Team Update 16 (2016)

[Hallry]

https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...Updates/16.pdf

[EmileH]

Well, it looks like 254/1678's ceiling touching camera poles won't be legal any more under this rule. I wonder how that affects the visibility from the cameras.

[FarmerJohn]

Put cameras on poles 3 ft long, attach to ceiling. Problem solved.

EDIT: They also did not enforce that the cameras had to be connected only to the driverstation and driverstation shelf at the madera event this weekend. I saw most teams mounting them to stands on the ground (which to me seems a lot safer than having a pole on a driverstation shelf that is getting rammed by robots all the time). Maybe they will change that rule, too.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by EmileH

Well, it looks like 254/1678's ceiling touching camera poles won't be legal any more under this rule. I wonder how that affects the visibility from the cameras.

On the bright side, now we aren't limited by our shops ceiling for practice!

-Mike

[Ari423]

Do we think the new height limit applies to the whole driver station, or does it exclude the elements held/worn by the drivers. In other words, can I make a taller camera pole as long as someone is holding it and it is deemed safe?

[ccresta1386]

Originally Posted by Ari423

Do we think the new height limit applies to the whole driver station, or does it exclude the elements held/worn by the drivers. In other words, can I make a taller camera pole as long as someone is holding it and it is deemed safe?

I believe since they purposely added this after the note that the max height is the max height regardless of whether or not a driver is holding it.

[Michael Corsetto]

I am actually glad the height limit has been implemented.

While we designed our "Eyes in the Sky" to be safe and quick to assemble, I can't say the same for every pole at CVR. Seemed like some teams were making them just because 254/1678 had one, with little consideration to the strategic advantage they may/may not have received. Safety was not always a priority with these rushed assemblies.

To be clear, our set up, which included a 27" screen, secondary 13" screen, and a go-pro on a pole, was completely designed and assembled before the event with safety in mind.

I hope future events will be safer with the new height restrictions in mind.

-Mike

[Boe]

I am somewhat disappointed we don't get to see how high they would have ended up being at the Edward Jones Dome.

[Drakxii]

Why the G13 change? It only makes 2 ball auto more dangerous and really how effective can throwing your one auto boulder at the other alliance be?

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by Drakxii

Why the G13 change? It only makes 2 ball auto more dangerous and really how effective can throwing your one auto boulder at the other alliance be?

i believe the change is to call a second foul and give a crossing if a robot captures a midline ball and then contacts a robot with it during a midline crossing. The way it was worded before, a team did not get a second fall/crossing penalty if the contact with a robot was through a ball. It had to be robot to robot contact to get the extra penalties.

Transitive contact is when you contact something through something else... in this case...while holding a ball you contact an opposing robot while your robot is over the midline during auto.

IMO that is the reason for the change.

I wonder how well this would be called if both robots were going for the same ball and they both grabbed it in auto? If both robots were over the midline I assume both would get the same penalty. This would be very difficult to call for the referee.


Evan I think your explantion is better than mine...

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Drakxii

Why the G13 change? It only makes 2 ball auto more dangerous and really how effective can throwing your one auto boulder at the other alliance be?

All they did was fix a loophole. In order for G13 to trigger, your ROBOT still has to enter the midline zone. With the previous wording, if your robot entered the midline zone but only touched another robot through a boulder (and not your ROBOT), technically there were no add-on fouls or additional defense crossings awarded. That is now fixed.

It also incidentally makes boulder wars a lot riskier. Where previously you could maybe stomach taking the foul for a close call at the midline to stop a 2-ball auto, now you're risking a double foul and an automatic auto cross.

Edit: Sniped by Coach :-P

[Drakxii]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

All they did was fix a loophole. In order for G13 to trigger, your ROBOT still has to enter the midline zone. With the previous wording, if your robot entered the midline zone but only touched another robot through a boulder (and not your ROBOT), technically there were no add-on fouls or additional defense crossings awarded. That is now fixed.

It also incidentally makes boulder wars a lot riskier. Where previously you could maybe stomach taking the foul for a close call at the midline to stop a 2-ball auto, now you're risking a double foul and an automatic auto cross.

Edit: Sniped by Coach :-P

If refs see it this way I don't have a problem with the rule.

Unfortunately the rule could also be read that fouls can be called if both teams are touching a boulder that is on the middle line, even if neither bot enters the volume above the midline.

Also does a robot still have be in contact with the boulder for the "transitive" contact to be applied? I.E. is it a foul if a team's auto mode messes up and causes a boulder to roll/shoot/whatever in to an opposing alliance bot?

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by Drakxii

Also does a robot still have be in contact with the boulder for the "transitive" contact to be applied? I.E. is it a foul if a team's auto mode messes up and causes a boulder to roll/shoot/whatever in to an opposing alliance bot?

Assumedly so, as rolling/shooting/whatever would fall under G39

[Bryce2471]

[STRIKETHROUGH]The higher seeded ALLIANCE will always be assigned to the Red side of the FIELD.[/STRIKETHROUGH]

Why is no one talking about this?

How will the alliance colors be decided for playoff matches?

[Kpchem]

Originally Posted by Bryce2471

Why is no one talking about this?

How will the alliance colors be decided for playoff matches?

I believe this clause was leftover from Recycle Rush and just was not removed. This year alliance colors are being determined as they did prior to 2015. The red alliance is the higher seed provided seeds had held in the bracket.

For example, the winner of 1v8 will be red regardless of who wins the set and plays the winner of 4v5. The winner of that semifinal is red in the finals.

Likewise the winner of 2v7 is red in the semifinals against the winner of 3v6, and the winner of that semifinal is blue in the finals.