Running over a boulder foul

[Sperkowsky]

In 2015 there were these noodles spewed about all over the playing field. There was no foul driving over them but most avoided them as they could cause issues with their wheels. Although I disagree that unintentionally running over a boulder should be a foul I think after your find it they are calling it a foul it is your responsibility to avoid driving over them.

[sastoller]

Reading the rules, specifically the 2nd half of G38, it clearly states that running over a boulder inadvertently should not be called a foul. Unfortunately, the problem with this rule is that it is up to the referees to judge the intent of the driver. Anytime you ask a ref to judge intent, there are going to be issues. In cases like this, it is up to the FIRST to make sure that events are judged fairly and consistently. This is done by writing the rules well (and it seems like they tried to, with the use of examples to guide the refs), and by training Head Referees well.

I'm curious as well to see how this rule is judged at champs. Regardless of how it is judged by the Head Referees at champs, it is important that they be consistent across all 8 fields of play. Consistency of calls across regional events (as much as the inconsistency this year pains many of us) is much less important than the consistency of the calls made at Champs. FIRST must make sure that the head referees on each field, and on Einstein, are all making the same calls.

G38
Examples of interaction with BOULDERS that are not “control” include,
but are not limited to:
A. “bulldozing” (inadvertent contact with BOULDERS while in the path of
the ROBOT moving about the FIELD)

[Jake177]

Based on what I saw from the stands, the way the refs at the Hartford District called G38 seemed very fair. If a robot was in possession of a boulder and happened to drive over a second boulder, a ref would signal a five second count (similar to a pin count). After five seconds, if the robot was still in possession of two boulders, a foul was called. This kept the refs from having to judge "intent" while still allowing a case for a no-call on incidental violations. It also gave the drivers a clear signal that they were doing something wrong with time to correct it before the foul was called.

For G41, they called a foul any time a robot caused two boulders to move into their opponents' courtyard in a single crossing. Most of these looked like they could have been caused by the drivers simply not being able to see the second boulder. Usually it was between the robot and the defense being crossed, so they just bulldozed it through the outer works. Even so, I think this is a fair way to enforce this rule. Whether intentional or not, having one more boulder in your opponents' courtyard most certainly gives you an advantage.

[philso]

Originally Posted by Jake177

Based on what I saw from the stands, the way the refs at the Hartford District called G38 seemed very fair. If a robot was in possession of a boulder and happened to drive over a second boulder, a ref would signal a five second count (similar to a pin count). After five seconds, if the robot was still in possession of two boulders, a foul was called. This kept the refs from having to judge "intent" while still allowing a case for a no-call on incidental violations. It also gave the drivers a clear signal that they were doing something wrong with time to correct it before the foul was called.

This seems to be the most fair thing, especially with the Defenses (and robots, even low ones) blocking the drivers vision. Our robot sometimes got stuck for short times on the Boulders that started at the mid-line after pushing hard to get over the Defenses back in the the Neutral Zone. Occasionally, it would end up on top of two Boulders. I also saw a robot that was supposed to play defense against us come over the Defenses into their Courtyard and got stuck on top of a Boulder. Their robot had very little ground clearance so the Boulder supported most of the weight of the robot, leaving only one wheel barely touching the carpet. They ended up stuck on "the Soft Terrain" for almost half of the Teleop period, slowly spinning in circles until the Boulder rolled out. I suspect that the driver probably thought the Boulder would just get pushed out of the way rather than going under his bumper.

[NathanCJohnson]

This was ruled a foul at both of our events (Kettering #2 and Howell). At least a few times, we had a boulder in our robot and accidentally drove over another one and a foul was called. I wish they wouldn't rule this as a foul as we aren't really "controlling" the boulder - we would drive off of the other boulder ASAP.