Fit to be Tethered: New Rule

[FRCOps]

aka: The Trouble with Tethers, or Rules of Entanglement

Starting with the answer to the question:
Yes, the rules on tethers have been loosened. And, we apologize. Why? We had to. Please read on.

Is this unfair to teams that correctly and strictly interpreted our rules updates as posted during the season? Probably. We know it, and please believe that we don't feel great about the way it went down. We're sorry.

Now, the details. We loosened up on the tethering rules, as a result of VCU. Want to know why? We asked a certain Pappalardo Professor of Engineering at MIT for his guidance. Maybe you’ve heard of him - Dr. Woodie Flowers. Dr. Flowers' comments to us at VCU were basically that if the teams have put time and effort into engineering a tether or tethered device, let them demonstrate it. We also thought back to the kickoff and Dean's approval of being able to be in 2 places at once.

So what the rule has become is that unless it's a piece of string or flimsy unprotected wire, it can be deployed. With Woodie's estimable guidance in place, the situation changed. (Please, don’t contact him.)

As a result, we are allowing the less egregious tethers to be used, because that is what we must do. It is unfair to the teams that avoided them expecting a strict rule interpretation up until now. But it is clearly worse to allow the current angst over this issue to continue.

Know that below the noise level here, we really are disallowing some mechanisms that clearly would cause entanglement. Also, the lack of resolution on the webcasts -for the 99% of you without a dedicated 1GB/second web server available - makes some decent tether designs appear as loose wire, when in fact they are protected, encased, hinged units.

That's a wrap. Sorry about the change in direction. Those team members that are extremely angry about this: please believe that the 15 people who make all of this happen are not trying to make everyone's lives miserable; we are as committed as you are to an excellent FIRST, and we want everyone's experience to be as positive as possible.

[Joe Matt]

Thanks, we were once DQ'ed for one of the goals being pushed on top of our teather durring a mis-fire.

[bigqueue]

Too bad you pull something like this. We totally disregarded tethering because of the tough interpretation of the rules being published. Now, they are loosened when it is to late to do anything about it.

When I saw a couple of the regionals, I was shocked to see so many tethered devices....all seemed to have some potential for "entaglement"...at least as it was defined in some of the rules clarification.

The rules clarification are supposed to put more clarity and focus on the rules, not "throw people off the scent".

Too late to worry about it now....but this really needs to be handled better in the coming years. (ditto for the clarifications around how to grab the goal and what you can and can-not react against)
:confused:

[srawls]

Thank you! I know a lot of people may be upset, but I'm happy that a ruling has come out that will be consistent from regional to regional. I think it was a tough decision you guys had to make, and I commend you for it. Sure, it may be unfair to some teams (including ours), but that's life. Let's play the game, and have fun.

Stephen

[VampyrNoireGoth]

Well said my brotha :cool: Outstandin display of gracious professionalism right there people.....listen to the man. Anyways.....I do agree that all we can do is move on and forget about it. Life isn't always fair and....well....on the bright side.....our team was originally going to have a tether then decided against it..and it ended up we didn't have room within the weight restriction for it anways. Our team hasn't been to regionals yet......i can't wait until next week :D I'm SO excited. Well, thats all i have to say, Vampyr out.

[Matt Leese]

While I dislike this decision, it's not because it's unfair. Unfortunately, FIRST is backing down in this case. This seems, to me at least, to set a rather bad precident. Given this year's experience, if there's a rule that teams (and not all, just a significant majority) just don't like, they will think that they can simply ignore it and FIRST will eventually change it. And I'm afraid at this point that FIRST will change it. Inconistensies in rulings are something that's not new, FIRST backing down is.

Matt

[Matt Reiland]

Can First now post on the way they will rule with interaction with all of these send home devices. We still don't have the weight to go and add one of these devices but we want to know what the refs will be instructed to do when teams start interacting with them.

[Gary Dillard]

The post from FIRST (both here and on Yahoo) only addresses the point that tethers are not considered an entanglement issue; I believe they previously ruled that if a goal were pushed over a tether then the tethered robot would be DQ'd as a violation of the "no part of the robot under the platform" rule. I assume this hasn't changed, or are we just going to throw out ALL the rules?

BTW, next year if we spend "time and effort into engineering" a kill-saw in clear violation of the rules, will we be allowed to demonstrate it? Sorry FIRST, (and Woody) - you blew it on this one.

[Matt Reiland]

BTW, next year if we spend "time and effort into engineering" a kill-saw in clear violation of the rules, will we be allowed to demonstrate it? Sorry FIRST, (and Woody) - you blew it on this one.

Hey if you guys are building one then we are too:D

[Curt Henderson]

So what was just stated by First allows those teams with questionable Home devices to go from the Gray area in which they were playing in to become White which many of us started in!

I think this change in the rules penalizes all the teams that TRULY stayed within the rules, both written and verbalized by First. Our team allocated 22Lbs of the 130Lb limit to be sure we were clearly within the rules and all interpretations of them. Now we are competing with teams that used less than half that weight and intentionally chose to play in the Gray area by not being fully compliant to the rules.

So much for Gracious Professionalism!

[natalie]

Hi Matt and all the other teams coming to the West Michigan Regional this week. No, I am not Natalie,but Natalie graciously allowed me to respond to this very controversial issue through her user name. I will be the Head Referee at the West Michigan Regional this week and I would like to take this time to inform all the teams coming to the WMR how our Ref team will be intepreting the rule of interaction of robots with tethered send home devices. First, the Head Refs have had two teleconferences about reffing this year. Carpet damage and entanglement have been the two most discussed areas of concern. We update after every regional and try to tweek the process to improve the consistancy in the calls. We have been very concerned with making our decisions consistant from regional to regional. BUT, we are human and mistakes are made and, I know, some of them hurt bad. Believe me, Refs also agonize over missed/bad calls but the game goes on. I can tell you that we try our absolute best to make what we feel is the right call at the moment. I know every Ref at the WMR has a passion for this program, and wants to see every team succeed. I believe every Ref crew in every Regional feels the same way. Got off on a tangent here. I'll get off my soapbox and get back to the point. The interaction between robots and send home devices will be treated the same as the interaction between robots. After all, the device is just an extension of the robot. This means that a team is allowed to block, push, pull, and this year FIRST is allowing robots to lift another robot and carry them to their own scoring zone if they so desire. But, remember, that if you decide to lift another robot/send home device that your team has taken on a special duty of care for that robot that you are carrying. It will be a ref's call if there is damage to the robot on whether they feel the damage was intentional/malicious or a weak robot design (grey area-tough call). Generally, with this type of call, the refs will get together and discuss the situation and make a call based on the conference. Anyway, the tethered mini-bots will be considered an extension of the robot and will be treated under the same rules as the robot. I hope that this explanation of the rules interpretation helps and doesn't just add more confusion to this controversial area. If you have any further questions pertaining to this issue or any other rules interpretation, do not hesitate to contact me, Larry Lowell, at the regional this week and I will be glad to answer your questions. I will be at the event all day Thursday helping with inspections, so look me up if you have any questions/issues. Good Luck to all and I look forward to seeing the action at the West Michigan Regional. I'd like to add, as a spectator at the Motorolla Midwest Regional last week, some of the most exciting parts of the match were when the minibots and tongues were trying to get to the end zones to score 10 points!!

[Amy Beth]

Originally posted by FRCOps
aka: The Trouble with Tethers, or Rules of Entanglement Also, the lack of resolution on the webcasts -for the 99% of you without a dedicated 1GB/second web server available - makes some decent tether designs appear as loose wire, when in fact they are protected, encased, hinged units.

Maybe not all tethers that appear to be loose wire are, but i saw several "mouse bots" at the San Jose regional that clearly were attached by nothing but an extension cord-like wire. And never once were they called for it.

~~~
Trying really hard not to be bitter over this

[srawls]

attached by nothing but an extension cord-like wire
You think that's bad? One 'bot in Philly had a metal ball attached by fishing wire! This 'bot wasn't dqed in Philly (I don't know if it ever used the extension), but by these new rules it would be. So, at least take satisfaction that the tethers that are blatently illegal will be dqed.
Stephen

[Matt Reiland]

THank You Larry for reply, this has been a sore issue with our team and I think a bunch of others also. The more things that can be defined the better.

Matt

[Chris]

I agree with everyone else that My team didn't put a tether on our bot out of fear of being DQ'ed. However through some miracle of the robot gods we ended up 7 pounds underweight. So if you are going to UTC swing by out pit and see what we are cooking up. We think we can rig up a mouse bot using spare pieces from our transmission, kit parts ,and a little creativity. All built there of course to be legal. Either way UTC is shaping up to be the hardest competition yet. So hopefully we can get our mouse working. Either way i think its time to let this issue go and just relax and have some fun.

Chris
Team 151 The wildcards
Nashua High/BAE Systems

[Amy Beth]

Originally posted by Chris
So hopefully we can get our mouse working. Either way i think its time to let this issue go and just relax and have some fun.

Well said Chris. Good luck

[ErikJusten]

Perhaps as disturbing this teather ruling was (and believe me, I was upset), I was even more upset at the "extending under the goal rule". In Cleveland I saw a match where a team moved a goal over top of a tongue type extension. They were screaming for a DQ (which, if you strictly interpret the rules, they were right). The judges called it a non-DQ, saying that the mechanism was not deployed under the goal. That makes sense, and maybe that was how FIRST intented the rule (despite multiple clarifications on the yahoo groups that something as small as a piece of string under the goal would be a DQ).

Then, in Chicago this past weekend, at the drivers' meeting on Thursday we were told that as long as something was not deployed under the goal, it would not be given a DQ. This makes sense to me, as they are trying to be consistent with prior regionals. So good so far.

Then, in a match on Saturday morning, our team was DQ'd for being under the goal. What was under the goal? Our whole robot. Another team had managed to push the goal up on top of our chassis so that our drive wheels (6" dia) were under the goal. Now tell me - how was our chassis deployed under the goal? I'm really interested to hear the logic behind that one. Sure, right after the match we put a bar higher up on the chassis so that would happen again, but I still can't believe someone can claim that we deployed our robot under the goal.

This was very upsetting to me, and summed up a large part of the competition season for me. I don't really care one way or the other if tethers should be allowed, or what "under the goal" means. But what I do care about is that the rules be consistedly called, and that rulings aren't changed at competition.

I understand Woody's point - sure, those teams put a lot of time and effort into a mechanism, even if it wasn't legal. But if I was a government contractor, and the Air Force says to me "hey Erik, build me a bomber", and I build a really cool fighter instead, does that mean I get the contract, or should be allowed to compete against the other bomber teams, just because I spent a lot of time on it? What about a team that shows up and weighs 150lbs? That's against the rules, but they spent a lot of time on it, so should they be allowed to compete too? Selective rule enforcement is very poor planning. For a while on Saturday I was seriously considering (and I know a few other teams were as well) leaving FIRST and starting a battlebot team (with the students still, of course). At least there I know what the rules are, and that they won't change.

Like I said - I actually sort of agree with the way the rules are being called now. But.....that's not the way my rulebook read in January, and it isn't fair to up and change the rules midway through the competition.

This was a very sore point for quite a few teams in Chicago this weekend, and was a major downer on what would have otherwise been a great weekend.

[Matt Reiland]

I think you have many, many people in agreement with you Erik (and just as ticked off too) .

As for rules, the auto industry is the same, we can't design an assembly line for unibody small cars to build body on frame big trucks no matter how much time we spend on it or how cool it looks and works. I hope we all learn from these mistakes and as far as I am concerned write this year off. Next year I want Black and White rules not the huge gray area of this year. Instead of tha yahoo board why not a forum here with the restriction that only FRCOps can respond to posts it beats looking in two places. Hopefully next year the game will allow for the same robots that are great throughtout qualifying to also be great in the finals, that will end the other controversy over QP's. Don't get me wrong on that comment though there are some unbelievable robots out there with serious power and excellent designs. In my opinion though a robot that is designed to seed high will have compromises (unless you had the time to have a bunch of interchangable parts) for the finals. By this I mean that to have a ball grabber/harvester you took away some of the weight and motors you could have used for more power or traction and while you would have done worse in qualifying you would do better in the finals which is where all the glory is when the dust settles. And even though it is not supposed to be about winning it sure looks like teams have a bunch more fun getting trophies than packing up early in the pits (Trust me I have been on both sides)
I am looking forward to this weekend for our second reigonal to see how it goes and if any of our little tweaks work as expected.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally posted by Matt Reiland
As for rules, the auto industry is the same, we can't design an assembly line for unibody small cars to build body on frame big trucks no matter how much time we spend on it or how cool it looks and works.

The situation you've described is not analagous to this one at all. A more accurate analog to your described situation would be if someone designed a robot to compete in last year's game and entered it in this year's competition.

FIRST presented a game this year where scoring devices like mice and tounges and extenders were to be expected. During kickoff, the most asked questions were concerning long robots that can be in two places at once. Three out of every four questions to the yahoo boards were about long robots. If they really wanted to prohibit tethers, and didn't think of it before the season, they had plenty of time to say something specific, like: "All non-rigid attachments more than X inches long are illegal"

They chose not to. Instead, they said:

M16. Referees may disallow mechanisms that present a risk of entanglement.

-and-

DQ3. Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed.

In fact, when the FRCTechs did issue a ruling saying that all tethers are illegal, they retracted it a few hours later.

That says to me, "Design a tether that won't entangle, and you'll be fine."

And I was right. And the ruling was right, because it makes for a more interesting game. A 20% successful extender is much less a factor in a game than a 90% successful mouse bot.

In my opinion, those that couldn't fathom a non-entangling tether during the build season are having trouble seeing them now, even when shown numerous (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pictures.php?s=&action=single&picid=2249&direction=ASC&sort=title&perrow=6&trows=10) examples (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pictures.php?s=&action=single&picid=2226&direction=ASC&sort=title&perrow=6&trows=10) of them.

As far as the whole tape measure thing goes, I agree with you - tape measures were specifically disallowed - get them off the robots. But give the tethers a rest. You won't get entangled in a well-made tether (which includes all of them I've seen), and the game's designers obviously expected to see them.

And as for this comment:

... write this year off.

What do you mean by that? This year has been great. In both the design challenges in the build phase and the quality of the competition, it has far surpassed last year (my first). And we haven't even had nationals yet!

[Matt Reiland]

I don't mean write the year off as nothing was accomplished, and that we aren't having a great time, because we are having quite a bit of fun, this is the first time the robot hasn't broke at a reigonal (I think they need to drive it harder). I meant writing this year off as far as the rulings and any more rule changes. This year we tried building the robot different than past years: ahead of schedule. The last two years we literally shipped the robot broken and incomplete in week 6. This year we were essentially done by week 3 fully driving and having much more fun. To accomplish this we had to go by the rulings in weeks 1 & 2 expecting that nothing major would change only small clarifications. I have said it again and again the early rulings 'to my team' looked like you would get a DQ for 'almost' any tether and carpet damage was also a strict DQ. Almost every tether I have seen poses a 'risk' of being entangled maybe only 10% but its still a risk. I have since seen that neither of these are the case either by rule changes or by refs calling em like they see em.

As for my analogy (Building assembly lines that build cars which is what I do for a living), we (GM) do give an exact specification to our build shops that they must follow exactly including wiring, piping, and mechanical. Deviations from this spec, even if they are creative, are removed before shipping to the final plant so that when 25 different zones show up from different build shops everything matches and integrates together. What does this all mean to me? I have to follow strict specs every day and they rarely change and even more rarely in the middle of a project.

I like FIRST and what it stands for, I have alot of fun, the main reason I am in it is because I love to see what teams come up with both students and engineers. Every year (this is my 4th) that I come to the events I am amazed at the design and execution by these teams in just 6 weeks. I like the contact and the defense of this year but our robot is done now and we will finish the year out without major mods and have fun. sans send home device.

I think I don't need to post to any more send home threads since everyone probably knows where I stand on the issue by now.

[Manoel]

Originally posted by verdeyw


As far as the whole tape measure thing goes, I agree with you - tape measures were specifically disallowed - get them off the robots. But give the tethers a rest. You won't get entangled in a well-made tether (which includes all of them I've seen), and the game's designers obviously expected to see them.



No, they were not! Before that clarification was posted, FIRST was using Team Update 6 to determine whether a tether was legal or not. And, if you read it carefully, it doesn't disallow ANYTHING. It does state that what presents a risk of entanglement is subjective and it's up to the referees to decide if it's legal or not.
On practice day, when we first deployed our tape measure, the head referee came to our pits and said it was illegal. After showing him the Update 6, he agreed with us and just wanted to call FIRST in Manchester to make sure that the ruling would be consistent in every regional.
We could use our measure tape, it never got entangled (it did get under the goal once, DQing us, but it wasn't stuck), and it helped us winning the regional.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally posted by Manoel
It does state that what presents a risk of entanglement is subjective and it's up to the referees to decide if it's legal or not.


I stand corrected. I like this ruling better anyway.

Originally posted by Matt Reiland
we (GM) do give an exact specification to our build shops that they must follow exactly

But FIRST doesn't! Any they shouldn't!

The rules that FIRST gives include some hard-and-fast rules (similar to your build specs) like the weight limit, allowable parts, starting envelope, and the 60 Amp breaker, but they largely consist of good faith rules, like entanglement and "malicious intent". These rules limit the design space a robot can occupy, but they don't pinpoint it. FIRST is imitating life.

Every design problem an engineer has will have gray areas. Otherwise it would be a fabrication issue, not a design issue. Actually, that's not entirely correct. Most manufacturing jobs have gray areas as well.


The reason I keep writing about this topic is because those who are outraged by the "relaxing" of the entanglement rules have created some sort of moral high ground here. They have been depicting those with mice on their robots as people who didn't read the rules and have since got away with something. This irks me.

We read the same rules as you. We read the same answers to the same questions as you. We asked ourselves how we could win this game the same as you. And where you saw a sign in front of tether designs that said, "Do not enter," we saw one that said, "Tread lightly."

Good luck to all.

[EStokely]

I couldn't stop myself from posting to this.
Many good points have been made where I expected no clear defence, and yet I am still annoyed.
In effect I read the ruling as saying because alot of teams built what was warned as an entanglement (I really got the impression that the tolerance for entanglment would be very low. DQing on the safe side) And then to find this out AFTER shipping!??!??

I myself have wondered about the 130 pound rule, the height rules, the 1 battery rule, but they are rules. there on paper. Wasn't the tether issue on paper also?

I am more concerned with next year. Do we simply build based on what we read the rules to say? or try and clarify them first? Seems like this year we should have gone with the first idea.

BattleBotsIQ is talking regionals eventually. We always say that FIRST isn't really about the robot but about the message of science and technology. So does it matter whether or not the robot doesn't survive the competition?

My 2 cents

Eric Stokely
Team 360 Revolution
Formally of team 258 The Sea Dawgs
"Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want"

[Wayne C.]

For Erik-

Were they expecting tethers?

Certainly-
recall: kickoff - Dean Kamen quote : "if you can make a robot which can reach both end zones I'll give you 2 Kamen points"

AKA: a 130 lb robot stretched 30 feet= tether

FRC ops- " a telescoping arm, while flimsy, might make a suitable device"- in same pgh disqualifying tape measures.

Got any other design which does the job and isn't long and thin?

I agree that a lot of things out there which are getting by are contrary to the original rulings and are frustrating. We originally were going to extrude a tape measure only to have that directly outlawed. Still teams are using them. We reengineered to follow the rules as posted. That's all anyone can do. It's a game.

FIRST has always had rules changes during the season since we got in 6 years ago. It's a part of the game and not worth getting upset about,

As for the airplane analogy you posted above- if everybody always thought the same way and made bombers the old fashioned way we wouldn't have stealth bombers of today. Outside the box thinking is to be commended, not criticized. That's why FIRST gives a Xerox Creativity Trophy.

Hey- if we cross paths and you don't like our device- run it over. Everybody else seems to!! We'll survive

We just want to have some fun here.

Or have I stretched this too far.....
:D
WC

[Keith Chester]

I agree. They realized that it is kind of hard to build a sturdy device to reach back 30 feet while staying under the weight limit. It's basically extra baggage to the bot, so the became more lenient on tape measures and rolls of tape and of the such.
If you disagree with the rule change block the "tether".
Also, if you want, try dancing on our robot's "mini me". It's fun and has been done before.

[Matt Reiland]

With a 5 minute modification at WMR we were able to move any tether out there including tape measures and lexan sheets and we are still waiting for the chance to see a mouse also. To do this our robot has a basket that rides on the carpet made to get balls, simple little ' L forks' on each edge ride along on the carpet also and slide under anything that's also on the carpet, from there raise the basket and take it where you want. Don't have a basket? No problem on the front edges of your frame bring down a teflon 'L' piece to ride on the carpet and you are all set it will pick up the device instead of running over it with your wheels. I will post the pictures tomorrow of where we stole a tape measure and took it back to our zone. The chief also did an excellent job at placing the goals in front of tethers as they were advancing out which was pretty great strategy also.

[Keith Chester]

If we weren't so close to the weight limit... hmm. oh well.
good idea.

[EStokely]

<<Yes, the rules on tethers have been loosened. And, we apologize. Why? We had to. Please read on.

Is this unfair to teams that correctly and strictly interpreted our rules updates as posted during the season? Probably. We know it...>>

OK here is the part that has been bugging me, I know you are all trying to figure out what this impact on me personnelly has been :-)

They changed the rules, for all the reasons stated in the posts so far.
They did this AFTER the robots shipped. After we planned and decided what to build. They changed the rules because of what teams brought to a regional. They realized that the strict interpretation would have DQ'd these particular robots (I am assuming, I haven't actually seen the tethers in question)
Thier own words.
<<Is this unfair to teams that correctly and strictly interpreted our rules updates as posted during the season? Probably.>>
And yet they did it anyway.
This is what is bugging me.

They decided it was better to piss off teams that followed the rules.
In what world is this a good plan?

I agree that tethers make for exciting game play. I agree we now have to live with the new ruling. But it still gets to me that I only heard of this AFTER our robot was in a box in drayage. (Actually this arrived on my computer as we were competing in Seattle on Sat. I read it when I got home that night)

Thanks I feel better

Eric Stokely
Team 360 Revolution
Formally of team 258 The Sea Dawgs
"Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want"

[Matt Reiland]

You need to do this to the tether to make you feel better

(See picture)

[ErikJusten]

For Wayne C.

Sorry for the delayed reply - I don't check this forum all that often - I just got bored during a break in class today.

I'm not sure if my point was entirely clear (though it seems like Matt Reiland and Eric Stokely get it). I'm not mad at the way the rule is written now - to me, it actually make sense. And, I'm not saying that tether teams are "bad", nor did I indend this to be a "hey my tether is really cool" thread. However, I am upset that the rule was changed, after ship, as mentioned in the original post in this thread by a FIRST representative.

I remember Dean saying that at kickoff - but after we read the rules, we decided that to do that would require a rigid member, which we didn't have the weight for. Granted, we still don't have the weight for a non-rigid tether, but we could have designed around it. Between the teather rule change (no matter what anyone says, it was changed, as admitted in the original post in this thread) and the "something under the goal" rule change (to quote the driver meeting in chicago "I know that's not what the rule says, but that's how we're going to call it"), I'm a little upset. So to answer your question, sure I expected tethers - I just thought that they would be rigid members on wouldn't be allowed to extend under the goal. In fact, we were a little worried about being able to drive a goal over top of such a rigid extension. We didn't think that non-rigid tethers would be allowed due to the "risk of entanglement". The risk is still there, even if it is small.

Don't get me wrong - I still had a great year. We had some problems in Chicago, but losing in the semi's to Wildstang and the TechnoKats isn't bad (especially considering we're all college students).

But........

The larger, FIRST process issue, is what really gets me. And the "think outside of the box" analogy I don't think applies. I'm all for thinking outside the box - our old team, 128, had a drive train one year that rotated around the robot (1998). But...... it still must fit within the rules. Eric again brings up the point - why are these rules different than the others? Can I think outside of the box, and be 135lbs, and still compete? I'm not grossly overweight, so I'm just slightly bending the rules, right? What's the difference between the two?

All I'm saying is that FIRST needs to evaluate their processes in the off-season. I don't really care one way or another what the rules state in January, as long as they are the same rules I compete against in March.

[DougHogg]

I personally believe that rules should not be changed after robots have shipped, unless it turns out that it would be to the greater good to make the change. In other words, it is destructive in a sense to make rules and then change them at a point where others can't take advantage of the new rules. Under what circumstances would it be a good thing to do this?

Possibly under the current circumstances. The designers of the FIRST Robotics contest, as I think Woodie said at the kickoff, are always wondering how things will turn out. In other sports, the rules can be continually refined as the game is the same each year. That doesn't work for an engineering challenge. Therefore the creators of the FIRST game have a tough job.

So what could justify changing the rules on tethers as was done. I believe that the designers of the game didn't anticipate how static (unmoving) the game often becomes this year. We want a game that not only excites the participants, but also appeals to spectators and makes them want to participate themselves, thus expanding the game and achieving the mission of FIRST.

The game this year often settles into a big pushing match in the center of the arena. I would venture to say that those who crafted the game would have made the balls on the field worth more points if they had it to do over again. Creating the contest is, in a way, an engineering project in itself. And just as all of us find that we don't always get our robots right on the first try, so I am sure it is with the contest itself.

When it comes to those watching this year's game, I believe that tethers add to the game especially when a bunch of robots are sitting there pushing on each other and hardly moving sometimes. Further, I haven't observed many problems caused by tethers, to other robots. The bottom line is, the tether rules were not in the best interest of the contest, and the contest as it was, is sometimes a bit boring to watch for those who haven't built one of the robots themselves. And that is not good for FIRST, for our sponsors or for us as FIRST teams. So the rule was changed which is tough. It is tough on our team. We would like to have a tether. However I applaud FIRST for having the guts to do the right thing at a time when it was likely to draw some wrath. I am sure they will be doing their best to avoid similar situations in the future.

I want this contest to succeed, to grow, and to help change the way education in this country is carried out. (Quite frankly, it is usually quite boring because students are not getting to use what they are learning...and by the way, I'm a teacher.) Those who run FIRST are privy to data that I might not be, with regards to things like the funding of the events and achieving FIRST's overall goals. I don't have all the data they have. But one thing I do know: they are some of the best people I have come across in my life. So I know that they won't hurt me unless there is a good reason. I consider that the good reason was probably some of the things I mentioned above, but it is entirely possible there are other factors also.

Yes our team might be at a competitive disadvantage this year because of the last minute change. However I support this organization in it's decision. I know it wasn't made on a whim, and I know they will attempt to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

As a rookie, I have personally had one of the best experiences of my life in this contest. I consider every robot I have seen to be a moving art form-a mechanical sculpture, and I love admire every one of them. I have never seen a bunch of people get together and compete with such an enthusiastic sharing of help and caring for each other. If 60 football teams got together, there would be fights all over the place. It would be hell on wheels.

Thank you FIRST, for bringing a wonderful experience into my life.

Hm...now if I could just figure out how to extend a tape measure using our ball roller. Hey! Any ideas for me?

Doug Hogg
Team 980
http://home.pacbell.net/pinewood/Our_Robot.html

[EStokely]

Doug,

All good points and I thank you for making them.
And yet...
The teams benefiting from this are not representative to "the greater good" I suspect less than 10% (Any one else feel free to also pull a number out of thin air to argue with me :-) )
I don't honestly believe the rules changed for such lofty goals.
I don't think the TVability of the game was the reason.

(Side note, if the balls were worth more then the goal grabbing would be even mor e intense. I think balls simply in the home zone should have counted without the location in the goal being the important part. but it was still a good game)

I am left with a bad taste in my mouth when I wonder how the rule was changed. The engineers from FIRST use both Woodie's and Dean's name to get us to accept it as OK. But I suspect (and the following comment belongs in the rumor mill and not here. I have ZERO knowledge of the actual decision process) there was pressure from *somewhere* to change the rule. The only real people with a vested interest in a change were individual teams.
I don't want to dwell on that line of thought.

Its a bad precedent to set. It started when they changed how we were allowed to interact with the goals so late in the build cycle.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. So did I. My fourth year. I want it to grow , live long and prosper. If they pull this again next year I think some of us will look to other ways to achieve the same goals.

-I loved your comment about 60 football teams in one setting.

Have fun all

[FRCOps]

Eric,
As (maybe) the final word on this, since I posted it, I'd like to reply specifically to a couple of particularly ugly hints you have made in several posts and reiterated in your last post. This:
I am left with a bad taste in my mouth when I wonder how the rule was changed. The engineers from FIRST use both Woodie's and Dean's name to get us to accept it as OK.

Whether or not you (or anyone else who is angry about this) believes that what we posted was the truth, is up to you. To think that we would invoke Dean's or Woodie's name as a get out of jail free card to cover up an internal screwup is laughable. If we really didn't give a siht, why would we even bother to post it, and try to explain it, and fess up? C'mon, isn't this a little ridiculous? We took the time to come out here and post the truth. Now that we've done that, you're speculating that there are ulterior motives? Please.

And this...
But I suspect (and the following comment belongs in the rumor mill and not here. I have ZERO knowledge of the actual decision process) there was pressure from
*somewhere* to change the rule. The only real people with a vested interest in a change were individual teams. I don't want to dwell on that line of thought.
Its a bad precedent to set. It started when they changed how we were allowed to interact with the goals so late in the build cycle.

Your suspicion is right. It does belong in the rumor mill. It belongs in the trash bin. FIRST does not and will never change rules that affect everyone to benefit select teams. The very concept of it is completely ridiculous to anyone who really understands what FIRST is about. And the 25 paid staff and the hundreds of volunteers that we ask for help to make the events happen would rightfully be deeply insulted by the accusation.

Looking for the FOX News, flash at 11, inside scoop on what happened? Ok, it's right here. Ready?

We made a mistake. We're human. We have human, local, *volunteer* referees and judges that don't always follow step A through ZZ in complete and exact sequence from the Manifesto of FIRST HQ in Manchester. We occasionally have (gasp) incomplete communications. We have leaders like Woodie who give us guidance and help us do the right thing. Some teams had already built tethered robots - the ones that read and understood the "it's the referee's decision" post. So we let them deploy. Yeah, we should have checked with Woodie way before then. We know that.

We made a couple of mistakes this year. We knew it when they happened, we know it now. We've heard it. We're gonna hear more about it. We've got a bad taste in our mouths.

If the pattern follows, there will still be "I don't buy it" posts. Your choice, but anyone who feels that way just doesn't really get FIRST.

Sorry for the personal tone of this post, but many of us here at FIRST take these insulting, baseless accusations pretty personally. We don't miss dinners with our families throughout the year creating something for people to participate in where we can invent ways to mess some teams up.

[EStokely]

FRCops and crew.

Thanks for the reply. I hesitated putting my thoughts into electrons. Kinda sorry I did, but not now. I feel better that you had such a strong response to my thoughts. It makes me feel its all worth while.

I know you guys are human. I honestly think we all know that. I also applaude you for posting on ChiefDelphi to begin with (I had responded to the original yahoo post but the group was not accepting new posts, at least from me)

I also hope this ends this particular segment of the contest.

For anyone that knows me will tell you how much I love this contest. I am basing my next teaching position on the schools ability and desire to support a FIRST team.

This year was 99.98% what it has always been for me. I made great freinds, realized new potentials and found new failure mechanisms I didn't know existed.
The .02% will fade and be lost.

If its needed please accept my apologies if you feel I crossed a line. I tried to phrase my actual concerns (at that time) to indicate I didn't believe them but in conversation they had come up.

Again the obvious emotion in your response tells me I could not have been more off base. I know you guys work hard. I don't envy the mountains of problems you deal with YEAR round while I just have a team to sweat with for a few months.

And again I actually LIKE the ruling on tethers, honest. It was simply a timing issue :-)

So hoping we can be friends again...

[Matt Reiland]

As one of the other strong posters in this thread I too am sorry for all of us if we got out of line. We are all volunteers trying to make the most with what we have and we (FIRST teams) are all very competitive sometimes too competitive.

This thread seems like it has been beaten to death.

[Keith Chester]

Then let the old dog lie.