Team Update #9 has been posted here.
-Nick
No red card for tipping! I like it.
It really sounds like the GDC is clarifying their intent for how LOGOMOTION matches are to be played…
From G48A:
“A ROBOT with a mechanism outside of its BUMPER PERIMETER may be penalized under this rule if it appears they are using that MECHANISM to purposefully contact another ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER.”
It sounds like the teams that have made mechanisms that extend out of the bumper perimeter to defend against other robots have had their designs ruled against! I’m sure it would’ve been valuable to know this intent earlier in the season… :-/
Somehow, I’m not too surprised, though… Over the last several years the GDC has carefully made the rules to limit defensive strategies - I was afraid these innovative ideas would be made illegal. Perhaps it is for the best… The combination of the ease with which defense could be played and the motion of the rack in 2007 made many matches generally low scoring.
I think the key word here is inside. This rule seems to penalize mechanisms that reach inside of an opponent’s frame perimeter, but doesn’t prevent a team from using an extension to contact an opponent’s bumpers, or other devices also beyond the frame perimeter. This would make, for example, using an extended arm to jab at a tower on another robot illegal, but I see nothing that would make, for example, this design illegal.
Good call! Yeah, that definitely does seem to be the point… I’m glad I was wrong! 
It sounds like they’re talking about mechanisms (like arms) that are outside of the bumper perimeter that contact an opposing robot inside their frame perimeter (offending robot reaching into opposing robot’s starting volume). Alright, makes sense, thanks!
Sounds like a good update to me! 
Eeh, dislike this update. Even if it is accidental, anyone who reaches inside a robot and messes up their electronics should be heavily penalized, not just a penalty. Yellow at minimum.
Great defensive strategy in some cases…a team can possibly take out opposing alliances top scoring bot now with just a yellow even if obviously intentional (and no red?). Why would the GDC reduce a basic level of protection all robots should benefit from to protect hundreds of hours of hard labor and thousands of dollars worth of equipment? Certainly means at the very least teams need an extra robust level of lexan shrouds protecting their vitals, and a minimum level of exposed wiring on their mechanisms…or maybe we should design a titanium shroud now?
<T09> If the behavior is particularly egregious, a RED CARD may be issued without being
preceded by a YELLOW CARD, at the Head Referee’s discretion. The TEAM will still carry a
YELLOW CARD into subsequent matches.
Better question: Why are you driving around with exposed electronics?
Believe me, we don’t. But there are always teams that have some level of exposure and they may possibly pay dearly for it. I have seen robot mechanisms blow through various barriers, including lexan, that completely shrouded their components by the way during field action over the years.
http://www.solostocks.com.mx/img/policarbonato-celular-verolite-multiwall-387261z0.jpg
we have this covering every inch of our electronics, i hit it with a foot long 1 inch wrench as hard as i could and it held. btw, our entire electronics board is made of this, and a 27 by 27 by 5 box of this weighs .8 LBS. if you have exposed electronics i would highly recommend this.
That’s not the case at all. First, a yellow card means the “strategy” would obviously only work once.
Secondly, <G48> still exists - you would earn two yellow cards in a single match. Does that become a red card?
Why would the GDC reduce a basic level of protection all robots should benefit from to protect hundreds of hours of hard labor and thousands of dollars worth of equipment?
Because FIRST doesn’t want to give out red cards to a team with an arm holding a tube that just brushes against another robot?
Certainly means at the very least teams need an extra robust level of lexan shrouds protecting their vitals, and a minimum level of exposed wiring on their mechanisms…or maybe we should design a titanium shroud now?
Yellow cards are not trivial things! There is a BIG PENALTY for doing something. Why is that the end of the world now, just because they need to do it twice to get disqualified instead of once?
(Addressed above)
I am just discussing what could happen…Fortunately the vast majority of teams out there wouldn’t consider intentional damage to another’s robot.
I recall an incident back in the 2004 elims where 494 got tangled up with 121 and ended up tearing out wiring out of 121. There was a rather ugly thread about the whole thing too over it.
While FIRST isn’t Barttlebots things do get pretty hardcore out there sometimes and in spite of FIRST passing rules to prevent such incidents (kind of like what the NFL keeps doing) it will come up again.
Call me old, but back in the day (2003 comes to mind) the game was a much more aggressive smash 'em crash 'em style. Robots had to be built tough to survive, and it was quite fun at times (at these for those who knew the meaning of robustness). Bumpers were optional back then, and most went without. Metal on metal contact. Anyhow, I think the new rules have allowed us to really thin out a lot of structure and do more complex tasks without fear of damage. So, I’d say mostly it’s been a positive change.
I do agree though, teams should not be building fragile robots. You are not alone on the field. There are 5 other robots which will potentially knock into yours.
The most violent incident I ever saw at a FIRST event was in 2003 when 378 raced up the field at Buckeye and ran straight through 494 and sent them flying where the robot landed upside in a heap.
I remember buckeye that year too. It was a demolition derby.
They took out the “potential disablement” violation in <G48> and didn’t replace it in <G48A>. This is probably a good thing.
As I recall, 2006 (Aim High) was the first year of optional bumpers; before that it was all metal on metal, as you said. 2003 (Stack Attack) was the roughest of the years I’ve seen, the closest it ever got to BattleBots, and I think the universal reaction was “No, we don’t want to go there anymore.”
I think I’m in the minority of actually likeing that game. They just gave to many points for the endgame and the eliminations were screwed up.
No, bumpers were optional back then too. The “standard bumper” of today was first optional in 2006. Back in 2003 the bumper rules were a bit more ambiguous (to say the least), no definitively defined material, no “bumper zone” etc. It was just a way to help teams protect their robots a little bit if they wanted. I saw very few teams running with bumpers back then.
-Brando