Posted in Q&A: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8205
Violation of the rule may result in a Yellow Card.
We recommend that you design and build your Robot so that you cannot exceed the 80" envelope. If your Robot is capable of expanding beyond the size restriction, it will be watched carefully during the match for infractions.
There goes hope of leniency on that rule…
Well talk about inconsistency. Even IF your robot can extend beyond 80" it will be allowed on the field and “closely” watched. If you ask me if it can go beyond 80", chances are at some point it will. Calling a yellow card based on seeing something break the 80" boundary is going to be next to impossible.
should a robot that can extend beyond 80" even be allowed on the field? or if you do allow it on the field how are you going to be able to precisely measure it if it does go past the 80"? are they going to stop the match go on the field and measure it? that really is just going to very inconsistent wouldn’t it?
Here are my concerns with that Q&A answer,
According to the manual,
<T05> The Head Referee may assign a YELLOW CARD as a warning of egregious ROBOT or team member behavior. This will occur at the completion of a match, before the field is reset, and will be indicated by the Head Referee standing in front of the team’s PLAYER STATION and holding a yellow card in the air. In the first match that a team receives a YELLOW CARD, it acts as a warning.
(The emphasis is mine)
So since the Q&A says that reaching outside of the 80" cylinder may result in a yellow card, how far outside of the 80" cylinder will be considered “egregious” enough for a yellow card? How are referees going to determine that in real time? Is reaching to 85" inches going to be considered egregious but not 4"?
There are times when a robot that can extend over 80" should be allowed on a field. If a robot has one manipulator on the front that does “A” and one manipulator on the rear that does “B”, while doing “A” it extends to 79" to the front, while doing “B” it extends to 79" to the rear, if it does “A” and “B” simultainiously it extends to 120". If while on the field it does “A” and “B” at the same time it would be given a penalty. In this case it would be clear and obvious that we broke the rules.
I do have trouble when a single manipulator can extend more than 80" off the field, such as, if our graber is all the way open and our arm is fully extended forward, we could exceed 80", we will never do that on the field, though. I think that asking the refs. to watch for something that could happen in a fraction of a second like this is pushing the envelope a little bit too hard. The least that should be done is a demonstration to the inspectors that while it looks like we can do that, our hard stops and programing will not let us. We have an engineering solution that solves it rather than an engineering solution that we hope to get away with.
The kids I work with have taken great pains and scraped many good ideas to make sure that when they sign the inspection sheet, they know that their robot will not break any of the rules unless it is by pure oversite, and if they find out that they have, they would take the necessary actions to correct it before they ever run in a qualification match.
If I had to bet money, I’d say that penalties will be given for incidental infractions, and yellow cards will be given for repeated violations. This is how the 72" rule was enforced last year. If you broke the rule, you lost ten points. If your ramps fell down in the middle of the field every match, then eventually you got a yellow card.
There is no provision in the rules for a 10-point penalty. As I recall, neither was there a provision for a penalty for exceeding the 72" square last year - the correct sanction should have been to disable the robot.
Estimating an 80" distance this year is not much different than estimating 72" last year. The difference is that 72" is roughly 2 robot lengths, so if a single ramp fell down the refs could estimate whether it was wider than 2 robots or not. This year it will be 80", most likely measured across a diagonal of the robot, so the estimation will be somewhat harder.
Since the penalty is a Yellow Card to be displayed at the conclusion of the match, the Head Referee could ask that the robot be put into the suspect configuration following the match, and a measurement could be taken.
There were actually three levels of penalties for a robot exceeding 72" last year. Yuo could get a 10 point penalty (usually for minor violations), a penalty + disable (for violations that could interfere with gameplay), or a penalty + disqualification (for intentional violations interfering with gameplay). There also was the option to call a yellow card for repeated violations of the rule. Last year at Detroit, I called lots of the minor penalties, one or two disables, and no yellow cards or DQs.
All this said, it would appear the penalties are defined differently. There’s no provision for violating <R16> in “The Game”, so there would be no point penalty, just a possible yellow card, unless a change is made. Personally, I would like to see a 10-point penalty added for this violation, with, again, a provision for a yellow card for repeat offenders.
There is always somewhat of a grey area connecting “Robot” and “Game” rules. It is very rare to see a penalty spelled out (in the “Game” Section) for violations of rules in the in the “Robot” Section (only <R19> “wedge rule” this year). Most references to Robot rules are under the Starting Conditions, which Robot inspectors can inspect (with a box and a scale) before the match.
Same thing happened last year with (72" box). No Penalty was defined in the original rules, and an update added which specified the penalty. A similar update & rule could be coming this year on the heels of this Q&A answer. However, since was a similar experience last year, it seems odd that the GDC would simply forget to include similar a penalty for . Maybe they omitted the penalty on purpose and intended it to be a yellow card only offense. We will probably see next week.
I would suspect most hurdling bots can extend past 80" by accidentally falling over. I don’t think you can keep these robots off the field simply because they can break . I think we need increased levels of communication between RIs and Refs. RIs should make notes of how a robot can violate . Then at least one RI should be watching the matches and acting as an adviser to the refs.
This hasn’t necessarily stopped refs from assigning one in the past. I remember that my team got a 10-pt penalty at an off-season event for having a member not wearing safety goggles. There was no rule (that I am aware of, and I’ve read through the rulebook multiple times) that states that refs can assign this penalty. So I agree with you on this one Gary.
Anne, I also am a little concerned about the answer to which you’re referring. To me, egregious means more than just a simple violation, and really has more of a connotation of implied intent. In other words, if you designed a robot that would somehow expand to be 200’’ with the intent of expanding to block other robots, and somehow got this through inspection, and then did this on the field, I would consider that to be “egregious.” To put it another way, the words “egregious” and “accidental” don’t work together, in my view.
As others have stated, it seems impractical to call this. I really don’t understand the point of the yellow and red cards anyway (to me it’s like a dunce cap and not really in the spirit of GP, though that’s another discussion), but it’s more serious that just a penalty because it affects the rest of the competition. So, in other words, if my team’s robot was maybe a little bit out of the sizing box (maybe) and a ref called a 10-pt penalty, I might complain a little to myself, but if it were a yellow card, I would be more upset.
So yeah, I’m not really understanding this.
-Paul
At the majority of events I attended last season, the referees kept a measuring tape at the ready. Any time a robot seemed to break the 72" rule, the referees would attempt to recreate the potentially infracting configuration after the match, and measure it as best they could.
I’d imagine the same will happen this year. If a robot extends beyond the 80" cylinder, I’m sure measurements of some sort would take place in the offending position after the match, and and an appropriate call made then.
First people are saying that the 80" rule penalty is not defined. It is clearly defined in section 7.2 The Game Definitions.
PENALTY: A 10 point decrement in the Alliance score assigned when a deserving violation of the game rules has been identified by a referee.
Much like last year’s 72" rule, the penalty for breaking the rule is 10 points. Breaking any rule is a 10 point penalty, and every instance of the violation is another 10 point penalty. Robot rules are still part of the overall game rules.
So if you’ve designed a mechanism that breaks the 80" rule, and you haven’t used mechanical stops, or sensors and system feedback with coding to prevent this from happening, other than operator skill, you’re asking to be penalized.
Now, on your question as to what defines “egregious” behavior to earn your team a yellow card, its a little more complicated than a “magic” over reach measurement. First, if your robot can extend to 80.001" you can be penalized, but it is doubtful that you will because a referee will have a tough time gauging that small of an infraction during a match. With that said, you still can be penalized after the match concludes. If the referees know, or a team captain for the opposing alliance team knows that your robot has the potential to break the 80" rule, they may ask that your robot be remeasured in a similar state after the match concludes before the match is scored. If the referees can reasonably determined that your robot exceeded the 80" rule you will be penalized. Reasonably determined? Say your arm uses pneumatics to open/close, pneumatics aren’t variable in their open/closed states. So if the referees have you open your pneumatic arm and your at 80.001" it can, and should, be a penalty. Simple as that.
Now the yellow card can come into play. Yellow cards generally won’t be given for first offenses. Now the referees know for sure that your robot breaks the rules. They should warn you to correct the problem immediately before your next match. So, if your at 80.001" a quick filing should fix the problem. The referees aren’t going to check on your “repair” in the pits or before a match, they’ll wait until they, or the opposing alliance, thinks you’ve broken the rule again. After the match they’ll measure again, if you’re over it’s a penalty, if not you’re OK. Again, if your over, and receive a second penalty, now you’re pushing your luck. Three strikes and you’re out. If you again fail to fix your robot’s offending condition, and you have another match and you again break the rule, you’re probably getting the yellow card. The first definition for “egregious” behavior is repeated violation of the same rule.
Several years ago I witnessed a team that repeated broke the height limit of the starting envelope. They were repeatedly warned by the referee to fix the problem. Unfortunately, even the team’s mentor didn’t seem to think it was a big deal because they were only over by 1/8". Finally, the referee disqualified the team for not fixing their problem. That was in the days before yellow cards.
If your arm can reach, say 83", and the referees determine that it does reach that dimension very often in the regular operation of the robot, then multiple penalties can be assigned within a single match. Now if you’re making obvious repeated offenses during a match a referee will probably verbally warn the drive team during the match and you’ll receive multiple penalties. Again, you will be warned to “fix” your robot before your next match. If you continue to ignore the referees warnings, you’ll be earning the yellow card. If your drivers ignore the referees warnings during a match, you could also receive a yellow card, too.
Lastly, if your robot can exceed the 80" rule. During the course of play your drive team uses this extra reach to block an opposing robot in some way intentionally, or the referee thinks it’s intentional, and if the referee believes this may have drastically altered the match, he can again yellow card you.
So trying to give a number like x inches over 80 is “egregious” is a very bad assumption. 80.001" can be “egregious” if the referee thinks it is. Especially if you’ve been repeatedly warned.
As I said earlier, if you’ve built a mechanism that can break this rule, fix it! :ahh:
Either with a new design, mechanical stops, limit switches or other sensors, and/or code limits. Why risk the grief? 
I don’t think the referees can just hand out penalties when they feel like it. If that were the case, why are penalties mentioned in any of the other rules? If breaking any rule is always a 10-point penalty, then there’s no need to mention it again. In fact, there is at least one place where it says breaking the rule will NOT incur a penalty - instead the robot will be disabled.
Also, if the penalty was 10 points, why would the Q&A have not mentioned that, and specified a Yellow Card instead?
If you look at any of the game rules which can cause penalties, they don’t specify the 10 points, the penalty detriment is defined in the definitions. Also, some rules violations are immediate DQ. Try running a robot at 20 pounds over weight. No one is going to let you compete in that condition, and if you do get on the field and are caught your alliance is DQ’d.
If you can be yellow carded for a violation, you can receive a penalty for that offense. Penalties are suppose to discourage teams from the offending action. The penalty should be a warning to fix your actions immediately.
A yellow card is a MUCH harsher consequense for violating the 80" rule, so if FIRST’s intention is to only issue yellow cards for this violation, then you’d better heed my warnings even more. The next step after a yellow card, is a red card. I’d never want to risk that.
Instead of trying to lawyer the rules, just ask the Q&A in plain english “will violating the 80” rule cause a 10 point penalty and/or an immediate yellow card".
All I know is we won’t be sweating this rule. We saw the implications immediately, and designed accordingly.
Good Luck teams. 
The manual does not need to state the worth of a penalty for each infraction but it does indeed need to specify what can receive a penalties. Penalties are always assigned to specific rules in the game section, not the robot section. The referees are not responsible for robot construction rules and have never been, that why the inspectors are there. If a penalty is not listed, then it cannot be given (and this year, only the word PENALTY needs to appear). The Q&A answer further substanciates this. It never mentions a penalty, only a yellow flag.
I understand your point and agree that the one way to avoid penalties is to design accordingly. The problem is the same as it was last year, how can referees determine if you’ve reached outside of 80" during gameplay? How can they duplicate the position of your robot at the moment they think you may have reached beyond 80"? What if your stops are programming based, how can you prove they actually were performing properly during that particular match? The refs have to go by what they see and what you see in that millisecond during a match with 6 robots on the field… I know from experience how impossible of a task that is.
Thanks, Anne. It’s my belief too that if a rule doesn’t say PENALTY, then there is none. Prior to the answer in Q&A, there was no provision for any sanction for a violation of <R16>. It would not have been good to go into Week 1 Regionals and have every ref crew come up with their own interpretation of sanctions for <R16>. Let alone the difficulty of being sure the 80" was violated.
Everyone should give the refs credit. They have to make sizing decisions all the time, even on things that have been inspected. You made your robot fit inside the box and passed inspection, but now for some reason its too large when you take the field on Friday. Who notices? - the referees. And last year, there was not a 72x72" box for the refs to measure with. Granted, exceeding the 72" was generally because of premature ramp deployments, and the ramps stayed deployed. That was easier than judging 80", up in the air, as an arm arcs through its range of movement. But I’m confident they will do the job correctly once again.