2011 Team Update #2

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I'm guessing this thread won't consist of 8 pages of complaints.

Maybe not, but that's got to be the harshest red card ever. DQ'd for deploying your MINIBOT marginally too high?

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Maybe not, but that's got to be the harshest red card ever. DQ'd for deploying your MINIBOT marginally too high?

I agree Gary
I think they added the language and didn't look at the penalty

The penalty SHOULD be Red Card for deploying your minibot on a different tower and a standard tower disable for starting too high...

that would be much more fitting...

I think you SHOULD get a RED CARD for trying to mess up another team's shot at the minibot by deploying on the opponent's tower.

But for a slight discretion on your own tower you should just have the tower disabled...

Much more reasonable penalty...

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

DQ'd for deploying your MINIBOT marginally too high?

So it's ok if a person in Track starts on a running block that's marginally too far forward?

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

So it's ok if a person in Track starts on a running block that's marginally too far forward?

No, but the penalty would be the same for starting too far forward or starting too soon, wouldn't it?

If you deploy your MINIBOT early, the tower is disabled - you lose any possible race bonus points.

If you deploy too high, you are DQ'd - but presumably your alliance still gets the bonus points? The rules don't say.

They should have included "entirely below the deployment line" into <G20>, not <G21>.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

So it's ok if a person in Track starts on a running block that's marginally too far forward?

No, but this is equivalent to removing the runner's score from the race (disabling the tower) as opposed to saying that all previous races are discounted because of it.

I agree that the red card is a bit harsh, perhaps we'll see this changed in the next one. Regardless, people should be designing their systems so they can't deploy above the line easily or at all, so hopefully it will be a non-issue either way.

[SirTasty]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Maybe not, but that's got to be the harshest red card ever. DQ'd for deploying your MINIBOT marginally too high?

I'm with you there. I suspect that it's a mistake and will be corrected in a later update.

I'm happy that FIRST has relaxed the pneumatics rules, but I doubt our strategy is going to take advantage of them this year.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Maybe not, but that's got to be the harshest red card ever. DQ'd for deploying your MINIBOT marginally too high?

I'd say second harshest. Harshest is when you get a red card for your partner not passing inspection.

[Cyberphil]

Originally Posted by EricH

I'd say second harshest. Harshest is when you get a red card for your partner not passing inspection.

I would have to agree with that. I still do not get that. I get that they should be inspected, but why is it the alliances responsibility?

[Chris is me]

I think the intent of that rule is that if the partner does not pass inspection, they must be a no-show. If the non inspected team no-shows, then you do not get a red card, but if they attempt to show to get points, then the rule thwarts that.

[Cyberphil]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I think the intent of that rule is that if the partner does not pass inspection, they must be a no-show. If the non inspected team no-shows, then you do not get a red card, but if they attempt to show to get points, then the rule thwarts that.

I guess. I will be sure to make sure, no matter what, our alliance partners are inspected, or at least for the first 20 or so qualifications.

[dag0620]

Originally Posted by EricH

I'd say second harshest. Harshest is when you get a red card for your partner not passing inspection.

To add to that,

While I agree it's harsh, and not necessary, FIRST is clearly going for the Peer Pressure approach. With this penalty, you can bet everyone on the alliance will be pressuring other teams to get inspected, and it will probably work.

Will some unfortunate teams go under because of this? Yes. However in the end it will keep this problem to a minimal.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by dag0620

Will some unfortunate teams go under because of this? Yes.

Only if they're stupid enough to let a non inspected team try to show up for a match.

[EricH]

I personally think it's an overreaction to a case that happened last year where a robot that didn't set wheels onto the field ranked in the top 8 for selections.

Personally, dishing out an automatic red card to any team that wasn't inspected would be enough. But to penalize partners...

I agree on the intent; the letter doesn't quite match the intent, though. I'd agree on the peer pressure: either you pressure them to pass inspection, or you pressure them to stay far, far away from the field until they do.


P.S. If you are thinking about volunteering to inspect, do it. When there are few inspectors at an event, inspection takes forever and some teams may miss a match through no fault of their own. I think the AZ backlog last year cleared around opening ceremonies, after having an extra half-hour the night before with more inspectors to clear the line. There were still a couple of teams who had had major issues clearing by lunchtime, but that's "almost normal", and the issues were becoming more minor.

[Fletch1373]

Originally Posted by EricH

P.S. If you are thinking about volunteering to inspect, do it. When there are few inspectors at an event, inspection takes forever and some teams may miss a match through no fault of their own. I think the AZ backlog last year cleared around opening ceremonies, after having an extra half-hour the night before with more inspectors to clear the line. There were still a couple of teams who had had major issues clearing by lunchtime, but that's "almost normal", and the issues were becoming more minor.

Having been an inspector for the last 2 years(2009: CT, 2010: CT, WPI, BOS, CMP), I fully agree with you. Last year, I was asked if I was available for the Boston regional, while at WPI, because of a shortage they had. All worked out fine, but I could imagine how horribly things could've gone

[Rion Atkinson]

I'm sorry for this being so off topic, but what are the requirements for volunteering at a regional?