Penalty for raising tetra higher than player station?

[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.

[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.

[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..

[Mr.G]

In our first regional FLR the Martians hit us while capping a goal. The 3 tetra's came off our arm and fell over the payers station wall. I caught them and threw to the side of the field.

At our next regional GLR this penalty was announced by the head ref. and I asked what team would be disabled if a team holding tetras was pushed by another team and broke the plane of the players field. He said that the robot holding the tetras would be disabled. I disagree with his answer, when you are being pushed by another robot you have little control of your robot. I believe the team doing the pushing is the cause and if anyone is to be disabled it should be them.

[Daniel Brim]

Originally Posted by Eagle Master

At our next regional GLR this penalty was announced by the head ref. and I asked what team would be disabled if a team holding tetras was pushed by another team and broke the plane of the players field. He said that the robot holding the tetras would be disabled. I disagree with his answer, when you are being pushed by another robot you have little control of your robot. I believe the team doing the pushing is the cause and if anyone is to be disabled it should be them.

But your robot is the one that is directly endangering the safety. It doesn't matter who made the robot be in a dangerous position, but the fact remains that if something isn't done, those three tetras (24 lbs) can come crashing down on your head and cause some serious damage. What would you rather have happen: a concussion or losing a match? Plus, if someone is injured, FIRST might be liable for a lawsuit, which would make everyone losers.

-Daniel

[Mr.G]

You are pointing out a fundamental flaw in this whole ruling. There is no limit to how high you can raise a tetra and in order to cap the goals all the time (even if there are many tetras already on the goal). Your robot has to be able to raise the tetras higher then the height of the wall. Our robot raises the tetras straight up over the base of the robot, and the only way for us to get tetras to break the plain of the player’s station is if we are tipped by another robot. Thus our design is the safest out there and this safety problem still happened. This is one of those things that got missed in the design of the game, not that it is FISRT's fault. I think everyone would have missed it. But they should correct it by adding protection to the field no matter what it costs before someone gets seriously hurt. They could add lexan or netting over the players heads. It could be placed horizontally or vertically.

[nobrakes8]

We had a similar situation at UTC, luckily the refs let us play on. We had the arm extended 14 feet in the air and we got pushed into the other team's zone.. I'm not sure why we weren't disabled, maybe because the way we hold the tetra's they felt it wasn't going to fly off.

I know somebody mentioned the fact that some robots let go soon as the power is shut off, but if a team also needs to be under power to keep the arm up 2 things could happen.

1. the arm falls and comes back into the field NOT endangering anybody. Could that team be re-enabled if it's deemed to be safe again? (I'd assume no)

2. What if that arm falls and the tetra hits the top of the driver's station, the tetra could fly off and hurt somebody, wouldn't it be safer to just let the team keep playing?

[devicenull]

Originally Posted by DanielBCR

But your robot is the one that is directly endangering the safety. It doesn't matter who made the robot be in a dangerous position, but the fact remains that if something isn't done, those three tetras (24 lbs) can come crashing down on your head and cause some serious damage. What would you rather have happen: a concussion or losing a match? Plus, if someone is injured, FIRST might be liable for a lawsuit, which would make everyone losers.

-Daniel

I don't believe you could sue them, I beleive thats part of whats covered in that release form everyone has to sign..

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by devicenull

I don't believe you could sue them, I beleive thats part of whats covered in that release form everyone has to sign..

You can have people sign releases all day, but they can still sue.

Wetzel

[AJunx]

[I am currently watching some amazing robotics action thanks to Wildstang - Team 111 and NASA for providing the webcast to the Midwest Regional.]

Now to the subject at hand:

I was, prior to the first match in the finals at the Midwest Regional, completely undecided on whether or not this rule is an appropriate way to fix the problem. I have come to the conclusion that this rule is ABSOLUTELY NOT an appropriate band-aid for the 'tetras-going-over-the-wall' problem. Here is what happened:

One team on the blue alliance makes the very smart decision to go cap one of the corner goals in red alliance's home row, late in the match. As they are positioning to cap the goal, a blue alliance robot pushes them toward the goal and naturally, toward the wall. Of course, in order to cap the goal, the tetra must be HIGH. And, of course, once they were pushed, the tetra ended up over the wall. They were disabled with something like 10 or 15 seconds left. Thereby preventing them from capping the corner goal, taking away a row for red, and winning the match.

Rather than having a penalty (in the form of disabling the robot) for play that should be perfectly allowable...
MAKE THE WALL TALLER.

-Andrew

P.S. (Just my 2 cents)

[EricH]

Watching this thread, I have seen many suggestions about higher walls or nets over the top. Here is what I think about this: 1) If the game involves human players throwing things over the wall, neither a higher wall nor a net is practical. If one is used, the humans should have their own area and hard hats. 2) If the game does not involve throwing objects, a net that directs the objects to the ground in a certain area, like behind the player station, is probably the best choice. A higher wall will only block anything that is lower than its top.
3) Until FIRST decides to do something, which may not happen for who knows how long, just be careful.

[AmyPrib]

In Chicago, the rule was "if you break the plane of the player station wall, you will be disabled." Did I miss something recently? Haven't seen that rule.
Unfortunately, we were disabled for this in an elimination match (along with our partners), and seeing it up close, I don't feel there was a safety issue, which I thought was the intent. The entire tetra was not over the wall (it was tilted downward into the field), and the only part that broke the plane (if that, it may not even have cleared the thickness of the wall) was the endcap, about 1/2" of it - 99% of the tetra was below the wall. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with it. I do agree with possibly disabling if an entire tetra is dangling overhead (after they move away), but I don't agree with barely "breaking the plane" esp in the corner where there is no wall, and no people really in harm's way. In the corner area is a subjective call as to whether or not it broke the plane.
But, it's now in the past....