Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Autonomous Period Control and Scoring of Debris on Floor

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Autonomous Period Control and Scoring of Debris on Floor

    GS7 says "Plowing (bumping, moving, touching, etc.) Debris located on the Playing Field floor is allowed and does not count towards the five Debris Possession/Control constraint if the movement of the Debris is not purposeful. Debris will be scattered around the Playing Field and some interaction between Robots and Debris is expected and should not be Penalized, provided that the Robot is not deliberately Controlling the Debris."

    Will teams be penalized for controlling and scoring more than 5 pieces of debris into the floor goal during the Autonomous Period?

  • #2
    Read this official Q&A post for the full answer:

    http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...ll=1#post21668

    Short summary: if you're trying to score the debris in autonomous or move them to gain a debris scoring advantage (e.g., move them into position for easier scoring later) and you control more than 5, you'll get a penalty. If you're moving to the rescue beacon and happen to push more than 5 while moving there, you won't.

    Robot design may also contribute: if your design has a collector on the front and it gets more than 5, you're more likely to get a penalty than if your robot has a flat front, a "bumper surface shaped to passively shed Debris" or an "active design for dispersing Debris out of the way."

    Comment


    • #3
      FIRST could make it much easier on everyone if we did not have these ‘determination of intent’ rules. That’s why we need juries. This is very similar to last year’s penalty debacle about touching the tubes while scoring balls. Let’s remember, you'd be hard pressed to score lots of points at one point per debris in autonomous, but the penalties are severe. I’d venture that NO ONE would intentionally want a strategy that could score blocks with the risk of large penalties, so no one should have intent. We could just simply say, no plowing, or no penalties in autonomous. Or all blocks would be removed from your scoring zone (what about the matches that will hinge on how many blocks rolled into your scoring zone from the initial dispersal?) . Just spell SOMETHING out rather than leaving everyone (not just the refs) 'having to determine intent'.

      Yes, we did have league play where the interpretation of this penalty left us scratching our heads… Penalties hinged on the distribution of debris, not on our ‘intent’ – same program, sometimes was penalized for plowing, sometimes not. Those interpretations may have been the 'most correct', we had a great lead ref that listened patiently to the kids. Point is there is still plenty of room for interpretation that doesn't have to be there.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think the whole rule book needs to be trimmed down to a resonable size, like they did in FLL. to quote one of my referees -"Just an outsiders observation/opinion – any game in the future that has more than 25 rules is probably a bad design. This one had 49. As with airplanes designs, weight is death. With so many different scoring options the robots in trying to cater to them all, became very heavy, which was a huge handicap (not to mention all the failure points in the system design). Yes, I’m a nobody in the FTC, but I’ve felt all along that the challenge was way over engineered, forcing complex and failure prone robots. What with the new remote control system being debugged this season, going with KISS would have been better."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by FTC5266 View Post
          I think the whole rule book needs to be trimmed down to a resonable size, like they did in FLL. to quote one of my referees -"Just an outsiders observation/opinion – any game in the future that has more than 25 rules is probably a bad design. This one had 49. As with airplanes designs, weight is death. With so many different scoring options the robots in trying to cater to them all, became very heavy, which was a huge handicap (not to mention all the failure points in the system design). Yes, I’m a nobody in the FTC, but I’ve felt all along that the challenge was way over engineered, forcing complex and failure prone robots. What with the new remote control system being debugged this season, going with KISS would have been better."
          While I would agree that the game this year could have been easier on the robots (Like FRC last year with their new control system), I don't completely agree with the smaller Manual of rules. Unfortunately, FIRST and the FTC crew need to release large manuals with rules, due to the nature of some teams. I can't tell you how many times I have been to higher ranking competitions, and the amount of questions are still asked. The Students (and mentors) try to nit pick and bend the rules (or find loophole) in order to get the result that they want. The larger manual and more rules help keep the amount of questions and inconsistencies down from event to event. I have already seen teams trying to get around the rules this year. Examples of these questions teams can ask, can be seen in the Official Q&As. Some of them are a little ridiculous at times. The explanations the teams try to go through to justify it, even though it says specifically (Sometimes not), that they are not allow, or are allowed to do it. Examples: Launching of grappling hooks (NO), Being able to bump a robot that is "Extending" over the Buffer tape, but completely on a ramp.. (Not allowed). Little things like that, that the Officials have to continue to answer, even before a competition. The last thing Affiliate Partners and Volunteers want at a competition, is a lot of un-answered questions (Questions that can only be answered by FIRST).

          In short, I don't mind the long manuals, and the large amount of rules. I thinlk that it bring clarity to the teams and events, and they(FIRST) does and alright job of keeping it updated. (They Could do better(But that's another story))
          2015 FTC World Champion - Valley X Robotics 2844 - Founding Memeber

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by R2D2 View Post
            Being able to bump a robot that is "Extending" over the Buffer tape, but completely on a ramp
            To be fair, that questions was a valid one that could have implications whether you're the one doing the bumping or the one on the ramp. Also the way the rule and definitions read in the rule book it could have been ruled the other way around. It was discussed at length on Reddit before someone asked on the forum. And I assure you, the person that asked was hoping that it would not be allowed.

            Sometimes we ask questions that you may see as "ridiculous" just in case we encounter it at a competition. This way we are prepared, and there is little question as to what the correct ruling should be, not because we plan to try to get around a rule.
            Last edited by FTC5414; 01-20-2016, 07:48 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by FTC5414 View Post
              Sometimes we ask questions that you may see as "ridiculous" just in case we encounter it at a competition. This way we are prepared, and there is little question as to what the correct ruling should be, not because we plan to try to get around a rule.
              True, and I understand that. I just feel that the larger manual helps limit the amount of questions that would be asked.
              2015 FTC World Champion - Valley X Robotics 2844 - Founding Memeber

              Comment


              • #8
                I was rereading the rule book last night and thinking how thorough it was and how many edge cases it handled in a reasonable way. I thought it was well done and of appropriate length for this competition.

                Regarding GS7, the rule is clear and a judge should have no problem in most cases determining intent. In the few difficult cases, we'll just have to abide by their judgement. Yes, to the extent possible intent-based calls should be removed from the rules, but in this case it doesn't seem to problematic.

                Comment

                Working...
                X