 'incidental' occurrence and not indicative of a design flaw. But when teams are having the ball beneath their robot 2 or more times a match consistently there is a problem. Occasional occurrences like 111's are fine but consistent and repeated problems with this rule with numerous incursions without extenuating circumstances demonstrate a design flaw that does not truly fit in with the way this game was intended to be played.

So where do the refs draw the line as to what is truly incidental and caused by circumstance, and what constitutes a penalty where the incursion was not "incidental"? I think it is still a judgement call and one that will have to be made by the refs. I think it is up to the refs to define "incidental" in this case and they need to stick with that decision once it's been made. It is in their hands for this wording of the rule as much as it was for the original. It is their definition that decides whether there are zero penalties for "non-incidental" incursions or many. I would rather see this rule enforced and have a few casualties than see it made ineffectual by having no calls, as this was supposed to be a major part of the design process that many overlooked, but so long as the judgement is consistent throughout the regional I feel they are doing their job.

Just my $.02

[Dr Theta]

I would like to say that I do recognize that my perspective is one of a mentor for a team attending only one regional, and that I only has to worry about operating within the parameters set for that particular regional. I do not have the experience to determine the effects of differences in calls between to different regionals, and may overlook that.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Everyone,
Those of you that are thinking that robots should be designed to prevent ball incursion, please be aware that Inspectors are checking for this during the inspection process. Every robot is looked over for ball incursion and in Wisconsin the Lead Inspector had some very nice ball check templates made for the inspection process. If you check the Inspection Checklist Rec C, you will find this item just under the bumper check on the first page as it relates to R19 of the robot rules. If you have not attended a regional at this point, expect to be required to comply with this rule at your events.

[Dave Flowerday]

Wow, announcement by the head ref at the start of competition at Wisconsin - he said he got straightened out by people back at FIRST and apologized for calling it wrong all day yesterday. Also indicated that some scores from yesterday will be revised.

I'm surprised and impressed.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by Raul

For those of you out there who are just saying - don't run over a ball. Have you played yet? Do you know how difficult it is to not ride up on a ball when it goes against the bump and you do not even know it is there and you give full throttle to get over the bump? Try it. Unless your robot has no opening at all to let the ball in for kicking, it is very difficult.

Amen. In week one we saw the exact same scenario as did many other teams - regardless of some major design differences. Here's to hoping this gets ironed out. I appreciate the way 111 is handling a tough situation, but I'm wondering if the refs shouldn't get an opportunity to drive robots on practice day and play the game (alright, this'll never happen, but I think it might be a real eye opener to some). :-)

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Wow, announcement by the head ref at the start of competition at Wisconsin - he said he got straightened out by people back at FIRST and apologized for calling it wrong all day yesterday. Also indicated that some scores from yesterday will be revised.

I'm surprised and impressed.

Holy cow. That's impressive.

I have to disagree with the idea that repeated roll-overs are a "problem" that the refs must "draw the line" at and somehow address. Unintentional roll-overs are not a problem for anyone except the team that it happens to, and their alliance partners. It is a design flaw that greatly hampers your ability to play the game and probably your chances for success, and is somewhat of a penalty in and of itself. I can't think of a downside effect it has on anyone else or the game. I think the GDC got it exactly right when they gave it the treatment that it has in update 16.

I also wanted to make it clear that my team is not at the Wisconsin event. The original post was merely an observation, and asked if the same thing was being seen at other events.

[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.

[texarkana]

omg what the heck is going on in wisconsin. yesterday they were so trigger-happy calling everything they could think of including those wrong incursion calls. today they won't call anything even the worst penalties. i just watched two separate times where a robot PUSHED ANOTHER OVER THE BUMP AND TIPPED THEM OVER ON THE BUMP (one was 2062 in match 80), directly in front of the head ref and he did not call either one. so much work by so many people ruined by refs that don't know the rules.

[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.

[Josh Fox]

Originally Posted by texarkana

omg what the heck is going on in wisconsin. yesterday they were so trigger-happy calling everything they could think of including those wrong incursion calls. today they won't call anything even the worst penalties. i just watched two separate times where a robot PUSHED ANOTHER OVER THE BUMP AND TIPPED THEM OVER ON THE BUMP (one was 2062 in match 80), directly in front of the head ref and he did not call either one. so much work by so many people ruined by refs that don't know the rules.

Though I can't cite any rule, and therefore this is just an opinion that means nothing in the grand scheme of things, I don't believe this is a penalty.

Unless 2062's sole strategy in any given match is to push someone up against a bump and tip them I don't know of a ruling against it, since only strategies "specifically targeted at tipping an opponent" or something along those lines is deemed illegal by this year's manual. IIRC of course.

[fuzzy1718]

In our last match at Cass Tech we got rammed and tipped over. When our team mate came to flip us back over, we landed on a ball and it got stuck underneath us. Our driver then spent the next 30 seconds or so trying to get it unstuck, doing nothing else but driving in circles. In the end we ended up with 5 or 6 penalties for this event. Is this a good call by the refs based on the rule?

[jamie_1930]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

In our last match at Cass Tech we got rammed and tipped over. When our team mate came to flip us back over, we landed on a ball and it got stuck underneath us. Our driver then spent the next 30 seconds or so trying to get it unstuck, doing nothing else but driving in circles. In the end we ended up with 5 or 6 penalties for this event. Is this a good call by the refs based on the rule?

From the information you presented no penalties should have been assigned. Although I would want to see the match in order to be completely sure of this, you said that the drive did nothing, but try to get the ball out from underneath, but this may not be the case depending on the specifics. For instance if there were other robots in the area it would be likely that in the process of trying to get the ball out he, or she, unintentionally interfered with the opposing alliance which would constitute a penalty.

[ahecht]

At the WPI regional, there was not a single yellow card issued for ball-related penalties. There were penalty points for the "basic infraction" in about 1/3 of matches, but these were only in situations where a team kept playing without attempting to free the stuck ball.

As to the one yellow card issued at WPI, that was a situation where two teams collided and one ended on on its side, and then the upright robot backed up and rammed the tipped robot at full speed, pushing it onto its back. There was also a red card issued to a team for the similar issue -- two robots collided and one was tipped on its side, and after the collision the upright bot rammed the bottom of the tipped bot an additional 4 times. However, those were the only two cards issued the entire tournament.