2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning

[Chris Fultz]

Below are the 2016 IRI Rule Changes / Modifications. The goals of the changes was to minimize the impact on robot designed from any changes, assure a rapid flow of matches, increase the challenge for teams and adjust a few areas.

We are posting this now so that teams are aware before confirming their attendance at the 2016 IRI.

1. 3.1.4 Tower Strength = 12 for all matches.

2. 5.5.10 - In QUALIFICATIONS - Defenses will be randomly selected / placed per the details below. The placement will be defined in advance and will change every 10-12 matches to match the robot cycles. There will be no Audience Selection of Defenses.
A. Cheval de Frise
B. Ramparts or Moat
C. Sally Port
D. Rough Terrain or Rock Wall
E. Low Bar (Always in play and in position 1.)

3. 5.5.10 - In ELIMINATIONS - Defenses will be selected by the opposing alliance (Category and Placement, except Low Bar) per the categories below. There will be no Audience Selection of Defenses.
A. Cheval de Frise
B. Ramparts or Moat
C. Sally Port
D. Rough Terrain or Rock Wall

4. G21 Revision - A ROBOT contacting carpet in the opponent’s SECRET PASSAGE may not contact opposing ROBOTS who are in contact with the carpet in the SECRET PASSAGE, regardless of who initiates the contact.

5. G38 Clarification - Driving over or getting stuck on a boulder while holding another bolder will not be a violation of G38.

6. 3.1.3 No change to defense crossings for RP.

7. R5 A +5 pound weight allowance is provided. There is no formal inspection, however if a referee questions a robot weight it will be verified.

8. 5.4.1 - Draft Order 1-8, 1-8, 8-1. Alliances select their own backup. No requirement for any robot on an alliance to play.

9. G13 Exception – G13 Applies, however, AFTER a robot has fully crossed a defense and returned to the midline, a robot may cross the midline with no foul and contact with an opposing alliance robot will not be an additional foul.

10. 5.4.4 - In Eliminations, up to THREE tied MATCH SCORES between two alliances will be re-played. If the 4th re-play results in an additional tied MATCH SCORE, the published FIRST tie-breakers will be used.

[Chris Fultz]

REASONING -

1. Reflect the expected level of play and increase the challenge of receiving the RP.

2. The community has settled on these selections a high percentage of the time. This change reduces the field reset crew work. This change enables a 6 minute cycle time to provide 9 matches per team. Each team will play each set-up one time before they change (except where a cycle is split).Many teams will have limited scouting crews. The Portcullis has been removed by FIRST. The drawbridge was ignored by most teams.

3. This adds to the strategy options for eliminations and minimizes the changes to the original game play.

4. This removes the incentive to just go touch an opposing robot.

5. Getting stuck is enough of a penalty to pay.

6. Changes in number of crossings or number of defenses we too much impact on the original game and robots designed to play it.

7. This allows for repairs or new systems, while maintaining a safe robot weight limit.

8. Well, we always do this.

9. This encourages teams to develop / try a 2 boulder AUTON or return to mid-field without fear of major fouls.

10. This allows teams to play for the win, but also sets a limit for "how many times"

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

REASONING -
2. The Portcullis has been removed by FIRST.

Can someone explain this to me? Did FIRST discontinue the portcullis due to safety or durability issues? Or am I missing something obvious? Thanks.

[jajabinx124]

Originally Posted by logank013

Can someone explain this to me? Did FIRST discontinue the portcullis due to safety or durability issues? Or am I missing something obvious? Thanks.

FIRST discontinued the portcullis due to safety. It apparently gave a number of volunteers injuries and sent a couple to the hospital. (while putting it together/and taking it down, field reset volunteers didn't get injured but it was the volunteers who made sure it was ready/volunteers that needed to take it apart I think)

[logank013]

Originally Posted by jajabinx124

FIRST discontinued the portcullis due to safety. It apparently gave a number of volunteers injuries and sent a couple to the hospital.

Was it discontinued before worlds or after worlds? Also, did those injuries happen at worlds or across the season? Did it have anything to do with the coil that made the portcullis glide up and down or did it have to do with the bar that popped out when it went up too fast? Thanks and sorry to get off track.

[jajabinx124]

Originally Posted by logank013

Was it discontinued before worlds or after worlds? Also, did those injuries happen at worlds or across the season? Did it have anything to do with the coil that made the portcullis glide up and down or did it have to do with the bar that popped out when it went up too fast? Thanks and sorry to get off track.

After worlds. Across the season I believe. I'm not exactly sure what part of the portcullis during putting it together/taking it apart gave some volunteers injuries.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by jajabinx124

After worlds. Across the season I believe. I'm not exactly sure what part of the portcullis during putting it together/taking it apart gave volunteers injuries.

It tried to take fingers off. really. Some of the injuries were severe.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

It tried to take fingers off. really. Some of the injuries were severe.

Large constant force springs are dangerous... They're pretty much spring steel knives that are also tensioned and capable of rapid movement w/ reasonable force.

Very easy to hurt yourself if you're not knowledgeable and careful.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Large constant force springs are dangerous... They're pretty much spring steel knives that are also tensioned and capable of rapid movement w/ reasonable force.

Very easy to hurt yourself if you're not knowledgeable and careful.

I'll concur. We had a large CF spring on our elevator in 2015. It was always a tense moment attaching it to the carriage, making sure only the people needed during the installation were the ones near the robot at the time. Injuries would not surprise me at all.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by jajabinx124

FIRST discontinued the portcullis due to safety. It apparently gave a number of volunteers injuries and sent a couple to the hospital. (while putting it together/and taking it down, field reset volunteers didn't get injured but it was the volunteers who made sure it was ready/volunteers that needed to take it apart I think)

One of the field supervisors recently posted a rather graphic) picture of his rather damaged fingers due to the portcullis mangling it (he needed screws placed int his broken fingers). We don't need any more injuries.

[bdaroz]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

10. 5.4.4 - In Eliminations, up to THREE tied MATCH SCORES between two alliances will be re-played. If the 4th re-play results in an additional tied MATCH SCORE, the published FIRST tie-breakers will be used.

I read this twice but this might warrant a confirmation/clarification...

You mean this to say: "... the published FRC tie-breakers will be used on the 4th re-play" as opposed to "... the published FIRST match tie-breakers will be used."

Yeah, I'm probably lawyering this a bit, but in case anyone else read it the way I did....

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by bdaroz

I read this twice but this might warrant a confirmation/clarification...

You mean this to say: "... the published FRC tie-breakers will be used on the 4th re-play" as opposed to "... the published FIRST match tie-breakers will be used."

Yeah, I'm probably lawyering this a bit, but in case anyone else read it the way I did....

I think it is correct because the first three tied matches are mention in the first sentence. The second sentence only mentions one match for the tie-breakers to be used in.

I can see how it might require a second read to be clear.

[Chris Fultz]

If three matches end in a tie match score, we will play one more match.

If that one also ends in a tie match score, then we will go to the published tiebreakers to determine the winner.

There are some many potential implementations of this that we will publish a list of "if this happens ..." so it is clear before that happens.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I forgot the +5lb rule for TRI, I'll have to update it.

[Jack S.]

The G13 Exception is interesting, we could see some deviation from the "standard" 2-ball routines that have so far been shown. It should also make non-low bar 2 ball routines more common. Smart way of encouraging more auto play IMO.