|
Penalties for a part falling off of robot?
At the Los Angeles Regional, a number of penalties were issued for damaged robots leaving parts on the field. Even in the finals, a penalty was issued to Team 330 because a chain failed and ended up on the field.
It seems to me that having a part fail and losing capability in a robot is enough of a penalty for an alliance. Isn't tacking on an additional point penalty like pouring salt in a wound?
The intent of <R16> (which can be invoked under <S04>), is to prevent teams from gaining an advantage by expanding outside of the frame perimeter prior to the FINALE period. Having a part of the drive system fail so that it's now left the frame perimeter is hardly an advantage for the team involved.
Is this penalty the norm at other regionals?
__________________
"There's never enough time to do it right, but always time to do it over."
2003 AZ: Semifinals, Motorola Quality; SoCal: Q-finals, Xerox Creativity; IRI: Q-finals
2004 AZ: Semifinals, GM Industrial Design; SoCal: Winners, Leadership in Controls; Championship: Galileo #2 seed, Q-finals; IRI: Champions
2005 AZ: #1 Seed, Xerox Creativity; SoCal: Finalist, RadioShack Controls; SVR: Winners, Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technologies"; Championship: Archimedes Semifinals; IRI: Finalist
2007 LA: Finalist; San Diego: Q-finals; CalGames: Finalist || 2008 San Diego: Q-finals; LA: Winners; CalGames: Finalist || 2009 LA: Semifinals; Las Vegas: Q-finals; IRI: #1 Seed, Finalist
2010 AZ: Motorola Quality; LA: Finalist || 2011 SD: Q-finals; LA: Q-finals || 2013 LA: Xerox Creativity, WFFA, Dean's List Finalist || 2014 IE: Q-finals, LA: Finalist, Dean's List Finalist
2016 Ventura: Q-finals, WFFA, Engineering Inspiration
|
In conclusion, we can say, with reasonable certainty, that we know nothing. - Max Lobovsky [more] 
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode