Boilermaker Regional Webcast Online!

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by dubious elise

The penalties were from a lot of shoving from (I believe) 93 and 135. I would love to be able to watch those matches again, you really see surprisingly little as a human player, even when you are within 3 feet of the field!

Yup, as I suspected. Thanks for the info. I'm curious to know what exactly 93 and 135 were doing to warrant these penalties based on the rules. Again, please keep in mind I didn't get a chance to view the webcast. In what way were the explicit rules of the game violated?

Thanks,

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by oneangrydwarf

As a matter of fact, only 1 robot was disabled by the refs at boilermaker, and that was when 45 tipped right onto the scoring table, they were then pushed by another robot which almost resulted in amanda morrison getting an arm to the face, man the look on her face was pretty priceless We concluded it had to do with andy bakers resentment of being refered to as TechnoKittens.

Yep.... that was it, Josh. It was the first match of our quarter-final round, and our plan was to tip the robot over in front of the scorers table instead of winning the match. You caught us there. Can't slip anything by you.

As for the regional, it was great. The competition was as good as expected. In my opinion, the best thing was seeing soooooo many college-aged FIRST mentors step up into important positions at a regional. 1/2 of the referee crew were college students, and the whole scoring crew were college students. The Purdue students who helped run the regional were great. There are just too many to point out. Over the past year, it has been amazing to see these students develop their skills (they have EXCELLENT SKILLS) and be so valuable to an event. Their energy, passion, and dedication to getting the job done makes us old folks look slow.

Also... a big congrats goes out to Carolyn Percifield for being the Boilermaker Regional Volunteer of the Year. She was the constant force in keeping the regional on the track of success.

I can't wait until next year.

Andy B.

[Curt Henderson]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

I questioned this as well. I was standing behind the blue player station, and I don't know if a team was pushing 71 or not, but their arm went over the wall with tetras in hand, and the tetras hit one of THURST's operators. The ref that was standing there didn't do much of anything, while we were yelling because we were concerned for that student's safety. If a team was pushing 71 and made them go up and over the wall, their power should have been cut. If it was just 71 going up and over, then their power should have been cut. Someone could have been seriously injured, luckily no one was.

I just rewatched the match in question as I was there with a camcorder in hand and 71 was not touched by another robot when they came over the wall. They came racing down the field to cap the corner tetra and must have missed judged their speed. They raised thier arm while they were moving at max speed and the momentum carried them into/over the wall. It wasn't until they were trying to back-up to reposition when the other robot tried to impede their movement and held them in the corner.

Being a member of Team THRUST, I felt they should have been disabled at the time or at least penalized at the match's end but, in the end, the decisions were made, no one got hurt and life goes on for everyone. Let it go down as just another exciting match.

[Poopoo]

though the fact that we could have won the match and continued in the event should not be over looked. As a member of team thrust I believe the matter should not have been taken so lightly. I think we should have forced the matter open a little more during the end. Makes me kinda glad i was int he pits for that match.

[roboticsguy1988]

I agree that if they were panelized we would have got to go on. But my main concern is the safety risks. But everything luckily turned out ok in the end.

One thing though, just to be fair they should have been penalized, i mean i seen other teams get penalized for even smaller things, yet when one team goes over the wall with a stack of two tetras hitting a person and barely missing another they don't get penalized?

Like i said before, i don't really care about the win or lose issue. I care more about the fact that someone could have been seriously hurt, and nothing was done about it.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by roboticsguy1988

i mean i seen other teams get penalized for even smaller things, yet when one team goes over the wall with a stack of two tetras hitting a person and barely missing another they don't get penalized?

I'd have to agree with you on this one. Teams get penalized 30 points for literally tapping a robot in a loading zone, but when one presents an actually dangerous threat, nothing is done. That's wack.

[Ricky Q.]

Originally Posted by roboticsguy1988

I agree that if they were panelized we would have got to go on. But my main concern is the safety risks. But everything luckily turned out ok in the end.

One thing though, just to be fair they should have been penalized, i mean i seen other teams get penalized for even smaller things, yet when one team goes over the wall with a stack of two tetras hitting a person and barely missing another they don't get penalized?

Like i said before, i don't really care about the win or lose issue. I care more about the fact that someone could have been seriously hurt, and nothing was done about it.

During the driver's meeting on Thursday, Paul George, the Head Ref, explained to teams that if this happened and presented a safety issue that the offending team would be warned, then disabled if it happened again, then possibly DQ'd. Never did he say a penalty would be issued for this offense, if he had then perhaps it would be acceptable to ask why one was not given. But he did not, so that is why one was not given.

[roboticsguy1988]

Originally Posted by Ricky Q.

During the driver's meeting on Thursday, Paul George, the Head Ref, explained to teams that if this happened and presented a safety issue that the offending team would be warned, then disabled if it happened again, then possibly DQ'd. Never did he say a penalty would be issued for this offense, if he had then perhaps it would be acceptable to ask why one was not given. But he did not, so that is why one was not given.

Ok, i did not know about that. But i still do disagree with that. because someone could be hurt pretty bad.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Ricky Q.

During the driver's meeting on Thursday, Paul George, the Head Ref, explained to teams that if this happened and presented a safety issue that the offending team would be warned, then disabled if it happened again, then possibly DQ'd. Never did he say a penalty would be issued for this offense, if he had then perhaps it would be acceptable to ask why one was not given. But he did not, so that is why one was not given.

Seriously, it would have been nice for all team members and the crowd in attendance to know that. You can't honestly expect those drive team kids to communicate that info to everyone on their team - they're already under enough pressure to focus on the game at hand as it is. We talk about wasting bandwidth and posting needless stuff on these forums - all such debate on this topic is needless stuff and would have been eliminated if one simple 30-second announcement was made to everyone in attendance at Boilermaker.

In my opinion, the safety and game-transforming factors involved with robot arms swinging or falling outside the sidelines and tetras dangling over the player station make these issues far too important to leave the associated scoring and penalty decisions in the hands of the individual referee crews. FIRST has taken the initiative to place an even greater emphasis on safety this year, and it seems counter to that initiative if they leave this major safety decision up to each of the regional volunteer staffs. I've got to hope and assume FIRST understands this and is working on a standardized ruling that will be applied across the board and communicated to everyone. But since they have yet to release such a ruling, the severity of the penalties for robots who get a little crazy with their arms can still be debated....

I think a simple warning for placing someone's health and safety at risk is a little too lenient. If I remember correctly, a 10-point penalty was levied against any team last year that dangled a cushy air-filled ball even a little bit over the protective lexan of the player's station. So completely violating that space with a very hard object and striking other players nets only a warning? Oy.

The simplest, safest, and most logical solution to all of this would be to add more protective guarding above the player stations, as Kyle from 365 suggested in another thread. However, the $$$$ and logistics involved with that are probably too great an obstacle to overcome at this point in the season, so.....

A standard set of penalties should be put in place, but FIRST will still have to rely on the fair judgment of the referees to call the penalties when they are warranted. A proposal:

1. The "WARNING" will not come during a match; instead, it will come at the beginning of every competition day when the head ref communicates this rule to everyone in attendance and tells drivers NOT TO DO IT. EVER. Wouldn't that be simple? The refs then would not have to ever keep track of which teams had been warned and which hadn't, making their jobs easier. You're welcome.

2. Much like last year, a 10-point penalty will be levied each time a robot's arm OBVIOUSLY breaks the vertical plane of the operator's station with a tetra. Keep the arms low around the home goals. If the stacks are high there (and they tend not to be), be extra careful. The refs in each player station area should be shouting out each infraction to drive teams as they occur.

3. Any time a robot arm holding a tetra (or tetras) violates the space above a player station to the point where there is an obvious and sustained risk of tetras falling and causing injury to humans or damage to team controls for at least two seconds or more, and the robot operator refuses to comply with referee instructions to back off, in addition to receiving a 10-point penalty, that team will be ordered to back off, out of the opponent's home zone, if applicable, and remove the safety hazard, at which point, it will be disabled for the rest of the match. Failure to comply with this command in a standard amount of time (10 seconds) will result in a DQ. The defensive bots in the area will be instructed by the refs that the offensive team will be disabled, and they should not impede the removal of the offensive team's arm from the area above the player's station.

4. Teams playing defense in the areas around the player stations will be cautioned not to create the dangerous situation described above by actively using their arms to push the offensive robot's arm or tetra(s) into a dangerous position. Failure to comply will result in the defensive team receiving the penalties for whatever infractions were committed by the offensive team's arm. It should be blatantly obvious that the defensive team is ACTIVELY pushing high here - teams who raise their arms vertically to PASSIVELY block an offensive advance should not be penalized - in this case, the offensive team should then recieve the penalties for any infractions that occur.

5. If a defensive robot is playing legal defense by pushing low AND not getting underneath an offensive robot, they will NOT be penalized for the offensive robot's inability to control its arm during this contact. The offensive team must either retract its arm or risk receiving the penalties described above.

6. Robot disablement for safety infractions which occur along the sidelines will proceed as currently called. There will be no point penalties for dangerous situations, but the refs have the power to disable a bot at their discretion. I think falling onto the scorer's table falls into this category. If a defensive bot pushing high causes such a dangerous situation to occur along the sidelines, they will be disabled too. Legal, low pushing will not result in disablement of the defensive robot, if it is obvious they aren't continuing to drive their robot under the CG-challenged offensive bot if it begins to destablilize and tip over. Watch out, wedges and low riders. Do not exacerbate an unsafe situation.

7. If a robot's arm or a tetra the robot is carrying ever strikes an operator, human player, coach, ref, field volunteer, or Grandma Baker sitting in the stands, a DQ will immediately be levied against the team whose robot was at fault, based upon the rules outlined above. This is simply unexcusable and must be discouraged with the most severe penalty possible.

It is obvious that at some regionals, robot drivers with tall arms did not feel they needed to exercise the restraint, caution, and control required when entering an area where human safety is an issue, primarily because the penalties weren't severe or as swift enough to worry about. FIRST must be clear, firm, and concise (much more concise that I was, anyway) in communicating and enforcing the penalties related to this issue.


One final thing - a way to eliminate half the potential for penalties is to simply not call any penalties on drivers and teams who are foolish enough to dangle tetras over their own player stations when trying to cap, since their safety is already placed directly in their hands. I don't know how much their alliance partners would like for them to dangle/drop tetras over/onto them during a match, but I'm sure GP would prevail and a lot of interesting discussion would settle any differences following the conclusion of the match....

[AmyPrib]

Just a note - please post/continue discussions about rules and strategies in the section of CD that discusses those issues. That way, everyone can see your comments and reply to them in the appropriate place.
Thanks,

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

Just a note - please post/continue discussions about rules and strategies in the section of CD that discusses those issues. That way, everyone can see your comments and reply to them in the appropriate place.
Thanks,

Amy:

Thanks for the reminder - you are quite right. While I don't expect much more discussion on the webcast itself, our comments on this particular topic, especially my insanely long one, are definitely cluttering up this thread. I see that Stu Bloom copied the bulk of my long post into a more appropriate thread:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=35770

Perhaps Brandon or another moderator could do some rearranging to put everything where it belongs? I will refrain from posting further in this thread.
I'm sorry for creating the clutter.

Thanks,