Penalties for a part falling off of robot?

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by jblay

Although I agree that these penalties are ridiculous I think they are necessary because if the rule was changed to "no penalty if the bot goes out of dimensions because of it breaking" what happens if a bots hanger is deployed because something breaks, do they get a penalty or not?

That happened to us in St. Louis. We were playing midfield, and during autonomous our alliance member kicked a ball right into our hanger - the impact was big enough to cause it to become unlatched, and the gas spring sent the whole thing up... and slightly out of our frame perimeter. Our drive team handled it great, and played a very laid back game that time with no robot-robot interaction. We were not penalized.

[Mike o.]

The other rule that you need to take into consideration that they could be calling as well is <G41>:
<G41> Detaching MECHANISMS - ROBOTS may not intentionally detach parts or leave MECHANISMS on the FIELD. Violation: PENALTY for each incident and potential RED CARD if an intentionally detached COMPONENT or MECHANISM impedes MATCH play.

1. Bumper covers must not detach, even unintentionally, from the ROBOT. Violation: PENALTY.

I agree though, that teams should not be penalized for their robots breaking and pieces like chains, treads, nuts, bolts, etc. Although for larger pieces and objects on the robot like arms, shields, etc. should warrant an intitial warning and then possibly a penalty in subsequent matches if teams do not fix the problem. Teams should not be prohibited from playing the game because another team did not secure their mechanisms well.

[Emily3204]

Our team got a penalty in the semi-finals when our wheel fell off... quite embarassing actually

[Radical Pi]

In one match we had a side panel completely fall off after a ball got caught between it and the robot (we use velcro). There was no penalty called for it, not sure if the refs gave us a warning. In a few other matches we had our top panel come loose and partially break frame perimiter, however it might have been too slight for the refs to catch.

During a semifinal match we got hit pretty hard and the back panel of our robot clearly broke bumper perimiter for the rest of the match. The refs chose to call us on that one and it cost us the semis (would have been an 8-8 tie, great match). I think I can see how these were called differently, but I think some official word from the GDC would be good before championships

[Dancin103]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I dont think penalties should be called for falling parts.

I agree with this. I do not think this was called at either regional we attended. The penalty of being out of the bumper zone and extending before the twenty seconds was called. I think the penalty, to me, means that if there is a part the robot is dragging around with them that is extending beyond the bumper zone and is continuing to score that is a penalty. For example, this weekend there was a team at the Philly regional whose bumper was falling off and flapping around outside of the bumper zone and they were penalized for that and continuing to score, well it was only a one point penalty. Just my two cents here.

Cass

[Kims Robot]

Did anyone ask about this in the Q&A yet?

It was being called in Boston too, and I don't really get it. Teams aren't intentionally detaching parts to change the game. 229 didnt get penalized when they blew a tread because they hit the estop. But 1100 dropped out I think half their drivetrain in a match with us and got a penalty (even though they appeared to be disabled after that). I wasnt on the field and dont know the specific calls, but at any rate, robots falling apart after being designed and built in 6 weeks shouldnt cause a penalty. No one designs their robots to fall apart, but things break... I cant recall this ever being a penalty in FIRST in the past. Maybe we all need to use the fact that we can all now use duct tape and wrap our robots in duct tape or even saran wrap so they cant drop anything!

[DonRotolo]

As mentioned, NJ was not calling these, but at Virginia these penalties were called often. We never had one though.

I don't think it should be a penalty for stuff UNintentionally dropping off the robot; but then again, what is the disincentive for teams to build robots where things don't fall off, even inadvertently?

[kevin.li.rit]

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

As mentioned, NJ was not calling these, but at Virginia these penalties were called often. We never had one though.

I don't think it should be a penalty for stuff UNintentionally dropping off the robot; but then again, what is the disincentive for teams to build robots where things don't fall off, even inadvertently?

Things are going to come loose with all the vibrations and contact but part of the inspection checklist should include a box that says something lik "parts must be reasonably secure."

[fordchrist675]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

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?

At SVR I didn't see it called too many times, It didnt happen in the finals I was a little perplexed by it cause I read the rules as if a part broke, fell, or came off it would result in a penalty.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

Did anyone ask about this in the Q&A yet?

It was being called in Boston too, and I don't really get it. Teams are intentionally detaching parts to change the game. 229 didnt get penalized when they blew a tread because they hit the estop. But 1100 dropped out I think half their drivetrain in a match with us and got a penalty (even though they appeared to be disabled after that). I wasnt on the field and dont know the specific calls, but at any rate, robots falling apart after being designed and built in 6 weeks shouldnt cause a penalty. No one designs their robots to fall apart, but things break... I cant recall this ever being a penalty in FIRST in the past. Maybe we all need to use the fact that we can all now use duct tape and wrap our robots in duct tape or even saran wrap so they cant drop anything!

Given the inconsistency of penalty calls for loss of robot parts in various regionals, I posted a question in Q&A Section 7. If loss of robot part on the field is deemed a penalty, I asked whether it is still a penalty if the robot was damaged by impact from another robot.

We can go down a slippery slope if a penalty is assessed for making contact with a robot and that robot loses a part.

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by Jeffy

AT OKC (week 4): Teams were getting called for chains, treads, surgical tubing, ect. that were still attached to the robot, but not being called for pieces that completely fell off.

What specific rule is being referenced for these penalties? Is G30 the rule that referees are interpreting in this way? It seems to me that the wording of G41 is written such that accidentally / unintentionally detached parts do not incur a penalty, with the exception of the bumper covers.

If referees are calling penalties for accidentally-detached parts, this sets up a judgement call with regard to the size of said parts. How big does the detached part need to be in order to incur a penalty? Is a 1" piece of 80/20 big enough? How about a 0.5" long 1/4-20 bolt? How about a #4-40 nut? How about a tooth chipped off a small plastic gear? What about a small piece (1mm cube) of rubber from a tire tread? How about dust coming off a timing belt that hops occasionally?

I might be mistaken about this, but my impression is that the GDC's intent was not to penalize teams for every accidental occurrence of a part falling off a robot!

Yes, it clearly doesn't make a positive impression on sponsors to have robots regularly falling apart on the field, but this level of penalization seems to go beyond my reading of this year's rules.

[qc1967]

Originally Posted by AustinSchuh

Our robot lost a delrin spacer out of our electronics board one match, and no penalty was called. It sounds like SVR wasn't as picky on the parts detaching from the robot rule.

Hmm, I guess the refs look at each case differently. Our robot had four small motors used to get balls off the walls, and we got penalized when one of them was mounted on loosely to our robot and fell off. Then again, maybe we got penalized because we dragged it for a while before the wires came loose...

[TubaMorg]

No penalty = no incentive to take action to ensure a robust design
penalty = incentive to fix a problem more robustly

Obviously no one builds their robot to explode on impact, but once parts start falling off, a team may decide to "tie wrap it back on" if there were no penalties. Loosing a point or two may make them to explore a more permanent repair.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by TubaMorg

Obviously no one builds their robot to explode on impact

Team 1902 notwithstanding

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by TubaMorg

No penalty = no incentive to take action to ensure a robust design
penalty = incentive to fix a problem more robustly

Obviously no one builds their robot to explode on impact, but once parts start falling off, a team may decide to "tie wrap it back on" if there were no penalties. Loosing a point or two may make them to explore a more permanent repair.

I disagree with no penalty = no incentive to ensure a robust design.

Loss of functionality and/or perception by scouts that a team's robot is poorly constructed and unreliable should be the driving incentive for building a robust robot.

I don't believe the GDC intended <G41> or <R16> to apply to cases where mechanical or structural failures have occurred in robots. (We'll need to see the answer in FIRST Q&A to get this resolved).