Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

What I heard on the webcast was that the robot "could" be disabled if the bottom of the tetra it held was above the level of the top of the player station window. Unless I missed it, the tetra didn't have to actually be over the window for the robot to be disabled. Is this correct?

I believe this was addressed above Kit. What I get from the previous discussion is that this is NOT a new, hard and fast rule. But only a heads-up that the referees will be watching for an unsafe condition which would require the enforcement of S01 (a disable), at the referee's discretion.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

I believe this was addressed above Kit. What I get from the previous discussion is that this is NOT a new, hard and fast rule. But only a heads-up that the referees will be watching for an unsafe condition which would require the enforcement of S01 (a disable), at the referee's discretion.

Thanks for the info. That was my understanding, hence the "could" or "may" be disabled rather than "will" be disabled when the announcements were made at VCU.

[Andy A.]

I don't belive this issue was ever raised at BAE, or any penaltys or disablements were issued.

'Bots did extend over the player stations with tetras frequently however. I noticed it happening, and wondered if there would be any result of it.

My observations were field attendents quickly getting a hand or two on or near the tetra should it drop and to otherwise keep it from hitting any drivers. Usally, the tetra would spend less then 2 seconds over the station. I did notice at least one tetra being released, although a very quick and attentive field attendent already had a good grip on it it and it never droped or posed an saftey risk. Kudos the the BEA field crew, they were fanstastic about keeping us safe and keeping the field to spec and reset.

In defense of teams that break the player station plane, most incidents seemed to result from the offending bot being rammed or pushed by an opposing 'bot as they attempted to cap on the back goals. If there is an update to the rules specificlly regarding this issue, I wonder how it will be handeled, seeing as how most offenses are beyond the control of the offending team. My hope is that it is left to the refs to call, and field attendents are instructed to be mindful and ready to handle the tetra.

FIRST should think about the playing field and how to better protect drivers. The idea of installing the ball chute isn't a bad one. I guess that hinges on whether or not FIRST kept them.

I always thought that the rule requiring drivers to wear saftey glasses was redundent with half an inch of lexan between us and the field. I sure stand corrected.

-Andy A.

p.s. The spell checker seems to be broken. I appoligize for any poor spelling.

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by Dave Campbell

Mike,
Jeff explained it before the matches, if the robot dangles a tetra above the operators, past the driver station barrier, during the match, it may be disabled and will be penalized. (safety of the operators) Seems that it happened yesterday while trying to score on endzone goals or returning for 10 pt bonus at end.

wow, every time the martians were on the field that happened in auto and a few tetras almost hit the drivers but the coach caught it on team 326 while they tried to cap a goal. i never once heard that rule enforced at Finger Lakes.

[ShadowKnight]

The refs never really acted on that "warning" friday morning concerning hassling of cappers in the end zones with teras above the horizontal plane of the plexiglass barrier protecting the operators. It never became an issue again however, which was definately good news.

Concerning what happened at VCU, we were in a practice match with team 401. While they were attempting to cap the center goal in the end zone, I turned to respond to our human player. An opposing team rammed into team 401 at that moment, causing the tetra to come off, falling directly at my head. I looked back in time to register it was there before the point crashed into my safety glasses. It pressed the safety glasses hard enough to cut into my forehead. I don't think I want to experience that again.

But yes, FIRST definately has a reason to make us wear safety glasses behind the lexan, though I must congradulate 401 for their show of gracious professionalism, approaching me after the incident to make sure I was ok and apologize, even though it wasn't really their fault.

[Rombus]

I have to question why they dident do a overhang to protect the drives like they have in previous years. Anyone know why?

[Bduggan04]

Originally Posted by Rombus

I have to question why they dident do a overhang to protect the drives like they have in previous years. Anyone know why?

The overhang was specific to 2004, and even then it was only in the middle of the wall. In most of the years prior to this year, an overhang would have made the game unplayable as objects were thrown over the wall to score. There's no reason you can't take action yourself instead of waiting for FIRST. Buy a hard hat, they're pretty cheap from McMaster.

However, I agree with you that FIRST should take some action on this issue. It may be as simple as requiring hard hats, but a net or something might be even better. Until then teams should exercise caution when lifting tetras high near the players stations. Awareness of this issue could resolve it.

[Bharat Nain]

Originally Posted by Rombus

I have to question why they dident do a overhang to protect the drives like they have in previous years. Anyone know why?

That is infact a good suggestion although I don't know how much it would cost. I think it would cost considerably less than previous years since the field elements are not so hard to build this year. Another good suggestion is every regional stores 24 or so hard hats/helmets and lets teams use it. Or just make the teams buy some.

geez... flying tetras..

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Bduggan04

There's no reason you can't take action yourself instead of waiting for FIRST. Buy a hard hat, they're pretty cheap from McMaster.

Originally Posted by Bharat Nain

Another good suggestion is every regional stores 24 or so hard hats/helmets and lets teams use it. Or just make the teams buy some.

"...And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement."

It is a movement -- the head safety movement. We shall overcome.

- Rick "Safety Zealot" Tyler
Team 1294

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Bduggan04

The overhang was specific to 2004, and even then it was only in the middle of the wall. In most of the years prior to this year, an overhang would have made the game unplayable as objects were thrown over the wall to score. There's no reason you can't take action yourself instead of waiting for FIRST. Buy a hard hat, they're pretty cheap from McMaster.

However, I agree with you that FIRST should take some action on this issue. It may be as simple as requiring hard hats, but a net or something might be even better. Until then teams should exercise caution when lifting tetras high near the players stations. Awareness of this issue could resolve it.

Since there is a special hazard this year, and since we don't throw balls, tetras, etc. over the wall, having a taller wall would have taken care of this issue. The down side, of course, is that it would have made the fields more expensive and more complicated to assemble.

[rocknthehawk]

this happened twice to my team while i was driving. while we had our arm extended and raised up, a team would come and slam into us, and push both our arm and the tetra out , once outside next to the drivers station, no penalty, but the tetra did fall off and land inside the goal and in the process knowcked theirs off the top, so we owned that goal, and a second it actually came up and over the top of the drivers station, in that case the ref or field attendent tried grabbing it of our claw (we were yelling not to touch it, we were moving it back across, but i guess he was doing his job), but we recieved no penalties for either one. i know one robot was at least shut off for having their arm touching the ground in the loading zone.

[jgannon]

In one of our matches in Sacramento, a team was holding a tetra very high, trying to cap the middle goal against the driver wall, and it kept swinging from over the goal to over the wall. Our driver bumped their robot in an attempt to keep them from capping, but eventually they were able to cap the goal. After the match, the referee came to us and said that if the opposing robot had dropped the tetra over the wall, we would have been disqualified from not just the match, but the regional. Admittedly, it was a poor idea to bump them in such a hazardous situation, but it seems to me that if a robot is endangering the drivers, then they ought to be immediately disabled because of the strong probability that they will come into contact with another robot. During the elimination rounds, a similar situation happened to two other teams, and the tetra actually smacked into the outside of the driver station wall, causing the drivers to let go of the joysticks and reach up to push the tetra and robot back over the wall. Again, the robot was not disabled. A 10 point penalty doesn't seem like a good idea to me (not to mention that it isn't in the rules), but disabling the robot and threatening to DQ would help to keep everyone safe.

[Alekat]

I think this problem would be solved by considering what is needed for the player station according to the game. Everybody has a long arm and easily four chip drive system, but we're left with the same open-top, and a little tipsy, player station.

Our arm controller nearly hit himself in the head with a tetra and had to use his hand to push the tetra back over while it was still held by the robot. I was worried about a penalty for some type of interference, but the situation was probably ignored because it was us endangering ourselves.

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by Alekat

I think this problem would be solved by considering what is needed for the player station according to the game. Everybody has a long arm and easily four chip drive system, but we're left with the same open-top, and a little tipsy, player station.

Our arm controller nearly hit himself in the head with a tetra and had to use his hand to push the tetra back over while it was still held by the robot. I was worried about a penalty for some type of interference, but the situation was probably ignored because it was us endangering ourselves.

Just to clarify that situation where the tetra almost fell on us behind the player station... The Referee told me that had it been our own doing, he would had us disable for the rest of the match, but since 114 was pushing us into the player station while we were trying to cap, the ref let it go and said it was ok to touch the tetra above our heads for the sake of safety. This is a definite grey area in which refs will have to make some judgement calls. I think stacking on that end center goal is going to be a dangerous situation, especially if robots are getting pushed around. At the same time - it was definitely exciting and fun to watch I'm sure.

[Ian Curtis]

In the quarterfinals at BAE 1276 was rammed and it caused a tetra to fling wildly over our driver and operator. The ref had his hand right over 1276's E-stop. Luckily we managed to move away from the wall. Why would they shut us down if we weren't the cause of the tetra overhead?