View Full Version : Team Update #20/Scoring Examples
There once was a Team Update 20 (http://www2.usfirst.org/2003comp/tmup20.pdf).
It had scoring examples a plenty.
It showed how to win,
With stacks made of bins,
That, as Starbucks might say, are quite ‘Venti’!
Team Update #20 (http://www2.usfirst.org/2003comp/tmup20.pdf) is out, and contains the post-build fabrication fules, some updates on GM31, and a number of scoring examples.
My question is about examples 3 through 7: Didn't team update #3 say that "Any container you touch that is touching any container, etc., will be worth zero points"? In these examples, they say that boxes touching a touched box are not in direct contact, and therefore do count.
Was this an oversight on FIRST's part, or was it an unannounced change in the scoring rules?
Example #3, #4, and #5 seem inconsistent with regard to how continuous chains of contacting bins are scored.
Great.
I think this makes scoring a little too subjective with regard to what 'supported by' means.
Basically, the very next container touching the red robot is the container that is nullified, whether it is a stack or not. Any connecting containers are not nullified.
Example 5 is semi-inconsistant. It basically says that if containers are on top of your robot, and they are directly touching a "stack", then that stack is nullified. I guess the containers on top of your robot count as an extension of your robot. That container in Example 5 that is sideways technically
Basic rule:
Vertically (on top of robot): Containers are an extension of your robot. They also do not count as a stack.
Horizontally (directly next to and touching robot): Only the containers directly touching your robot or an extension of your robot do not count as a stack, whether they are a stack or not. Stacks touching those containers (horizonally) are counted normally.
I like this new scoring system. It's very simplified. Also, stackers are important once again among the sea of bins! Pyramid stacks don't nullify the entire sea now.... So I guess the new strategy is to pick up bins and make one communal bonfire stack.
sanddrag
03-03-2003, 23:13
Scoring made easy huh? Well, it was really confusing to me but I thank FIRST for the attempt nonetheless. It's also good that they cleared up the fabrication issue (I think they were evesdropping on us)
Also, stackers are important once again among the sea of bins!
That sea will become much more shallow than one might expect. Fear 696...
Mark Garver
04-03-2003, 04:13
Maybe it is just me but it seems that FIRST wrote the second part wrong... The way I read it is unless you can fit under the bar, you run the risk of being DQed. I know that is not what FIRST means, however I was wondering if any one else got that impression? If they would have left it with deployed I would have fully understood, however when they said fixed, I think of a robot's overall structure and I don't think them being pushed or accidently(judges call) running into the midfield bar is grounds for being DQed. Your thoughts please!!! My main confusion is in them using the word fixed...
Just a very old song that kinda reminds me of this years over abundance of rules, penalties, and dq's. I agree with Mark that GM31 is now more confusing than it was before - it's simpler to understand "no interaction with the midfield barriers is allowed" than it is to try and include accidental, incidental or leave it to a referee to determine intent.
As for the rules on scoring - this reminds me of last years CDI where I (as the game developer) failed to realize just how complicated things can get when trying to determine, if and when a robot or game piece is touching or when is a pile considered touching, etc. There are crazy combinations that no one could have anticipated and situations that are beyond pictures. I would suggest to FIRST - the following (which I think they are trying to explain in this last round of updates); ANY BIN directly touching a robot in the scoring zone of that team, does not count. Any bin directly touching a bin that is touching a robot in their scoring zone does count - because THAT bin isn't directly touching the robot (there is something between it and the robot) Don't try and determine a combination or chain of bins touching a robot as it is very, very easy to 1) confuse the audience and more importantly 2) miss a single touching condition, especially when there is a jumbled pile (that could change the score alot) My advise - keep it as simple as possible - ANY BIN DIRECTLY TOUCHING A ROBOT IN THEIR SCORING ZONE - DOESN"T COUNT AS A BIN IN THEIR SCORE.
All these rules about human players and robots touching things, and what is legal and what isn't - is making my head hurt. I feel I'm spending more time obsessing about rules than I am trying to figure out how to play and enjoy, this years game. Just my 2cents worth -
"and the sign said, long haired freaky people need not apply - so I tucked my hair up under my hat and went in to ask them, why?"
Paul Copioli
04-03-2003, 06:55
I think they just mistyped example 5. They state that you take the total bins in the zone (including in the stack) and subtract what is in the stack to get your base score.
In every example except 5, they counted the stack when doing the math. I really think there is just an oversight. There should be no reason that the 3 for the stack doesn't count as the base score.
As to GM31. I agree with the final clarification and have been stating that was the intent of the rule from the beginning. My question is: Why couldn't they have just said that in the first place? Maybe the loopholes were not apparent. It also looks as if FIRST definitely reads this site and has targeted specific mechanisms seen on this site.
Update 20 seems to basically say, "Use the HDPE to hold ground and you're safe. Any other locking means and you are on thin ice."
We will see how this is enforced.
Mike Norton
04-03-2003, 10:09
Does anybody have the same feeling I do.
The rules state that you can now build more stuff for your robot up to the Wednesday after your competition.
So lets look at it. If you go to 3 regional you will have 14 more days to work on your robot than a team going to 1.
It is all fair the first round of regional then it stacks up against the robot that have not done any earlier regional.
I say they open this rule up. All team can work on parts to their robot. starting from the first regional.
I know it is not about being fair. But give the small team a chance.( teams that do not have a lot of money to do a lot of regionals.)
Dave Flowerday
04-03-2003, 10:17
Originally posted by Mike Norton
So lets look at it. If you go to 3 regional you will have 14 more days to work on your robot than a team going to 1.
You have to balance that against need for teams to attend to wear and tear (or more serious damage) from competing at a regional.
I say they open this rule up. All team can work on parts to their robot. starting from the first regional.
So then all you've done is tipped the scales in favor of teams that DON'T go to multiple regionals. If this were the case, what would stop a team from only signing up for the Championship (no regionals) and then getting a full 3 weeks extra to work on their robots! Since they're not competing, there's no chance that they would have to use that time to repair damage. I think that is the main reason they made this rule in the first place.
BTW, these same rules existed last year. They are not new.
Joe Matt
04-03-2003, 10:18
Seems like FIRST also ruled against 68s arms blocking the bar.
Paul Copioli
04-03-2003, 11:24
JoesephM,
Yeah, that was basically what I was getting at.
-Paul
Originally posted by Paul Copioli
As to GM31. I agree with the final clarification and have been stating that was the intent of the rule from the beginning. My question is: Why couldn't they have just said that in the first place? Maybe the loopholes were not apparent. It also looks as if FIRST definitely reads this site and has targeted specific mechanisms seen on this site.
There were no loopholes in the first place. People just don't know how to read.
GM31 already established that it is unacceptable to push against multiple barriers. It also established that the field barriers are merely a safety feature, they are not meant to be reacted upon. They chose to ignore this, now they must pay the consequences. Simple as that.
Paul Copioli
04-03-2003, 11:37
Jnadke,
I agree with you entirely. However, if they would have eliminated the extra wording regarding the "top of the barriers" it would have been stone solid.
Originally posted by Paul Copioli
Jnadke,
I agree with you entirely. However, if they would have eliminated the extra wording regarding the "top of the barriers" it would have been stone solid.
Yeah, I understand what you mean. The extra information tends to make it misleading. Mainly the extra examples are to clarify that "functional mechanisms", and not just "immobility mechanisms", also apply toward this rule.
Otherwise FIRST would get 300 e-mails from teams asking if it is okay to push against/touch the bar so their robot can flip over it. This would be morely a functional mechanism.
Originally posted by Mike Norton
Does anybody have the same feeling I do.
The rules state that you can now build more stuff for your robot up to the Wednesday after your competition.
So lets look at it. If you go to 3 regional you will have 14 more days to work on your robot than a team going to 1.
It is all fair the first round of regional then it stacks up against the robot that have not done any earlier regional.
I say they open this rule up. All team can work on parts to their robot. starting from the first regional.
I know it is not about being fair. But give the small team a chance.( teams that do not have a lot of money to do a lot of regionals.)
We're going to one regional.
While I don't enjoy the thought that teams attending 3 regionals will get triple the time to modify their bot, I also believe that given 3 additional weeks, some engineers could make their bots do almost anything! This is certainly not the solution...
We'd get to nationals, and there'd be clones of the most successful designs. Especially of the successful teams that have released information i.e. Technokats.
Frankly, even as the rule stands now, I'm scared we're going to arrive in Houston and see similar versions of our now (I believe currently) unique approach to holding the ramp. I guess that will depend on the Gracious Prof of other teams... and whether or not we suck royally at UTC... :D I guess, imitation is the highest form of flattery... :P
Also... while I know FIRST intends the rule for robot repair... There ARE teams who would take advantage of said rule (as they should!) and use it to rebuild an entire robot. I'm reminded of TRIBE in 2001 completely rebuilding thier bot in the 3 days between UTC and Nats. This is certainly allowed within the current rule, and I think anyone who believes teams wont take advantage of it, is nuts.
The more time they have, the more technically complex the robot will be.
I guess it all boils down to what Deano said during kickoff:
This game is not fair.
Those that can... can. Those that can't... well... deal with it.
Unfortunately we fall into the second category... so I guess we'll do the best we can this year, with what we have, and hopefully do well enough that next year we have more resources, and can attend 3 regionals. :(
The "small teams" need to get bigger, or do the best they can with what they have. As much as I don't like it sometimes... this competition ISNT fair, and there really isnt anyway to make it fair....
Just another rant from the Clarkson kid... sorry
throws $.02
Mike Norton
04-03-2003, 12:52
this competition ISN'T fair, and there really isn't anyway to make it fair....
I was trying to show how to make it fair.
Don't you think that teams are changing their robot during the week they have it.
I believe if everybody has the same time than that would be fair and in line with the spirit of the rules. By saying if you have money then you get to have more time with your robot that is not.
So to make it fair when the first robot is open up all teams then can start making pieces for there robot even if they do not have the robot in front of them.
If teams do make big changes they only have the regionals to touch there robot.
That would be more fair than for the team to sit there not improving there robot not like everybody else who is fixing theirs at the regionals.
Originally posted by Jnadke
There were no loopholes in the first place. People just don't know how to read.
GM31 already established that it is unacceptable to push against multiple barriers. It also established that the field barriers are merely a safety feature, they are not meant to be reacted upon. They chose to ignore this, now they must pay the consequences. Simple as that.
It's not that simple. I'm quite proficient with reading, see, as I've been doing it since before Kindergarten.
Rule GM31, as it was originally published, certainly has no loop holes. It prohibits contacting multiple surfaces with the intent of wedging your robot in place, making it immovable. It prohibits robots from supporting themselves on the top outer field barrier and on the top of midfield barrier (not a safety feature, but a field feature, in my opinion). It says, specifically, "Contact with all of the barriers is acceptable."
Saying that the "extra wording" confuses things is patently false. It changes the rule. Reading the rule would reveal that.
FIRST didn't patch loopholes with regard to this rule. They've changed it, multiple times, and without any real consistency. The wording is not misleading, however your interpretation is incorrect; at least as the rule existed at kickoff.
So, with all due respect, don't tell others they don't know how to read because you fancy yourself to be so important as to be able define what words in a rule are superfluous or poorly chosen. Those words aren't confusing, misleading, or unnecessary. They define the rule by elucidating, specifically, what it means to 'react' against the playing field.
FIRST, clearly, wasn't happy with this rule, or they themselves didn't know what it was intended to do, as it has changed many, many times. Where contacting multiple surfaces at a single time is concerned, I think it has remained clear. Where interfacing with the midfield barrier is concerned, FIRST's later use of wording like 'incidental contact' and allowing mechanisms that lower the light mechanically by hitting the barrier, while seemingly making other, similar mechanisms illegal leaves a lot to be desired.
Mark Garver
04-03-2003, 13:38
Well I think that there wasn't a meeting of the minds by many teams with regard to this rule, I do agree that I believe FIRST has changed its mind slight through the process of making update 20.
Update 20:
Teams should take careful note on this:
FIRST will enforce GM31 thoroughly. Assemblies/appendages, which straddle the midfield barrier, will be thoroughly reviewed and likely disallowed as they clearly are intended to react with the field. Robot devices which are deployed or in a fixed position in order to avoid being pushed under the midfield barrier are designed to react with the field and will likely be disallowed.
Devices, which “lock” onto the platform, ramps, carpet, etc., and are subsequently pushed by another robot so as to cause/potentially cause field damage, must then be disengaged. The potential for damage rests with the deployer of mechanisms.
I understand what FIRST is saying here, however they are saying it in a way that is open to interpretation. I don't think FIRST is being clear enough when they write these "rule changes"! What I get from this is no matter what kind of arm or device you have that leaves the original configuration of the robot, if FIRST considers it to be locking (definition left unknown), and if another robot pushing that portion into any part of the field, you can be disqualified. My question is what if you design yourself to dig into the carpet, using legal materials and methods, upon another robot running on top of you. To try and clear that up, what if you have an arm that digs into the carpet upon another robot running into you (I envision a ramp, where weight is then transferred to your arm)? Maybe dig-in is the wrong word, maybe I should use the word lock or limit the amount of movement. I don’t see why you should be DQed if you are the team that has the arm when it is the result of the other robot doing the action. No field damage is done; you simple can’t be moved easily. I argue this is not locking because they could simple left the robot straight up. I would define locking as not being able to travel in any direction without damage of any degree to the playing field.
Also when they say “cause/potential” damage what degree of potential are they meaning? I guess that is just open ended and up to the referees to decide.
I am however confused on what they mean by deployer. Please help with this? Are they meaning a device that is strong enough to destroy the field on its own? If that is the case, I have never seen a competition robot able to do this. Robots try to react with the playing field (i.e. carpet), not destroy the carpet. An example is Beatty last year, they weren’t destroying the carpet, it was the result of others spinning them.
Well the rule change has been hard to handle, something needed to be done to address issues like this. Although I still don’t believe FIRST is all that clear on this subject…
Originally posted by Mark G
My question is what if you design yourself to dig into the carpet, using legal materials and methods, upon another robot running on top of you. To try and clear that up, what if you have an arm that digs into the carpet upon another robot running into you (I envision a ramp, where weight is then transferred to your arm
edited
No field damage is done; you simple can’t be moved easily. I argue this is not locking because they could simple left the robot straight up.
more editing
I am however confused on what they mean by deployer. Please help with this? Are they meaning a device that is strong enough to destroy the field on its own? If that is the case, I have never seen a competition robot able to do this. Robots try to react with the playing field (i.e. carpet), not destroy the carpet. An example is Beatty last year, they weren’t destroying the carpet, it was the result of others spinning them.
I believe this is quite clear. If you have a robot that digs into the carpet, someone else rams into you, and this results in damage to the carpet, you (the deployer of the digging device) are at fault. In this context, if you had a robot that reacted with the playing field with an incredibly tractive device, and someone spun your robot and this destroyed the carpet, you (the deployer of the amazingly tractive device)would be at fault.
If no damage is done, then there is no issue.
Dave Flowerday
04-03-2003, 14:16
Originally posted by Mike Norton
Don't you think that teams are changing their robot during the week they have it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "changing their robot during the week they have it". Teams only have their robot for the 3 days of the event, and even then they're constrained to the hours that the pits are open. And, a good portion of those three days is spent actually competing. Why should a team who is not at a regional get all that time to make whatever they want? The teams who are at a regional have a very limited set of equipment, time, and other resources. No solution is completely fair here, but like Dean and Woodie said at the beginning of the year, this is not a fair competition and it's not meant to be. It seems to me the rules they've made are more reasonable than allowing any team to work on a robot whenever a regional is happening.
As a side note, our team is attending two regionals, so we're still losing out on time from this rule like you are, although not as badly.
That would be more fair than for the team to sit there not improving there robot not like everybody else who is fixing theirs at the regionals.
You've summed it up right here. Teams at regionals are mostly fixing their robots. Teams at home would be doing nothing but improving their robots. How is that better than the current system?
Mark Garver
04-03-2003, 14:16
Originally posted by M. Krass
Rule GM31, as it was originally published, certainly has no loop holes. It prohibits contacting multiple surfaces with the intent of wedging your robot in place, making it immovable. It prohibits robots from supporting themselves on the top outer field barrier and on the top of midfield barrier (not a safety feature, but a field feature, in my opinion). It says, specifically, "Contact with all of the barriers is acceptable."
I think you meant unacceptable, or at least that is what I am assuming based upon your arguements.
This is what GM31 initial said:
GM31 The outer field barriers are safety features of the playing field and robots should not be designed to react against them. Reacting is grabbing or using the top of the field borders, the top of the driver stations, the top of the pipes at midfield, and the top of the platform/ramp polycarbonate sides with the intent of supporting a robot or robot part. It is also unacceptable to grab onto or push hard enough against multiple surfaces simultaneously in order to wedge and make immovable a robot. Contact with all of the barriers is acceptable. Pushing a container against a barrier is acceptable if the forces applied are not sufficient to damage the barrier or otherwise deform the playing field. Minor forces associated with activating contact sensors carried by the robots or similar minimal-force contact methods to detect and locate the field barriers are permissible.
The outer field barriers: As always, FIRST uses these barriers for safty purposes and we would never have even dreamed of using them.
Reacting: When they state top, we assume they mean the highest most part of the pipe on the midfield section. Since we don't touch this part or the pipe ever (with major failure, anything is possible) we don't see how this applies to us.
Reacting against multiple surfaces: Since we are only setting on the ground surface of the playing field how are we reacting on multiple surfaces?
In update 20, they now say that we can't design robots that could damage the playing field by locking onto a portion of the playing field. (Well I hate to say it, but its alittle late to be telling people once they have shipped, :-) but since we don't lock on... )Since we don't lock on to the playing field in any manner that could be viewed as a potential destroying factor the arms which straddle the midfield section should be legal, since they don't lock on to the pipe. Yes there is a possibility that they could react with the field upon another robot pushing the arms into it, however in the orginal GM31 it didn't disallow all contact with the playing field, only the top of the midfield section (other field components are non-important in is arguement). The definition of straddle is to stand, sit, with legs wide appart. I don't see how simply straddling the midfield bar is illegal as described in GM31 initial. Also I don't believe stradding and locking are the same. Since locking is to fasten in or out or to make secure or inaccessible; I don't believe our arms attach that way to the midfield bar at all, since they don't attach at all.
Just my two cents on how GM31 goes.
Mark Garver
04-03-2003, 14:20
Originally posted by kevin_308
I believe this is quite clear. If you have a robot that digs into the carpet, someone else rams into you, and this results in damage to the carpet, you (the deployer of the digging device) are at fault. In this context, if you had a robot that reacted with the playing field with an incredibly tractive device, and someone spun your robot and this destroyed the carpet, you (the deployer of the amazingly tractive device)would be at fault.
If no damage is done, then there is no issue.
This may have been a bad example of what I was getting at. I feel that I used dig-in out of context to that in which I was meaning. I was getting at the fact that almost any robot can cause damage to the playing field if another robot can control their actions. Sorry for the miscommunication. I think I cleared things up alittle in my last post. Thanks for the agruement back...
Paul Copioli
04-03-2003, 14:24
I am assuming you mean 68's robot. I know you are somehow affiliated with them, but I am clearing it up for others. I must say it is a shame FIRST is singling out a particular robot with the new rules (as I believe they are), but if I were an engineer on your team (which I am not) I would have aggressively argued against this approach since it is in a very gray area and very risky according to the way I read the rules.
My opinion still stands that the outer wings look like they are designed to react against 2 midfield barriers when necessary and that is in violation of the rules.
Sorry, but I have to call them like I see them.
Respectfully,
Paul
Mark Garver
04-03-2003, 14:39
Originally posted by Paul Copioli
I am assuming you mean 68's robot. I know you are somehow affiliated with them, but I am clearing it up for others. I must say it is a shame FIRST is singling out a particular robot with the new rules (as I believe they are), but if I were an engineer on your team (which I am not) I would have aggressively argued against this approach since it is in a very gray area and very risky according to the way I read the rules.
My opinion still stands that the outer wings look like they are designed to react against 2 midfield barriers when necessary and that is in violation of the rules.
Sorry, but I have to call them like I see them.
Respectfully,
Paul
Thank you Paul, I know that many of my fellow team mates are feeling the same way about the way FIRST went about this rule change. I am glad that other teams out there see/feel how we feel currently. If you read in my second to last reply, I think I spell out the way that we view the rules. There was no gray area for us. I am still having a hard time with how everyone didn't read the rules the same was I discribed, however I know enough to understand that everyone is different.
I am glad you worded your reply the way you did. As of now you think that based upon pictures posted (which could be misleading), we would call us for being in voliation of the rules. However I also believe that by the way I read your post, you would be willing to give us a shoot to prove what we really do before you cut us down. I thank you for this!! I just wish others would have.
Sorry for not stated team 68's robot. This is my affiliation with team 68: member for 4 year and then graduated high school and became an advisor. Went off to college with other people from big name FIRST teams and start team 857 which I mentor when I am at school along with team 68 from a distance. My mother is an advisor and my brother is the team student captain along with the being the driver. These were my function roles before graduating. My cousin is also on the team and my entire family is very involved in the team and trying to make it a sucess. Hope this answers your questions. O I am also on the strategy team for team 68. :-)
I think we're all missing something here, or at least it hasn't been said. FIRST is trying very hard to keep consistency between all the regionals this year, a task that is not easy to do.
They have come right out and said, any such device will be thoroughly evaluated, and possibly DQ'd.
68 - If you feel your device is perfectly legal, then don't worry about it. However... since many within the FIRST communitty do not make the same distinctions you have concerning the legality of your device, perhaps the referee's and inspectors will be the same way.
This ruling seems almost like a warning shot, from FIRST directed at team 68, and all others like 68 (I haven't seen any).
FIRST is saying (in my interpretation)... we don't like what your doing. If we look at it closer, and still don't like it, be prepared for the DQ. They are trying to clarify this ASAP because they want the ruling to be consistent across the nation. It is unfortunate that such a ruling was necessary, but not completely uncalled for.
The very fact that there IS such debate in these forums about 68's mechanism, almost calls for such a ruling from FIRST.
They NEEDED to speak out publicly, openly, and ASAP to make sure everyone understands (including the inspectors and refs) what the "official" ruling should be.
Consistency is getting harder and harder. FIRST is doing it's best to eliminate all "tether-like" issues this year, before they become a problem.
68 - I like your mechanism. However, I too question it's legality. I almost wish FIRST had been more specific in their ruling, as there is still debate. Their intent seems relatively clear to me, however maybe it is not as cut and dry as I think.
If it is true that you have other modular modes, perhaps you should strongly consider using those? I know 229, and 45, (other ramp dominators) also have fall-back modules...
Another thing that needs to be said...
This ruling is NOT just for team 68. It seems like it could be aimed directly at them, because they are the most vocal team that could have this problem.
This rule is aimed at ANYONE that could potentially have the same problem. I applaud FIRST for trying to nip this in the bud early on.
Again... this is my opinion...
$.02 more... take it as you will
Mark Garver
04-03-2003, 14:58
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JVN
68 - If you feel your device is perfectly legal, then don't worry about it. However... since many within the FIRST communitty do not make the same distinctions you have concerning the legality of your device, perhaps the referee's and inspectors will be the same way.
FIRST is saying (in my interpretation)... we don't like what your doing. [b]If we look at it closer, and still don't like it, be prepared for the DQ. They are trying to clarify this ASAP because they want the ruling to be consistent across the nation. It is unfortunate that such a ruling was necessary, but not completely uncalled for.
[QUOTE]
I can not comment on what are actions will be at the FIRST competition regarding this issue. Time will tell, but it will be a fun competition none the less.
That is an interesting way to look at it... The way that I feel is that they are saying basically you are illegal as we are seeing your design and what we think you are going after with a design like this. I agree that FIRST needed to do this, consistency is needed in order to make this a success. The way I had viewed the new ruling is that FIRST didn't want to totally back themselves in a corner by using the word straddle. What I mean is if a robot walks over the bar it could be considered straddling and they don't want to through all possibilities out. Since I haven't seen any one else even talking about a design like this, it is hard to not take this rule change to heart as being directed towards Team 68.
Originally posted by Mark G
I think you meant unacceptable, or at least that is what I am assuming based upon your arguements.
No, I meant 'acceptable.' I was, after all, quoting the same rule you quoted. The rule, as written at kickoff, had no loopholes. It was well written and explicit about what constituted reacting against the playing field, as well as the illegality of reacting with multiple surfaces with the intent of making your robot immovable.
With that said, I wasn't even referring to 68, specifically, when I wrote my post. I think that the rules, as they affect 68's design are clear and have not changed. I'll address that.
Reacting: When they state top, we assume they mean the highest most part of the pipe on the midfield section. Since we don't touch this part or the pipe ever (with major failure, anything is possible) we don't see how this applies to us.
Agreed. You would not be in violation of any rule prohibiting reacting with the midfield barrier.
Reacting against multiple surfaces: Since we are only setting on the ground surface of the playing field how are we reacting on multiple surfaces?
Here is where I can see that 68 will run into a problem. In two instances, they are contacting two surfaces. As deployed, and as you mention, the robot contacts both the HDPE on the ramp's top and the carpet. This may constitute two surfaces by FIRST's definition. ...unless, of course, your drivetrain lifts itself off the HDPE by use of those long arms.
Of more concern, however, is how 68's robot design relates to its interaction with the midfield barrier. Though you may not touch them at first, it's entirely evident that you don't support the weight of your robot on the top of that barrier, I would be suspicious of the intent of this design.
To me, it's clear that the robot is designed to use, if necessary, the midfield barrier as a load bearing surface. This is clearly illegal, though not because of the first parts of GM31. Instead, I see that this design runs a risk of using multiple surfaces to make itself immovable, and is illegal as per the latter half of GM31. FIRST's note in Update #20 is a shot across the bow, warning that such a strategy is not acceptable.
If there is any doubt, there have been several posts on the official message boards that clarify the intended purpose of the midfield barrier, as well as acceptable interactions. Admittedly, they're not clear in all cases, but I do believe they are very clear where 68's design is concerned.
http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp?forum=2&thread=1177&message=2890&q=6d69646669656c642062617272696572#2890
-"ny intentional hard contact with the midfield barrier is prohibited. The midfield bar was not intended to support or furnish a reaction surface for the robots."
http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp?forum=2&thread=1073&message=2540&q=6d69646669656c642062617272696572#2540
-"You may not react off the bar. This means that you may not purposely push off it to gain an advantage."
In update 20, they now say that we can't design robots that could damage the playing field by locking onto a portion of the playing field. (Well I hate to say it, but its alittle late to be telling people once they have shipped, :-) but since we don't lock on... )
While you don't lock on, the preceding paragraph in Update #20 clearly says that mechanisms that straddle the midfield barrier will likely be disqualified.
This season, the original wording of the rules is often irrelevant as they have been revised, time and time again, via the message boards and Updates. This ruling, in my mind, has been clear since well before shipping.
Mark Garver
04-03-2003, 15:26
Originally posted by M. Krass
No, I meant 'acceptable.' I was, after all, quoting the same rule you quoted. The rule, as written at kickoff, had no loopholes. It was well written and explicit about what constituted reacting against the playing field, as well as the illegality of reacting with multiple surfaces with the intent of making your robot immovable.
With that said, I wasn't even referring to 68, specifically, when I wrote my post. I think that the rules, as they affect 68's design are clear and have not changed. I'll address that.
Agreed. You would not be in violation of any rule prohibiting reacting with the midfield barrier.
Here is where I can see that 68 will run into a problem. In two instances, they are contacting two surfaces. As deployed, and as you mention, the robot contacts both the HDPE on the ramp's top and the carpet. This may constitute two surfaces by FIRST's definition. ...unless, of course, your drivetrain lifts itself off the HDPE by use of those long arms.
Of more concern, however, is how 68's robot design relates to its interaction with the midfield barrier. Though you may not touch them at first, it's entirely evident that you don't support the weight of your robot on the top of that barrier, I would be suspicious of the intent of this design.
To me, it's clear that the robot is designed to use, if necessary, the midfield barrier as a load bearing surface. This is clearly illegal, though not because of the first parts of GM31. Instead, I see that this design runs a risk of using multiple surfaces to make itself immovable, and is illegal as per the latter half of GM31. FIRST's note in Update #20 is a shot across the bow, warning that such a strategy is not acceptable.
If there is any doubt, there have been several posts on the official message boards that clarify the intended purpose of the midfield barrier, as well as acceptable interactions. Admittedly, they're not clear in all cases, but I do believe they are very clear where 68's design is concerned.
http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp?forum=2&thread=1177&message=2890&q=6d69646669656c642062617272696572#2890
-"ny intentional hard contact with the midfield barrier is prohibited. The midfield bar was not intended to support or furnish a reaction surface for the robots."
http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp?forum=2&thread=1073&message=2540&q=6d69646669656c642062617272696572#2540
-"You may not react off the bar. This means that you may not purposely push off it to gain an advantage."
While you don't lock on, the preceding paragraph in Update #20 clearly says that mechanisms that straddle the midfield barrier will likely be disqualified.
This season, the original wording of the rules is often irrelevant as they have been revised, time and time again, via the message boards and Updates. This ruling, in my mind, has been clear since well before shipping.
I agree with almost your entire post. I am glad you added the two links in there. I hadn't been able to find them earilier today.
The first one however I think can be thrown out, since we never intend for the barrier to support our weight. It isn't what the barrier was designed for and we understand the rules about it.
The second one however is pretty much an open and shut case too, with the exception that we don't plan to react off the barrier. It would still be the result of another robot. No matter what time, will tell on this issue.
I agree with you on the straddling statement and that all previous statements from FIRST mean nothing as the rules change time and time again. Again I think the reason they said often times is that there are robots that claim over the barrier, which kind of straddles it in the process. My only concern when they stated straddle is, think of how easy it is to make something that doesn't straddle, but the net results are the same. They no longer can DQ you for straddling, and they can't DQ you for locking, then it comes back to a ruling on whether it is your fault or their fault of your devices is pushing into the barrier.
I don't think they have fully answered all concerns about what can and can't be done. I think it will take time and actual competitions to determine that.
Thanks again for your feedback and the exact statings of the FIRST forum. Sorry about misunderstanding and the assuming in your last post. Mark
MikeDubreuil
04-03-2003, 15:33
Let's say team 68 is allowed to play the way their robot is. They also function exactly as they are telling us.
THEY ARE UNSTOPABLE! Truck Town would be able to stop all travel on the field. Stackers who could previously go under the bar now can't. Ramp dominators can't budge them. The match is at a stand still 20 seconds into the game. This would make for a pretty boring game. (I know they can't stop catapulters, but I think we will only see a handful)
The fact that this type of lock-down robot can make the game so boring is just cause for making it illegal. FIRST wants this years game to be the most exciting yet. The purpose of this robot is to essentially stop the clock.
This ruling singles out Team 68 only because they have been the only ones to publicly display this type of lock-down robot. Other teams might have the same design in hiding. Or maybe ramp dominators have been designing the bar attachments since ship. FIRST wants the lock-down robot phenom to stop before it starts.
Mark Garver
04-03-2003, 15:48
Originally posted by MikeDubreuil
Let's say team 68 is allowed to play the way their robot is. They also function exactly as they are telling us.
THEY ARE UNSTOPABLE! Truck Town would be able to stop all travel on the field. Stackers who could previously go under the bar now can't. Ramp dominators can't budge them. The match is at a stand still 20 seconds into the game. This would make for a pretty boring game. (I know they can't stop catapulters, but I think we will only see a handful)
The fact that this type of lock-down robot can make the game so boring is just cause for making it illegal. FIRST wants this years game to be the most exciting yet. The purpose of this robot is to essentially stop the clock.
This ruling singles out Team 68 only because they have been the only ones to publicly display this type of lock-down robot. Other teams might have the same design in hiding. Or maybe ramp dominators have been designing the bar attachments since ship. FIRST wants the lock-down robot phenom to stop before it starts.
Mike, although I would like to think you are right :-) I must disagree. There is a way or two to bet Truck without even having to worry about their placement and wings. There is then almost an unlimited number of ways to bet us if you are able to move us, break traction, or to get around our arms. I agree completely with the reason why FIRST is wanting to make rules like this. Its to make the game faster and to attrack more people.
I just had to say thanks for the great review, however I think that you will find, that there are many ways to bet it, even by allowing it to compete.
Matt Reiland
04-03-2003, 16:11
I think the worst part about this whole deal for Truck Town is that in my head you are going to get penalized for showing off your design before the first regional. I would think that if you stayed stealth and never showed it off, the people that were so excited about it, saying it was blatantly illegal and unstoppable, wouldn't have even thought about it. This year after the first regional we may have heard through the grapevine that Truck Town has the most incredible unstoppable robot just like 71 last year. But hey 71 could be beat last year with the right match up. If Beaty last year told everyone in week 5 how they were going to use file cards 2 feet long and people started saying boy we can't even compete with that, FIRST it might/will ruin the carpet for sure with metal fingers sunk into the carpet, the same thing MIGHT have happened last year. Notice how Beaty comes up with out of the box strategies (Like 68 this year) but we don't see the preview that could come back to haunt them. Maybe that is a better strategy than we all think:rolleyes:
I for one am very impressed with your bot, I know if we had to go against it we would give you everything we got, if that's not enough, you deserve to win with the better bot and strategy.
I also agree that the idea of straddling the bar is not in the black & white area and depends on how you interpret the rules. Sadly though I hate to see this kind of rule clarification after the ship period, after I was so fed up on the tethers from last year.
It's obvious that the GM31 update was written with Team 68's design in mind. I'm glad FIRST made a ruling before the first regional was played. I don't like the new wording of the ruling. Mainly this part...
[[Robot devices which are deployed or in a fixed position in order to avoid being pushed under the midfield barrier are designed to react with the field and will likely be disallowed.]]
I just think that adds more confusion to the issue. Many robots have arms that deploy and are meant to stack boxes or load catapults. These arms could also react with the midfield barrier to prevent the robot from being pushed. This could happen on accident or it could be intentionally done. During the middle of a match, it isn't going to be easy to determine if a robot intentionally or unintentionally uses its stacker arms to brace itself.
Though Update 20 clarifies GM31 in the case of Team 68, it only adds more confusion to the issue.
No robot is unstoppable. But some are harder to deal with than others. We have developed a strategy to deal with 68 or other similar robots and get our robot onto our side of the field so that maybe we can score some points.
Will it work? only time will tell. Whether it works or not, it WILL be very hard on all of the robots involved, maybe the field too. Any team in a match with any robot that can completely block the field is in a fight for their competitive life. They will take all means possible to prevent full deployment. If they are smart enough with how they do so, they certainly could damage their opponent. This may result in damage to the field in the process.
Suppose our original strategy fails and our robot and it's partner are trapped on the far side of the field where we are unable to score any points. What do we do then? Curl up in a corner and wait for time to run out? Not hardly.
In our case. the only option is to go down to minimum height and keep slamming against the robot blocking our way under the bar. If our partner is capable of going under the bar, then they will probably be right there working with us.
Now unfortunately, the field gets broken. The bar was never intended to stand up to two robots charging it repeatedly at full tilt.
We didn't break the bar, we never touched it. We slammed into another robot in an attempt to accomplish a legitimate game objective, namely cross to the other side of the field and score points. You could say it was our fault, because we repeatedly slammed into our opponent. But there is also a rule against designing your robot to use the field for support. Which the blocking robot obviously was. Therefore since our slamming was intended to accomplish a legitimate game objectiveand therefore legal, and the other robot was breaking a rule, using the field for reaction force, they must be at fault.
FIRST's primary objective in the design of the field elements is safety for human beings. The second is to have it around for the next round. Any robot that interacts with the bar much more than incidental contact is definitely in conflict with the second objective.
68 and any other teams that built similar robiots took a technical risk. One of the posts at the time 68 published the first photos of their robot said they realized that their design was controversial and that they were knowingly taking that risk. It sounds as if they lost, Oh Well.
Some of us built Stackers or King of the Hill robots, six weeks from now we might be kicking ourselves too. That is the nature of the game.
The company I work for plays a similar game continually. Sometimes we lose, and it hurts, big time. It's not easy to watch five or six years of sweat go to waste in the few seconds it takes to announce the contract winner, not to mention hundreds of millions in development money.
Other times we win and that makes the defeats worthwhile, because they are never a total loss, you always learn something...
if you're paying attention.
sanddrag
04-03-2003, 19:11
in a fixed position in order to avoid being pushed under the midfield barrier are designed to react with the field and will likely be disallowedI personally hate the wording of this. How about a robot more than 14 inches tall gets pushed up against the midfield barrier. Their tall frame is a device in a fixed position right? What then, are they DQ'ed?
Also, let's not forget the event where a robot puts boxes in front of the barrier to keep an opponent from going through. Then the opponent (say 13 inches tall) slams into these boxes and they push against the bar.
This rule is trying to stop half the things that will be going on in the game.
DougHogg
04-03-2003, 20:46
In other sports, officials have years to iron out the gray areas and loopholes as they crop up. Because we have a new contest each year in FIRST, that isn't possible. And so FIRST officials have a tough job.
It certainly isn't clear to me that a robot straddling a bar has been designed to react against the bar. It would depend on one's definition of reacting against. Does it mean actively pushing on the bar, or does it include being pushed against the bar.
I feel for the FIRST officials who had a game in mind, and are trying to preserve it. I also feel for Team 68 who thought outside of the box. Your robot design is an inspiration to us all, because you had the spirit to leap beyond the barriers which were meant to contain us.
Given the nature of FIRST, and the fact that we have a lot of intelligent people involved who will think outside of the box, I am afraid a certain amount of this kind of controversy goes with the territory.
However, one thing that we can perhaps do in the future is have a glossary of the important terms in key rules (such as "reacting against"), which might make things a little more certain. After all, a lot of words in our language have more than one meaning. It would be good to spell out which meaning is meant.
In this case, I think that Team 68 got further out of the box than the creators of the game and I think that it took us all aback somewhat. It certainly surprised me. Congratulations to your team on creative thinking that pushed the limits. Congratulations to FIRST also for handling a very difficult area. May we all do better at it in the future.
Good luck 68. Your team has the heart of lion. Look forward to meeting you in Phoenix.
I think that the "rule change" to GM31 isn't a change as many people are saying. I think it is a clarification. All it did was explain more clearly the intent of GM31.
It is almost the opposite of what they did last year when they allowed measuring tapes.
Regarding 68: Although I feel the "change" was merely a clarification that was needed, due to the poor quality of the original rule phrasing I feel that all teams that are now in obvious violation of rule GM31 should be given extra time to change their robot. However, how/when/where they would modify them would be a big problem to overcome.
Jeff Waegelin
05-03-2003, 11:28
Originally posted by Gope
I think that the "rule change" to GM31 isn't a change as many people are saying. I think it is a clarification. All it did was explain more clearly the intent of GM31.
I definitely agree. All of this was mentioned before, it's just being clarified now. I've had some doubts in many of these areas before, and now those areas are a bit more clearly defined.
Vincent Chan
05-03-2003, 21:59
I think it's apparent what the whole 'reacting against' deal is supposed to mean:
If you are using something designed to stop another bot from getting under the bar that comes in contact with it to do so, it is disallowed. Sure, you can say, 'well what about the frame of a robot?' Use common sense: how would you rule? If a bot is pushing against another bot that is too tall to pass under, it's just an inadvertant design flaw (or maybe it was meant to do that... but it just causes the bot to get stuck in midfield). I think they will rule on the intent of the design.
And as far as the entire build thing goes... wouldn't it just be more fair to stop all building the Wednesday before the first set of regionals and then allow the teams to build from Thursday of their regional through the next Wednesday?
It would've been nice if they had specified post-ship build rules earlier on.
Originally posted by Vincent Chan
I think it's apparent what the whole 'reacting against' deal is supposed to mean:
If you are using something designed to stop another bot from getting under the bar that comes in contact with it to do so, it is disallowed. Sure, you can say, 'well what about the frame of a robot?' Use common sense: how would you rule? If a bot is pushing against another bot that is too tall to pass under, it's just an inadvertant design flaw (or maybe it was meant to do that... but it just causes the bot to get stuck in midfield). I think they will rule on the intent of the design.
What about robots that have arms? When the arm is raised, it can't be pushed under the bar. The arms, however, were designed with other functions in mind such as loading boxes or stacking them. Does such a robot get DQ'ed if it's arm is deployed and happens to prevent it from being pushed under the bar? It's not all just "common sense" the way Update 20 was worded.
Vincent Chan
05-03-2003, 22:18
Originally posted by Rook
What about robots that have arms? When the arm is raised, it can't be pushed under the bar. The arms, however, were designed with other functions in mind such as loading boxes or stacking them. Does such a robot get DQ'ed if it's arm is deployed and happens to prevent it from being pushed under the bar? It's not all just "common sense" the way Update 20 was worded.
So take a look at it: did they come up and deploy arms in order to block? Could they have lowered their arms to get out of the way or effectively push back? Were the arms utilized in multiple instances in order to block by using them as a support with the bar?
And besides: if such a design was used, with the most common blocking ability of arms in mind, it would just put the two bots at a stalemate. One is stuck between the bar and the other bot, and the other bot is incessantly and needlessly trying to push the other one out of the way. Doesn't sound very useful to me, personally...
Mark Garver
05-03-2003, 23:07
Originally posted by Rook
What about robots that have arms? When the arm is raised, it can't be pushed under the bar. The arms, however, were designed with other functions in mind such as loading boxes or stacking them. Does such a robot get DQ'ed if it's arm is deployed and happens to prevent it from being pushed under the bar? It's not all just "common sense" the way Update 20 was worded.
I agree completely with what you are saying!! I know my other team 857 has the ability to do just that. Now we could lower it and be allowed to be pushed throw, however our arm any allows it to go one way. Being pushed in the other direction would do no good and break our robot.
All this talk about robots trying to prevent themselves from being pushed under the bar makes me think that there is some great advantage that I haven't thought about... Any help here? All you would be doing is stopping other limbo bots, however why do you ever need to stop robots? I thought the game was about bins? Maybe I misread the rules about the purpose of the game; again!! according to some...
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.