Why did 694 get a red card at Finger Lakes?

Why did 694 get a red card at Finger Lakes?

Can you link the match?


I don’t know specifics, but the webcast chat (and a Twitch clip linked to the chat) indicated that one potential cardable incident was when 3015’s intake brushed up against the inside of 340’s frame perimeter in such a way that 340’s main breaker was shut off.


It was in finals 2

1 Like

Here’s the link to the clip that @John_Bottenberg mentioned.
3015 is driving across the field and hits 340, riding up their bumpers and into their frame perimeter. You can see 340’s RSL turns off, meaning the robot was turned off, probably by pressing the breaker.
Per G205, damaging contact within the frame perimeter is forbidden. If this contact results in the opponent being unable to drive, then the penalty escalates to a red card; and in eliminations, this applies to the entire alliance.


That sucks that this happened cause it did not even look like 3015 wanted to hit them


1405 got the same Red Card in match 43 at the 2:10 mark. It was against 3015


While I agree that the call by the refs was correct, This rule should not exist. It is nearly impossible to intentionally shut off another teams breaker. G205(B) could be completely eliminated from the rule book. Robots should be designed so that components are adequately protected.

Just my $0.02


The only reason no one intentionally shuts off another team’s breaker is because G205B exists. It HAS to be against the rules to do it. Having a clause escalating the penalty only if done intentionally or with a mechanism outside the frame perimeter would help prevent a situation like this.


It’s tricky cause the rules state the main breaker must be “safely and quickly accessible” to some extent (R612), obviously I don’t think 3015 did anything on purpose, but I don’t think you can remove G205(B) and still make R612 reasonable.


My thoughts:
That sucked, the rule is dumb, teams should have to make their main breaker protected from contact if you are going to have a rule like that.
From talking to the refs after the call was made, it was clear that they weren’t 100% sure what occurred on the field since, their description of the events involved 3799 pushing 3015 into 340 which didn’t happen. How can you make a call like that to decide a regional if you aren’t 100%? I’m at a loss.
The finals matches themselves were amazing, and the winning alliance was fantastic, and were very gracious about the entire thing. So much love to 340, 1787, 578, and 2228. I just wish the refs would have let us go to 3 instead of taking the game into their own hands.


it was a great experience going against your alliance, you guys did so well and it was really disappointing to me that the entire event ended due to a red card disqualification instead of one alliance doing better than the other. Going to a third final round would have been really fun. I’m looking forward to see how you guys do at your upcoming regionals in the coming weeks.


We were disabled twice in the same way at Ventura (opponents bumper tripping the main breaker). Unfortunately for us it was only called in the second match

Ventura SF -2 and 4.

It may not have been intentional, but it’s a rule in the rule book and should have been called.

Yes we contested the call in both match.


To add to this though, in respect to the rules that FRC currently has, I think the referees made the right call here, R205(B) was definitely violated when contact was made with 340 that breached their frame perimeter causing their breaker to end up being shut off.


It is impossible to see what happened in the video posted. I watched the video that our camera person on that side of the field showed me. 3015 was spinning around next to us when they hit the side wall and went up on the back of their robot bumpers. The motion was at just the wrong angle to lift their side bumper into the space where our main breaker is. It was a 1 in a million very unlucky contact that was not malicious or even repeatable if we tried. We know it was not their intention and we did not want to end the event on that note. If you could know the love & respect we have for them you would know we would have rather it never happened. It was unfortunate. 694, 3015, and 3799 were very gracious in the way they handled the call and should be recognized for the sportsmanship they showed. We will see you again.


Robot being turned off by other robots can instantly be solved by mounting the breaker horizontally, requiring a downwards vertical force to cut power. If it is mounted in a spot where it can be vulnerable to objects potentially landing on the switch, attach anything to raise the height protection to keep out foreign objects. *

A hand is flexible and a lot easier to control than a robot or foreign object. There are many ways you can mount the breaker for emergency easy access without additional protection, and never worry about a potential power off.

My thoughts on the ruling:

According to the above image, (snipped from the robot reveal), that breaker is mounted relatively high, and it looks to be around 6" of inwards reach, which means 3015’s robot had to reach both inwards and high enough to initiate contact with the breaker. That, I feel is valid grounds for a penalty. The current penalty is

I’m completely in agreement with the penalty, but I also feel that all teams should account for their placement of the breaker. As aforementioned, it is entirely possible to mount a breaker in such a location for emergency access, whilst preventing unwanted contact. *

It is unfortunate that 3015’s robot performed such an act, but the rule is there to protect robot components. It just so happened to be the breaker they had contacted.


Disclaimer: This is the 2020 robot, and instead of the breaker, it is now a VRM in its place (video screenshot). Originally, this was the place we were going to have our breaker. This is just a single piece of old polycarb, bent 90 degrees, attached to both rails of the drive base.

Unfortunately these are the only images I have, but this is what I meant with mounting the breaker in a vulnerable spot, whilst using additional protection. There is no way a foreign object can get to the breaker, but a hand can still easily power off. A robot riding over the bumpers would be stopped by the vertical tab, power cells would be deflected by the vertical tab.

Without the tab, any robot that rides over our bumpers could potentially turn off the breaker, and the percent success of a powercell cutting the power is increased.


If we’re going to list the things that robots should be designed for… why wouldn’t we include “able to go into a robot and press it’s breaker” as something that robots should be designed to avoid?

The worst I’ve seen is a team that would hit their own breaker with their intake every third match or so. They definitely needed help to understand why they kept being turned off during matches


Isn’t this covered by G205(A)?

I get what you’re saying, and obviously a team shouldn’t have their main breaker on a part of their robot where they would expect contact (not saying that’s what 340 did). But a breaker shouldn’t be so “protected” as to prevent a human from being able to quickly reach it - it is a critical safety device. How do you balance that need for quick access with preventing damaging contact within the frame perimeter from being able to hit the same button?

This wouldn’t instantly solve it - plenty of times robots exert forces on other robots that aren’t purely horizontal, such as when they leave the floor or ride up / fall down, or as mechanisms articulate. Probably still a good idea?


Card was for the same rule, but different situation here. Did not involve a main breaker that time.

1 Like