Initiating deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT
on or inside the vertical extension of its FRAME PERIMETER is not
allowed.
At what point is an action deliberate? If having a lighter robot and high bumpers means that every single contact leads to your robot riding up on their bumpers and crashing into their tower or arm, then would any contact within the perimeter be deliberate, even though you were only trying to play legal bumper-to-bumper defense? You can’t really plead ignorance if the exact same thing happens over and over again.
They were not called for bumper to bumper contact leading to a G24. When a part of your robot outside of your frame perimeter contacts another robot within its frame perimeter, then you have a huge risk of a G24 if anything bad happens.
If you have a high mounted bumper, and it rides up on a robot with a low mounted robot, then I think it takes a much more deliberate act to warrant a G24 - like trying to continue into/over the robot vs. backing out. Also, at that point it is likely that part of their robot is in contact with your robot too. So at worst, you have offsetting penalties.
It is not the bumpers you have to worry about, it is anything of yours that is outside your frame perimeter. In prior years, the penalty was any contact, not just deliberate/damage causing. I personally believe in the “any contact” rule. Ripped wires can take a long time to replace. If you are going to play defense, then make sure everything of yours is inside the frame perimeter.
Sorry, I should have used team numbers to begin with. My comment was mostly in reference to 5855’s defense during eliminations. An example of what I’m talking about was in QF3-2, when 5855 repeatedly rode up on 2498’s bumpers and made contact within their frame perimeter with their tower/shooter, which seems to me like it could be a repeated G24 violation.
The wording of the rule mentions deliberate or damaging content within the frame perimeter, nothing about continuing into/over the robot, but I agree that the current wording is not the best. My biggest problem is that you can never really know what is “deliberate,” or what the drive team is trying to do. I disagree with what you said about offsetting penalties, though, but again because of what is deliberate. You cannot make deliberate contact within the frame perimeter of another robot if they drove up onto you, for example, while you were trying to score a high goal from the batter.
Agreed! I like good, legal defense, and sturdy robots that can get around it. I think the current wording of the rules leaves too much up to discretion.
I think I disagree with you on the rule book insisting there be damage to cause a penalty. I didn’t actively participate in this year’s game so I haven’t studied up on the rules, but I think G24 is the relevant rule. This reads to me as an intent penalty which allows the refs to use their discretion on calls. If a ref thinks a robot is trying to damage others, there is a penalty/yellow card. If the robot is actually incapacitated, then it’s a red card. Maybe it’s just my interpretation.
Watching the webcast, I thought the defense was out of control. I’m interested in watching some video so I can see if it really was as bad as I thought it was at the time. I was hoping the refs would call some penalties to get teams to calm down a bit.
After watching the archived webcast again, 1306’s intake is above 537 during the pushing match, but 537 is definitely still moving at 20 seconds, which should be an automatic scale awarded to 1306. If somehow 1306’s intake did reach down into 537 when the camera cuts away and rip their radio out, then so be it, but where is the automatic scale? Red ended with 25 challange/scale points: 5 for 2826 on the batter, 5 for 1306 on the batter, and 15 for 2194’s scale (and if 2194 wasn’t high enough and 1306 WAS awarded the scale points, my point still stands and 2194 should be awarded a scale since they were also interfered with at 20 seconds).
I know it’s a tough game to ref but I question some of the calls, or non calls, that were made this weekend. I watched a robot enter and exit the opponent’s secret passage from the neutral zone several times in one match near the end of quals, and they were flagged each time as they should have been, but the results screen gave 0 foul points to the opponents. We were impaled and entangled by another robot in our QF tiebreaker match for about 15 seconds but no call was made (contact was made with our intake in the up position while it was within the frame perimeter) and we were told “that’s the nature of the game”. We were also given a warning for hitting the portcullis too hard (we have a pair of arms that flip down and wedge under it so we can just drive under, not lift it) yet I saw no such warning for the team that broke the portcullis polycarbonate.
On the positive side, the teams were great this year. It’s always great to see lots of friends at this event. Thanks to 2530 for picking us and to 2574 for being great partners. I had several teams attend the team social I worked hard to put together and it appeared that everyone had a great time there! I am thrilled that one of my students was named a Dean’s List finalist and have to send a huge congrats to Arrow for his Woodie Flowers finalist award as well!
I also have to send a huge congratulations to 2202 for getting their bugs worked out and cruising through the elims. I expect great things from them at Championships this year.
While our WI regional went about as well as it usually does, I am pleased that we are hitting our stride as we head for Champs as well. In our 13 matches, we weakended the tower in 10 of them, but only managed 4 captures due to some unfortunate circumstances with our partners :rolleyes:
You’re right. My comment was a little strongly worded. My argument works best in regards to tipping (ie: a robot can push another robot with the same amount of force for the duration, but only gets a penalty if the opponent tips).
I do think that the refs at Wisconsin were not going to call any penalties for robot to robot interaction (other than safe zones) unless a robot tipped or had clear damage.
I also have to send a huge congratulations to 2202 for getting their bugs worked out and cruising through the elims. I expect great things from them at Championships this year.
Thank you for the kind words. It took a while for the programmers to settle down the code. That’s what happens when you finish building right before bag and tag, and don’t give programmers access to the final robot.
You guys have a solid robot too. 15 point auto, fast cycle times, and can do more defenses than we can. Heart breaking close losses in the QF.
When we had to switch to defense in our second quarterfinal match I kept looking to the ref for the pin count to know when to backoff but the count never came and it honestly should have.
I wish the refs would have given the whole regional a heads up on the type of defense they were going to allow, would likely have changed our strategy in multiple situations. After coming from Central Illinois, a well reffed regional with little controversy to my knowledge, to this was a huge eye opener into how inconsistent games are reffed (2014 anyone?). They even changed how they were calling penalties involving the outerworks halfway through the regional.
After doing so well and falling short of champs, I can’t wait till we get districts.
After watching the archived webcast again, 1306’s intake is above 537 during the pushing match, but 537 is definitely still moving at 20 seconds, which should be an automatic scale awarded to 1306.
Seems like the two bots became entangled around the 26 second mark. Since Red had the extended appendage (reaching in), G11 may give Blue some protection against the 20 second rule. Unfortunately, the feed cut away during the crucial following seconds. When the video of the robot action returns, 537 is unable to move, and only moves after that when it is pushed by another red robot.
I watched the archive, and around the 40 seconds left in the match, I can see where you pinned blue in the castle area.
Here is what I think happened. Immediately prior to the Pin, Red Blocked blue that just left the Batter. Red blocked Blue into the Safety Passage (and almost tipped blue in the process). A foul was called on Blue for contact in the opponent’s safety passage (red score went from 81 to 86 with no high boulders being shot). The Ref was busy entering the foul when the pin happened.
Here’s what I like most about this thread and the Wisconsin teams in general… No one is pointing fingers at each other or bashing anyone specificly. We are all just trying to truly understand what happened and the mindset or thought process of those involved including strategists and refs. In our quarter finals we had a good plan for match one. We lost, changed up and went into the attack mode ourselves. We were leading, the other alliance saw what was happening and reacted with a great maneuver that crippled what we were trying to accomplish. They pushed us into the SP and created a foul for us. Great driving, great move with the perfect robot to do it. Am I happy that the ref didn’t call a pinning foul on them when we were on the tower? No, but they did nothing malicious.
I haven’t watched the video involving 537 yet. I know what I thought I saw. I know that it’s upsetting to loose a match that way, especially with a long drawn out referee dialogue. But I also know many of the refs and we have all been involved with this crew for a very long time. I trust their character and honesty. I have no doubt that they made what they truly thought was the correct call whether I and others agree or not.
It was great this year that 4 teams from Turkey came. I didn’t think about this until after Alliance Selection, but it would be great Gracious Professionalism if:
One of the high Alliance Numbers (low seated alliances, like 7 or 8) would pick one of the teams from Turkey for their 2nd selection.
I was watching the matches from the lower seating sections and didn’t see anything from Red that warranted the foul given. Re watching the video just now and i still didn’t’ see anything from 1306 that warranted the foul given and the reason given from the refs for said foul when questioned after.
1306 intake was over 537’s bumper but no action was being taken by 1306 that would warrant the G24 being called. This is especially true if said foul wasn’t called on the extremely aggressive defense 5855 played through out the elims. 5855 repeatedly drove up and onto teams and kept driving, causing wires to be pulled out on at least 1 team. I am not saying 5855 was intentionally driving on top of teams but G24 is about intentional actions. 5855’s defense was intentional and the consequences of that defense warranted a G24 if what happened with 1306 and 537 warranted a G24.
I am not pointing out 5855’s actions to say that they should have been penalized I am only using them as an example of the non-consistent calls made by the reffing crew all weekend, which changed the out comes of matches.
I would also like to say how stupid it is that ref’s don’t have to keep track of the fouls they call. In the 2nd semi match between 8 and 5 there was a foul called on red. When asked about it after so we would not commit the foul again. We were told that they couldn’t remember when/who committed the foul just that one was committed. I’m pretty sure I knew what the infraction was at the time and re watching the match pretty much confirms it. But if i can remember something 2 days later, the refs should be able to remember something that happened 3 min before hand.
I just wanted to comment on how close the elimination rounds were this year. I felt like most alliances could have won the event if some things had gone slightly differently. That being said, congratulations to 3102, 2202, and 5855; you guys played perfectly throughout the entirety of eliminations.
Additionally, I am really excited about the new robotics grant Governor Walker signed on Friday. I feel like that could expedite the process of Wisconsin going to districts, which I believe is greatly needed as there are so many teams in the state who don’t get any sense of progression despite a great season.
The new grants are exciting, and hopefully they help make rookie teams more sustainable and viable.
Is there a group actively working to switch Wisconsin to Districts? There doesn’t seem to be an overarching “Wisconsin FIRST” organization like some states have, and the vacant spots on the Wisconsin Regional Planning Committee aren’t very reassuring.
I don’t think WI has enough teams to move to districts. We barely fill one Regional. How many WI teams go to Duluth?
Maybe the Northern part of the state joins MN when they move to Districts, and the southern part joins an IL district.
Regarding the Robotics Grant: $250,000 with up to $5,000 per team. That is a max of 50 teams in order to receive the max. I wonder if High School FTC teams would get one amount, and High School FRC teams would get a higher amount? The base cost for an FTC team is about $2,000/yr (registration, KOP, one competition registration, robot parts), and for an FRC team about $7,000.
There are people working on trying to push Wisconsin to districts. Its just in the early stages. With the right people and drive I think Wisconsin can go to districts for the 2018 season.
Wisconsin does have enough teams to go to districts, we have 52 this year. See Indiana to remove your doubts. Wisconsin also doesn’t have to necessarily go to districts as an individual state, though it would appear easier to go alone than recruit a neighboring state or 2.
[STRIKE]The grant is worded such that only a max of $2,500 will come from that $250,000 pool. The bill specifies that the school must match the governments number. From the amendment memo:[/STRIKE]
My bad. Reread and the grant still provides $5,000. The team just must be able to prove it can also provide $5,000 through other means. NASA Rookie Sponsorship should make this easy for rookie teams.
Instead of $500,000 over two years, the amendment appropriates $250,000 for one year.
Under the amendment, to be eligible to receive a grant, an applicant must demonstrate that the
applicant will provide matching funds.
