Go to Post Such is life in the fast-paced, laugh-in-the-face-of-adversity, never-let-them-see-you-sweat, sometimes-you're-the-windshield-sometimes-you're-the-bug world of FIRST Robotics! - Sean Schuff [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-04-2011, 21:44
superbotman's Avatar
superbotman superbotman is offline
John
FRC #2169 (KING TeC)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 27
superbotman is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Should this have been allowed?

The robot was trying to score the square, at the very edge of the scoring pegs and therefore was right next to the human player. The robot turned and the tube ended up between the thrower and the middle of the field, where he was aiming.
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-04-2011, 22:01
MarcD79's Avatar
MarcD79 MarcD79 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Marc
FRC #0176 (Aces High 176)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Suffield, CT
Posts: 225
MarcD79 has a reputation beyond reputeMarcD79 has a reputation beyond reputeMarcD79 has a reputation beyond reputeMarcD79 has a reputation beyond reputeMarcD79 has a reputation beyond reputeMarcD79 has a reputation beyond reputeMarcD79 has a reputation beyond reputeMarcD79 has a reputation beyond reputeMarcD79 has a reputation beyond reputeMarcD79 has a reputation beyond reputeMarcD79 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should this have been allowed?

Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world & things do happen.
__________________
Mentor & Volunteer
Field setup, Field Supervisor & disassemble Suffield Shakedown 2003- present (2015)
Connecticut Regional Field setup, disassemble & FTAA 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 (Field reset & Assistant Field Supervisor), Field Reset Pine Tree Regional 2013, Field Supervisor, setup & take-down at Groton & Southington Districts 2014, Field Reset Hartford District 2014. Field Reset Boston District Championship 2014. FLL Judge Fall 2014
Field Supervisor/Set-up & Take-down Waterbury & Springfield , Field Reset/Set-up & take-down Hartford N/E District 2015. Field Reset NE Champs 2015. FLL Judge Fall 2015.
Suffield Shakedown 2016, Field Super 2016 Stronghold Waterbury.
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-04-2011, 10:04
jvriezen jvriezen is offline
Registered User
FRC #3184 (Burnsville Blaze)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Burnsville, MN
Posts: 635
jvriezen has a reputation beyond reputejvriezen has a reputation beyond reputejvriezen has a reputation beyond reputejvriezen has a reputation beyond reputejvriezen has a reputation beyond reputejvriezen has a reputation beyond reputejvriezen has a reputation beyond reputejvriezen has a reputation beyond reputejvriezen has a reputation beyond reputejvriezen has a reputation beyond reputejvriezen has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should this have been allowed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by superbotman View Post
The robot was trying to score the square, at the very edge of the scoring pegs and therefore was right next to the human player. The robot turned and the tube ended up between the thrower and the middle of the field, where he was aiming.
If the robot's tube was between the human and midfield, it sounds like the possessed tube was over the lane, which is a lane violation-- perhaps that should have warranted a penalty. Sounds like the robot put the tube in the thrower's throwing path. But I didn't see it, I'm just going by what's described here and the thrower's statement that he had no intent to interfere.

John Vriezen
Team 2530 "Inconceivable"
Mentor, Drive Coach, Inspector
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-04-2011, 10:42
martin417's Avatar
martin417 martin417 is offline
Opinionated old goat
AKA: Martin Wilson
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 719
martin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should this have been allowed?

Using a thrown tube as a defensive object to interfere with the opponent attempting to score is allowed within the rules, as is using a robot as a defensive object, within limits. Is it a good strategy? that is debatable. Is it ungracious? I don't think so. As I have stated, this is a competition, you are supposed to COMPETE. If is allowed in the rules, it is OK to do, and therefore cannot be ungracious.

In my opinion, it is dangerous (at Peachtree, on two occasions, teams received red cards for trying this strategy and de-scoring tubes). It was attempted several times on our team, and we just welcomed the tubes and scored them (except the one that deflated after a particularly hard throw at our bot). Here is a video of a HP trying it. Watch at about 38 seconds in.
__________________
Former Mentor Team 1771
Former mentor Team 4509
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-04-2011, 22:08
ghandler94 ghandler94 is offline
Registered User
FRC #3504
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 8
ghandler94 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Should this have been allowed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timz3082 View Post
Hello, I am the team leader of team 3082, and I have a question about a situation that occurred during a semifinals match causing our team to loose. During the last 40 seconds of the match, we had completed on logo and put up two of the three tubes needed for the logo on our left side, all we needed was the square. We had that tube and were attempting to place it and while we were releasing it, a tube thrown by the human player knocked it out of the claw and away from the peg making us unable to score the piece in the final amount of time and still deploy the minibot, so we were unable to complete the logo. After the match we talked with the head ref who said "It was inadvertent" which is why they did not call the team on it and issue a red card. But aren't all penalties and red cards inadvertent? The strange thing here is that this directly caused us to looses the tiebreaker match and not make it to finals. This was heartbreaking for us, and we were wondering if this ruling was correct or should have been looked over differently. It is apparent that first by all means wants to prevent human actions on the field from preventing scoring as shown by tubes which land on the tower. Is there anything first can do for us? This was very sad for the team to be the alliance captain of the 3rd alliance, yet not win any awards. I know this might not make total sense, but I was wondering what everyone else thought the ruling should be on such a devastating move.
I talked to a judge in D.C. about this. It is not illegal UNLESS it disobeys the rule of entanglement. So, essentially, unless the tube gets stuck on the robot, it is LEGAL.
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-04-2011, 23:26
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is online now
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,609
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: Should this have been allowed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghandler94 View Post
I talked to a judge in D.C. about this. It is not illegal UNLESS it disobeys the rule of entanglement. So, essentially, unless the tube gets stuck on the robot, it is LEGAL.
I'm doubting that entanglement reasoning. That should only apply to a robot and robot actions. The point there is to keep robots from getting entangled with each other. I know it doesn't apply this year, but in 2007 it was perfectly legal to throw tubes on robots with the expectation they'd get caught. The gdc expected teams to design robots that weren't vulnerable to this.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:34.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi