I was under the assumption that if say you (Robot A) let out a tether, and other robot (Robot B) pushed a goal over your tether, Robot B would get disqualified. Is this correct? thanks!
I believe your statement is correct from what I understand.
Does anyone know of anywhere this is printed?
Actually, I was under the impression that robot A would be disqualified, as the extended piece is a part of that robot… but I could be wrong.
I think no clarification in any printed or electronic format has come out yet, but according to what they said at VCU, team B would get disqualified.
i believe that robot B would be DQed, but if robot be got tangled in the thether then bot A would be DQed…strange eh?
My understanding, which is by no means an official one, is that team B would only get a DQ if the goal was damaged in the process of pushing it over team A’s extended mechanism. Dunno for sure though…
At VCU, THe head referee said that the team that pushed the goal over the tether would be the one that was be DQed. However, he also said that there had to be direct damage to the goal as a result of it going over the tether
According to team update #6,
Q) If there is some situation that such a case would be legal, would such a robot be found in violation of rule that prohibits going under the goal (GM20) if the goal was pushed up over the tether by another robot?
A) This would not be a violation of GM20, because the robot did not intentionally put the tether under the goal. However, the alliance pushing the goal over the robot could be penalized if damage to the goal was deemed likely to occur as a result of passing the goal over a robot.
One thing you can be sure about is when you go to the competition the rules will change.
At KSC there were ruling that was completly wrong the team that had the problem had to go back and get the rule that was in the rule book and shown the judge just to have the correct call.
If you get DQ you must of done something totaly wrong. We drag Heat wave and ripped a foot and a half of the rug and they were never turned off.
We got tangle in a robot tether and that robot was never DQ even when the judge try to shut off the other robot.
the only DQ I saw at KSC was when a mentor touch the controls.
other than that all was fair game.
The best one was when we drag a goal over the mouse and tether nothing was done about it.
One team was warned becuase they hit the goal so hard that there robot ride up on top of the wood and hit the tape that was around the edge of the wood.
there were teams that used the bottom of the top wood to raise the goal up.
One word can answer it all!!
say team A releases a go home device. Before the device gets across team B pushes a goal in its path. Team A’s device then goes under the goal.
Which team, if either, would get peanalized? If team B tried to move the goal and the goal wasn’t able to get off the teather would it be entanglement?
I ask because we were planning on this strategy but our drive broke before we had the chance.
I’ve never seen FIRST so inconsistent on any issue (except batteries). Seems like there has been confusion since the kickoff in January - and I can tell you that many teams abandoned devices like these because they didn’t want to waste alot of effort on something that was so very unclear. I’ve seen a team DQ’d when a mentor touched the controls. I’ve seen goals over the top of “go home devices” that didn’t get anyone DQ’d, and then sometimes one or the other is - I suppose there ought to be a FINAL, CLEAR and CONSISTANT understanding - too bad it probably will be regionally interpreted, and far too late for teams to do alot about it. Assuming that happens, How many teams would concoct something as a “go home device”? Is is legal at this point to do so? Too bad, this should have been made clearer during the design and build phase. I love them, they add another dimension to the game. Didn’t this whole issue start out as an “entanglement” problem? Now, it’s a "who get’s DQ’d problem - directly affecting strategy.