“If order placement of ROBOTS matters to either or both ALLIANCES, the ALLIANCE must notify the
Head REFEREE during setup for that MATCH. Upon notification, the Head REFEREE will require
ALLIANCES alternate placement of all ROBOTS. In a Qualification MATCH, ROBOTS will be placed in
the following order: Red Station 1 ROBOT, Blue Station 1 ROBOT, Red Station 2 ROBOT, Blue Station 2
ROBOT, Red Station 3 ROBOT, Blue Station 3 ROBOT. In a PLAYOFF MATCH, the same pattern is
applied, but instead of Red ALLIANCE placing, the higher seeded ALLIANCE (regardless of color) will
I may have missed enforcement of this rule/requirement. Its mostly driven by the queuer… we have been following the volunteer’s direction. For each alliance the robots are allowed in the driver station order 1, 2 and then 3. Blue and Red alliance teams enter the field from different entrance.
Having said this, where we place the robot on the field is between the alliance partner, who discuss and agree upon, especially to score high in the auto mode.
If I recollect, this rule was originally created in 2015, when the autonomous strategies for grabbing he recycling containers off the step might rely on being positioned opposite a can grabber that is slower than your robot. 2016 and on has still had the rule, but the nature of the auto objectives and rules have reduced most of its strategic usefulness.
(Now that I think about it it might have been there in 2014 as well)
Other people have summarized the rule pretty well, I just wanted to point out that no one has used this since 2015 and I don’t expect it to be used this year. You probably don’t have to worry about it at all
It matters, but would you have not decided optimum per team back wall placement points prior in line for your alliance?
Its not like anything is shuffling in the field apart from platform color and you cannot cross the midline
I guess I don’t see where forcing a set placement schedule changes anything, perhaps I am obtuse to the benefit of asking for this.
If you do not think it will come up, then you either do not fully understald the FMS randomization rules or process this year, or you anticipate the most collaberation of teams ever in FRC will occur this year! Good luck with that…But the Technician can be key, just don’t rely on quing line decisions, those should be reserved only for last minute adjusting.
Hit the road running, I’d have programming teams right now working out theoretical auto code, and tweaking them later to fit whatever robot ends up in the final design. They will need to not only determine multi plans of action, but add first, second, and third move delays for each route to avoid collisions with each other.
Everything is shuffling after humans are behind the line and after 3…2…1 Then robots conduct auto
So I fail to see where back wall placement means anything strategic ,rather a wish its favorable. As the scoring platforms are not KNOWN until hands are off. If the scoring platforms were known, I can see the big deal for a team with a scoring on plate(s) auto routine. They aren’t known until team humans cannot do anything about it. 50/50 for both potential scoring platforms only knowns are the exchange floor opening and auto line
At best I can see back wall preference to be at starting setpoints for canned auto routines, again that should be decided in line before to place the bots or minutes before the match …it does not matter what the other alliance does unless you are planning on contesting the Scale in auto (but they have the same issues as you random score plates) . I would also assume most good auto teams could start from at least three “field delivered decision branch back wall starting set points” and pre select on the field which of the three plus starting points they are using, unless you are sensing all the field by other means.
In short I see the “head ref request” rarely if ever used as its sort of silly with auto field set up after 3…2…1 when you know the scoring plate position after its too late to do anything about it. You do not have enough info to make a decision in essence available at that point unless you are gaming the scoring plate randomness somehow…good luck with that.
Let’s say your robot can get the scale in autonomous. But there is a faster robot on the other side that can also get the scale, and always faster than you can if they are lined up on the correct side after the shuffle. If you knew they were going to start in the middle (thus delaying their autonomous scale control routine) you might conceivably decide to try guess right and choose a side deployment. Or maybe a center deployment means they are paired with two robots that cannot score in the switch and they are giving up trying for the scale.
I tend to think that this won’t come up very often. (2015 was an edge case, as in general in FRC games robots haven’t been allowed to interact in autonomous.) But I do think it will come up. Sometimes you might want to know where a specific opponent is lining up in autonomous. Thus there is a rule for it.