NJ Elim Yellow Card Oddity

[pakratt1991]

I saw this same thing at the Oregon regional. A teams hybrid mode hit the other wall at high speeds and it tossed a teams controller to the ground. There were no yellow cards given and the refs just said that teams needed to secure their controllers. We used 3 long strips of Velcro and that worked fine.

[chaoticprout]

Originally Posted by mtaman02

Yea but see thats why we have a practice field and if you can't get on it then you can just chock it and count the sec's that go by and adjust from there. Ok it's an honest mistake but it was correctable before this should've even happened. Thankfully enough the teams that play in FIRST are cool headed people and just get upset at the mis-fortune and don't try and retalliate back.

Firstly, I wasn't there so this may be off. However, I respectfully think this statement is insulting to the teams. When in competition with people screaming at you telling you the robot needs to get to competition, and not having the ability to go to the practice field, how does counting the seconds let them know if they have gone too far. If they were at home testing code I would agree, but this is during the stress of competition, and it's bound to happen. It's a part of FIRST , not something that should never happen. Not all mechanical elements of robots work, why should all the software? Don't blame the programmers. =(

[Matt H.]

I personally believe that with the amount of potential interference etc such a call should not have been made. As noted in earlier matches the lap counters are IR emitters and it often becomes uncontrollable. With the number of variables involved in coding it is unreasonable to expect a program to work perfectly after having been warned once.

On a side note why not have lips on the player stations. This would stop OIs from falling far more effectively than velcro and would enforce the size limits as prescribed in the rules.

[mtaman02]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

On a side note why not have lips on the player stations. This would stop OIs from falling far more effectively than velcro and would enforce the size limits as prescribed in the rules.

I thought about that yesterday exactly. Don't be surprised if a control deck specification comes out in the '09 game. Right now the specs say it must fit the current level deck. I think it's time that deck had like a 1/2" lip on it and lock down bars to keep the controls from jumping up. Velcro will wear out too easily if every team used it.

[mtaman02]

Originally Posted by chaoticprout

Firstly, I wasn't there so this may be off. However, I respectfully think this statement is insulting to the teams. When in competition with people screaming at you telling you the robot needs to get to competition, and not having the ability to go to the practice field, how does counting the seconds let them know if they have gone too far. If they were at home testing code I would agree, but this is during the stress of competition, and it's bound to happen. It's a part of FIRST , not something that should never happen. Not all mechanical elements of robots work, why should all the software? Don't blame the programmers. =(

If the robot is on chocks, you can watch the motions of the drive train and count down 15 secs. Mark a part of the actual tread / wheel and count the rpms and if it appears that the drive train is too fast and has gone no where but in that direction then adjust the program accordingly to try and slow down the robot OR put a turn command in that way it'll at least nail the side barrier and not the player station b/c to be honest there's not much holding that player station in place to start with but it's little bit of weight, some support from around the field and velcro. Why do you think it moves so much when ever it gets hit? I personally think better re-inforcement of the player stations will solve some problems of the decks being flung to the floor after being nailed by a robot doing 30mph. Look at the team who lost their entire OI b/c the Comp Port ripped right out of the OI after the wall took a hard hit from one robot.

I forget which team and what local event I saw this at but it worked... The practice field was unavailable for w/e reason so they chocked it, had a person with a stopwatch, had another person watch the drive train movements and guess how fast it was moving and adjusted accordingly... In the end they managed to get the robot where they needed it program wise w/ using only wood, a basic watch and good eyes. I'm not trying to say that stuff won't happen but if it does there are multiple ways to do correct it before you get to the Queuing box and even still you can try and tether before we get a hold of you to get on the field like some try and do. Sorry if I insulted the programmers out there . Just trying to say that there's more then one way to fix something w/o having the right tool for the right job available for you to use.

[brimcdonald666]

Originally Posted by Brian C

I'm with you on this one Elgin. I also saw that team 303 was DQ'd in an earlier qualifying match. It's the first time I can ever remember seeing a team DQ'd for hitting into an alliance station wall in hybrid (autonomous) mode. Or for hitting into a wall in the first place.

Teams should have their control system secured in some form or another.

Thats really weird, cause our team (503) accidentally rammed the wall, full speed in autonomous, and broke Robostangs(111) controller, we are still sorry about that, im glad it was nothing perminant, but we still didnt get any penalty what so ever

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by brimcdonald666

Thats really weird, cause our team (503) accidentally rammed the wall, full speed in autonomous, and broke Robostangs(111) controller, we are still sorry about that, im glad it was nothing perminant, but we still didnt get any penalty what so ever

That is very strange but I can see why a full speed ram would justify a penalty and possibly it is up to the refs. These issues will definitely be clarified.

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

I may be confusing rules between years here but what gives the refs the power to disqualify a team (303 earlier in the competitiin) or give a team a yellow card in the first place for ramming into a wall in teleoperated mode? Correct me if I Am wrong but if a robot bashes the wall and makes your control box fall I have no sympathy for your team for not strapping it in with the provided Velcro in the drivers station! It is a sucky situation for you if your control box drops but its your own fault IMHO.

Their autonomous hit the players station after already being warned the first time their robot did it. They ignored the warning, so the second infraction was a yellow card.

Regarding giving the entire alliance a yellow, it seems to be an interpretation of Rule <T11>. This should be addressed next week.

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by Dan Swando

Their autonomous hit the players station after already being warned the first time their robot did it. They ignored the warning, so the second infraction was a yellow card.

Regarding giving the entire alliance a yellow, it seems to be an interpretation of Rule <T11>. This should be addressed next week.

As a member of 836, a member of the 816 Alliance, I understand why 816 got the yellow card, and I understand that if they had another infraction the entire alliance would have been DQ'd - but I think the call to give us (836) and 708 a yellow card was incorrect. My reading of the rules show this to be a misinterpretation of <T05> - <T11>. At no point does it say the yellow card goes to an alliance, only mentions a "Team."

Best regards,

Steve

[Anne Shade]

Originally Posted by Dan Swando

Their autonomous hit the players station after already being warned the first time their robot did it. They ignored the warning, so the second infraction was a yellow card.

Regarding giving the entire alliance a yellow, it seems to be an interpretation of Rule <T11>. This should be addressed next week.

Actually Dan,

The team was warned during Qualifying matches, not eliminations. When teams enter eliminations, their slate is supposed to be wiped clean. However, this year's yellow card is to be given for "egregious" robot or team member actions. If the head ref thought the one time was egregious, the yellow card could have been given. That is up to that particular head referee's interpretation of the action. I'm not sure exactly which rule the head ref believed was violated "egregiously" in this case because I can't seem to find one. I guess you could lump it under S01...

My question is whether or not the timing of the yellow card was appropriate. The yellow card was given during the reset of the match. To me, that would mean the match had yet to be completed. Can a team receive a yellow card for a match that had yet to be completed? What if their robot had again rammed the player wall when they replayed the match, would the alliance get DQ'ed for receiving a second yellow card in the same match?

This kinda follows Dez's point about the time out being called during the middle of the match...

[George A.]

Originally Posted by Anne Shade

Actually Dan,

The team was warned during Qualifying matches, not eliminations. When teams enter eliminations, their slate is supposed to be wiped clean. However, this year's yellow card is to be given for "egregious" robot or team member actions. If the head ref thought the one time was egregious, the yellow card could have been given. That is up to that particular head referee's interpretation of the action. I'm not sure exactly which rule the head ref believed was violated "egregiously" in this case because I can't seem to find one. I guess you could lump it under S01...

My question is whether or not the timing of the yellow card was appropriate. The yellow card was given during the reset of the match. To me, that would mean the match had yet to be completed. Can a team receive a yellow card for a match that had yet to be completed? What if their robot had again rammed the player wall when they replayed the match, would the alliance get DQ'ed for receiving a second yellow card in the same match?

This kinda follows Dez's point about the time out being called during the middle of the match...

The match had to be called off due to loss of communication with the field at the competition port plug in. Had the controller just been broken the match would've continued (see the match where 303 was DQ'ed). But since the field itself was broken and needed repair, the match was null and void, which is when the alliance used their time-out.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by George A.

The match had to be called off due to loss of communication with the field on the part of the robot. Had the controller just been broken the match would've continued (see the match where 303 was DQ'ed). But since the field itself was broken and needed repair, the match was null and void, which is when the alliance used their time-out.

George, after watching the video today with our robocoach we had assumed that the issue was not with the control panel but the field itself, it's nice to see some clarification though. Btw, nice Job announcing in NJ, also do you have your rap written down somewhere? I can see the yellow card rules being clarified in the next update

I would like to motion that any rule or clarification of a rule on this matter shall be nicknamed the 816 rule. Anyone with me?

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by thefro526

I would like to motion that any rule or clarification of a rule on this matter shall be nicknamed the 816 rule. Anyone with me?

How about the 816 Alliance rule!

Best regards,

Steve

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

How about the 816 Alliance rule!

Best regards,

Steve

Fair enough, from now on we will call this rule the "816 Alliance rule". Does anyone know of what rule number refers to this? I searched and could not find it.

I just checked the most recent rule book published by FIRST and there is no mention of an alliance sharing a yellow card in the Tournament section, they just refer to anyone robot getting a red card DQ's the entire alliance

[EricH]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Fair enough, from now on we will call this rule the "816 Alliance rule". Does anyone know of what rule number refers to this? I searched and could not find it.

I just checked the most recent rule book published by FIRST and there is no mention of an alliance sharing a yellow card in the Tournament section, they just refer to anyone robot getting a red card DQ's the entire alliance

There isn't one at this point. On either count (other than the red card rule).