"Load Bearing Surface" [Archive]

Natchez

18-02-2005, 10:39

Who is needing to make design changes to address the Answer to Question 1617?

Q&A 1617
Q: As related to answer 978, Is a robot base considered "in" the loading zone if it isn't touching the hdpe 36" equilateral triangle? If so, What is considered part of the robot base?

A: No. The robot base is considered to be any load-bearing surface within the maximum 28" x 38" robot base size.

Q&A 978
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

We spent all last night trying to ensure that we would not incur a penalty for just touching the loading zone with a "feeler". Just a few of the comments that were lobbed about were

"You've gotta be joking?"
"Looks like we will not be able to cap the center goal with that solution."
"Let's just wait to see if FIRST calls it!"
"It will probably be another one of those 'damage the carpet' rules."
"Do you think our outriggers are considered load bearing if they rub the floor?"

Our team will never intentionally break a rule expecting that the ref will not call it but we also acknowledge that this strategy is commonly utilized in today's society. As the football announcers put it, "If you don't get caught, it's not illegal." Wrong! Breaking a rule expecting the ref not to call it is CHEATING.

Personally, I sure hope that straddling the zone does not turn into another, "They didn't call it during the first regional week so it is okay to do" rule.

Are you in the same boat as we are in?
Lucien

russell

18-02-2005, 10:56

AJunx

18-02-2005, 11:37

It would appear as if using a flip-down tailgate on the long end of your robot to stow tetras is almost completely thrown out the window.

You could probably redesign such a tailgate so that it works from the side of your robot, if you had another 6 weeks...

ChrisH

18-02-2005, 12:36

....Personally, I sure hope that straddling the zone does not turn into another, "They didn't call it during the first regional week so it is okay to do" rule.

Are you in the same boat as we are in?
Lucien

I'm with you on this one, though most of my team leaders are planning to take this approach. Fortunately, we have been able to change our approach to the autoloader and get teras without changing our design. We just have to make sure a front wheel is on the tip of the triangle.

So our approach is "if they are penalizing the "straddle" we do the "toe touch", if not we go in straight and "straddle"". If it gets to be a real issue then we will make changes at the event. We currently have weight to play with so adding a "load bearing surface" in a convenient place shouldn't be a problem.

I regard the rule as it stands as difficult to enforce at best. Reverting to just having to be in the three dimensional space above the tetra would be a better option. I personally think it will devolve to this in practice if not in the rule book. Every year there are rules that are functionally changed during the course of the season, even if the change never makes it to the rule book. Our team leaders regard this rule as this year's version.

The other rule they feel falls into this catagory is the high speed ramming rule. We are expecting to get hit repeatedly and hard and are designing protective measures. Even if this rule is enforced during the qualification rounds, we are expecting that it will be relaxed in the Eliminations.

If FIRST is serious about these rules, they need to be enforced rigorously at ALL Week 1 competitions. The refs, especially the head refs, need to be experienced and know the intentions of the rules. This goes double for any events that are broadcast or webcast.

Dave Flowerday

18-02-2005, 17:01

Well, regarding the "load bearing surface" comment, I think FIRST taught the lesson very well last year that ANY part of your robot which is in contact with the floor is a load-bearing surface. After all, if it's touching at least some amount of weight is being trasferred to the floor, right? I recall losing a few matches last year because we had a string hanging down from our robot when we were suspended from the bar, and of course the rule last year was that you had to be completely suspended - even a piece of string couldn't touch because part of the weight of that string was being supported by the floor! ;)

Peter Matteson

20-02-2005, 21:14

I will tell you FIRST enforced this rule vigorously at the UTC scrimmage (the usual official field shakedown event). We where getting penalized early on because the officials could not see our wheels through CLEAR lexan.

The intent of this rule has become murky to me. It does not do anything to better warn a field worker if the robot is straddling the triangle with its wheels rather than touching it directly. The fact that they waited to week four to create this and came up with this because of people who wanted to use mouse bots or dangle strings over the zone is ridiculous. This was a more significant change to the rules than they realized.

I hope to see some modification of the rule this week. The intent of this rule appeared to be protection of field attendents. However if you have wheels on either side of the zone the attendent should see you coming and you are still following the spirit of the rule.

Back to my point this rule will probably be enforced and the penalties involved will be significant in the the outcome of the matches.

Billfred

20-02-2005, 22:58

I'm reminded of Dean's mention during the 2004 kickoff of what is straddling and what is touching. (Before anyone stones me to death, I know that 2004 means diddly for 2005. Yet it remains true.)

I fully expect ghettofab during the regionals in order to meet however FIRST (and to a greater extent, the refs) intends to regulate it.

Katie Reynolds

21-02-2005, 18:25

Yes. And what is this nonsense about how it has to be the size of the original robot base. I know for a fact that the manual says the robot may get bigger once the match starts, but if you want to be able to score points I guess not.It doesn't say it has to be as big as the base. It says that the load-bearing surface must be within the 28"x38" base. I think the intent of the rule is to reenforce <G12>

<G12> The purpose of the LOADING ZONE is to allow ROBOTS to quickly and safely receive TETRAS without interference while HUMAN PLAYERS and/or field attendants are in close proximity, and then return to play. The LOADING ZONE is not intended to serve as a “perpetual safety zone” to prevent interaction with opponent ROBOTS for the entire match. Tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, and other devices intended to contact the LOADING ZONE to maintain the “non-interference constraint” defined in <G15> while the ROBOT drives around the remainder of the field are against the spirit of the rule and will not be permitted. Such devices must be removed before the ROBOT will be permitted to play in the match.

So yes, your robot can get bigger after the start of the match. And yes, you can still score points; but you have to have a load-bearing surface (like a wheel) that lies inside your original base touching the loading zone to receive a tetra.

sanddrag

21-02-2005, 18:44

you have to have a load-bearing surface (like a wheel) that lies inside your original base touching the loading zone to receive a tetra.Why a wheel? From a simple physics standpoint, even a thread would be a load bearing surface. By gravity, the thread is pushing on the ground, and by Newton's third law, the ground is pushing on the thread. Because the thread is mounted to the robot, it is applying some or all (I won't get into complex physics) of the "equal and opposite" force to the robot. You wouldn't even have to explain it this far, since the thread is part of the robot and it is applying force to itself. Since the thread has dimension, it has surface. And because load is being applied on this surface, it is a load bearing surface.

However minuscule, a load is a load and IMHO even a hanging thread would satisfy the rule.

EDIT: However I'm not sure that this will satisfy the "blatantly obvious" rule/suggestion. Also, what is the difference between "in" the loading zone and "touching" the loading zone. It should be blatantly obvious that you are in, but does it have to be blatantly obvious that you touch?

I think FIRST should eliminate the touching rule and keep the blatantly obvious one to eliminate all the "hoola skirt" ghettofab people will be putting on their fine quality machines.

Katie Reynolds

21-02-2005, 18:47

Why a wheel? For purpose of example. *shrug*

I agree with you; technically anything inside the (28"x38") base, that touches the loading zone is a load-bearing surface ... be it a string, wheel, lexan 'tail', PWN cable that came loose in the match, etc etc. :)

nuggetsyl

21-02-2005, 19:16

if the triangle was a box instead this would not be a problem. They got cute with the design and now it is bitting them in the butt. this issue will be up there with tethers

Swan217

22-02-2005, 08:53

Who is needing to make design changes to address the Answer to Question 1617?
Prediction: After Looking at the Q&A's from today, I expect Update 13 to address this issue. No more of this "Load Baring Surface" Junk.

ID:1728 Section:4.1 Status:Answered Date Answered:2/22/2005
Q:Can the automatic loading zone triangle be made larger or inverted so the robots can pick up tetras easier? Many 10 pt penalties at the UTC scrimmage made for very low scores. Robot base dims and triangle dims should be similar.
A:The loading zone triangles will remain at 36" on a side, however, because of various scrimmage results this weekend, we will increase the human player loading box from 36" on a side to 48" on a side.

ID:1715 Section:4.3.3 Status:Answered Date Answered:2/22/2005
Q:Regarding the answer to ID 1617, do vertical "fingers" (skirt, wire ties, etc.) strategically placed around a base for the sole purpose of touching the loading zone HDPE "make" the robot in the loading zone.
A:Yes. After attending and receiving feedback from several scrimmages this past weekend (2/19), we will allow robot-base appendages that are within and remain within the 28" x 38" dimensions to contact the loading zone and be legal.

Natchez

23-02-2005, 02:23

Get your loading-zone-feelers here. For the low price of $399, you can forget all of those, "Oh, we got a penalty because we were straddling the loading zone" headaches. With our advanced design, installation is a zip. With our advanced distribution, you can have your loading-zone-feelers TODAY! Please send $390 to

Mississippi Curb Feelers, Inc.
PO Box 55555
The Great Sate of Mississippi

and then with the remaining $9, please go to Home Depot and pick up some wire "zip" ties. As soon as we receive your $390, we'll fax you instructions as to how to properly install the wire ties so they touch the floor :D. Please include your favorite charity with your payment and we'll send some money to them so we'll get a tax break and will not feel so guilty for gouging you.

ID: 1715
Section: 4.3.3
Status: Answered
Date Answered: 2/22/2005 (hours before ship)
Q: Regarding the answer to ID 1617, do vertical "fingers" (skirt, wire ties, etc.) strategically placed around a base for the sole purpose of touching the loading zone HDPE "make" the robot in the loading zone.

A: Yes. After attending and receiving feedback from several scrimmages this past weekend (2/19), we will allow robot-base appendages that are within and remain within the 28" x 38" dimensions to contact the loading zone and be legal.

What! :confused: I'm very disappointed in the rules folks at FIRST. I'm not saying that the ruling soon after kickoff

ID: 978 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/11/2005
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

and subsequently, the ruling on February 16th,

ID: 1617 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 2/16/2005
Q: As related to answer 978, Is a robot base considered "in" the loading zone if it isn't touching the hdpe 36" equilateral triangle? If so, What is considered part of the robot base?

A: No. The robot base is considered to be any load-bearing surface within the maximum 28" x 38" robot base size.

were what I wanted to see BUT this is getting ridiculous.

First of all, it is becoming far to common that when teams don't like a rule, they whine about it until FIRST changes it in their favor. The "put-your-tools-down ... oh, we-mean-put-your-tools-down-then-pick-them-right-back-up" and "no-software-development ... oh, we-mean-that-you-just-have-to-type-it-in-at-the-regional" rulings come to mind for this year.

Second, it sure would be nice for other teams to be part of this magical "feedback" loop so the other teams could express their displeasure about drastically changing a rule. We probably would have said something like, "you know FIRST, we did CHOP A FOOT OFF OF OUR ARM to meet your rule; why should the teams that decided upon the strategy of let's-whine-alot or they'll-never-call-it be rewarded and we end up with a stubby arm."

Third, does FIRST Q&A system work on Saturday? It sure would have been nice for them to change the rule on Saturday night instead of a few hours before ship. I'd guess that the folks that were part of the "feedback" knew that FIRST was going to address the loading zone rule in their favor.

Fourth, even though I disagreed with the initial ruling (had to be touching versus having to be in the 3D space created by some-reasonable-height-vertically-projected-zone [6" high for example]), I was giving FIRST GENIUS points for instantly making the human player very, very valuable with their rulings. Now with the super-duper loading-zone-feelers (just $399 from Mississippi Curb Feelers, Inc.), the human player becomes much less valuable and thus, FIRST loses all of their genius points.

Finally, as I tell Casey, "it's just another problem ... don't whine about it, just solve it." Even though the short-term solution is to make a robot that meets the new rules, part of the long-term solution is expressing displeasure to FIRST about their actions.

Congratulations on making it through the build season ... and my whining,
Lucien

thoughtful

23-02-2005, 02:48

This is bizzare, i think they should change the triangles to rectangles or squares. Look at this picture from the manual, although its specifically mentioning to the human player requirements; it gives a big O.K to the loading process. Now look closely the robot is stradling the trianlge. This is a big blunder by FIRST, they should have never used this picture, our team might be able to add a load bearing surface but what about the other teams do. FIRST should be more considerate about this. Even till now its not crystal clear as to what the rules are regarding stradling. I know FIRST has done a great job creating a spectacular game, but i think they should make it better by changing or atleast not conflicting with their own diagrams. :)

Alex1072

23-02-2005, 03:51

This may be slightly off topic, but does this requirement apply to the automatic loading station? I read through the rules and the only thing I could find was that robot A may not interefere with robot B while B is in contact with an auto. loading station. It did not explicitly mention that it was illegal to load from an automatic station unless you were in contact with the triangle did it? Is the automatic loading zone being treated exactly like the human zone, or is it different because safety issues do no apply?

Yan Wang

23-02-2005, 13:12

AmyPrib

23-02-2005, 15:06

Well - I see the intent of "in the zone" to be safety, obvious-ness, and loading intent.

Has anyone suggested possibly making the 36" triangles a little bit larger on the field, so that it would help avoid the straddling concern, if they want to stick to "touching" the triangle? They made them a little larger for the HP side, why not make them a little larger for the field side? Is there any specific reason why 36" was chosen? Would it be a detrimental impact to the game and rules if they made it 40", or 42", or even 46"?

I have got to believe that they will eventually accept the "obvious straddling" position as "in the zone". But if you open it up to "just being in the 3d space above the triangle", then you could have your robot body anywhere within 6 feet away from the zone, with it's arm sticking out "in the 3d space". That's a safety concern, and it would be difficult to enforce a "no interference" rule with that because you don't have any fixed space for the robot to be in - your arm would just need to dangle over the triangle, and the refs couldn't really judge your intent of retrieving a tetra, or if you're just swinging the arm about.
And they want to try and enforce the "no interference", especially for safety. So there has to be SOME type of rule that states when you are in, and when you're not in, the zone. You have to have some "fixed" space that you can consider a no-interference zone.

My opinion, is that if they increased the size of that triangle zone a little bit, and they allow the obvious straddling position, then we might minimize some of the major concerns. Plus, making it bigger, you have less of a chance of actually straddling it. I'm guessing with the size of some robot arms, it will be difficult to get some portion of the robot "in the zone", in an obvious manner, before touching the tetra. Some robots will have their wheel touch the very tippy corner of the triangle, and the driver will be able to see that, but a ref or someone else not at the right angle won't. So they may get penalized "unjustly". If you allow a little more space (bigger triangle) to make it obvious, you increase the safety for everyone and help the refs out a little to make calls.
They're not going to make everyone happy, but I think with a few minor adjustments, it could alleviate a lot of the legitimate concerns/gripes people have.

Natchez

23-02-2005, 15:49

why not make them a little larger for the field side?
Because many teams met the design requirement and it simply is not fair to change the requirements after ship. If teams are having problems meeting the requirement thus getting penalized, they might want to consider using the human player side where FIRST changed the requirements a few hours before ship.

Would it be a detrimental impact to the game and rules if they made it 40", or 42", or even 46"?

Only a detriment to those who met the design requirement ... not for those who ignored the requirement knowing that FIRST could be "convinced" to change the rules which they already have on the human player side from "feedback".

and they allow the obvious straddling position,
FIRST does allow straddling if you have enough weight margin to put 40 wire ties on your robot.

In reality, the game would have been much more exciting and audience friendly if FIRST would have kept the "load bearing" rule instead of the "please put wire ties on the perimeter of your base" rule, simply because more people would be heading to the human player for tetras instead of the log-jam that will be created as FIRST makes being in the auto-loading zone easier. With that said, the human player will still be a key part of the game merely because of the congestion on the field.

If you can't meet the requirements, change 'em,
Lucien

Andy Baker

23-02-2005, 16:04

If you can't meet the requirements, change 'em,
Lucien

Lucien,

I agree with you on this issue, and it is frustrating to see FIRST change at this point of the season. We have been practicing with the right-sized (but thinner) load triangles, and our driver has been training to put a wheel on the triangle while picking up the tetra. Will it be easier for us to grab a tetra if we straddle the load zone triangle? Sure. Will this be difficult for referees to see? Yes. Does changing the rule make it easier for all teams to pick up tetras? Yes. However, this greatly penalizes the teams who have been busting their butts, abiding by this rule. Because of this, I disagree with the recent change and I agree with you.

Andy B.

AmyPrib

23-02-2005, 16:31

Because many teams met the design requirement and it simply is not fair to change the requirements after ship.

Only a detriment to those who met the design requirement ... not for those who ignored the requirement knowing that FIRST could be "convinced" to change the rules which they already have on the human player side from "feedback".

Ok. I agree. I don't think teams simply "ignored" the requirements, and I would hope people didn't think they could "convince" FIRST to change their minds about things.. Maybe some did, who knows. I think a lot of people were legitimately confused as to the intent of the rule and the interpretation of the rule. Yes - the questions and clarifications should have been asked earlier. Yes - we should have gotten clear and unchanging answers earlier. I agree - it wouldn't be fair to those who understood the rule and designed to it.

One thing I will be interested to see, is how many penalties (if many) get thrown for robots that were actually touching the zone, just barely, but the refs don't see it and therefore penalize them. There may be some butting heads of the "being obvious" and "touching the zone". Hopefully teams can do both to make it easy-to-see for themselves and the refs. I'm thinking to avoid interference 30pt penalties, if an opponent robot is anywhere near the loading zone, stay away, because you may not be able to tell if they're "just barely in" the zone.
We shall see how it all plays out during matches and hopefully it proves not to be a huge issue afterall.

Paul Copioli

23-02-2005, 17:01

Wait a minute!! The load bearing "Rule" was never a rule. It wasn't even in the Q&A forum until February 16th (see below).

This one (978) was asked and answered quite early (1/11/05) and the "blatantly obvious" quote made it clear to me that a robot whose drive base was completely covering the triangle, but not necessarily having wheels touching would be considered O.K.

Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

Q&A #1617 (load bearing surface) wasn't answered until February 16th! Our drive base was already designed and driving around by then, but I guess we just ignored the perfectly clear rule.

Q: As related to answer 978, Is a robot base considered "in" the loading zone if it isn't touching the hdpe 36" equilateral triangle? If so, What is considered part of the robot base?

A: No. The robot base is considered to be any load-bearing surface within the maximum 28" x 38" robot base size.

Andy & Lucien,

How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon. You guys are being a bit harsh, aren't you? I don't like rule changes either, especially this one. I argue that without this rule change the referees would have interpreted "blatantly obvious" as a robot base (say, the kit bot) clearly over the loading triangle. I also think the "tie wrap hanging from the base" is a ludicrous proposal, but given the RECENT interpretation that is what my team will do.

Also, look at the picture next to rule S07. It is clear that the original intent of this rule was a drive base had to be over the zone. Notice that the wheels are not touching. Also, here is the rule as written in the FIRST manual:

<G12> The purpose of the LOADING ZONE is to allow ROBOTS to quickly and safely receive TETRAS
without interference while HUMAN PLAYERS and/or field attendants are in close proximity, and then return
to play. The LOADING ZONE is not intended to serve as a “perpetual safety zone” to prevent interaction
with opponent ROBOTS for the entire match. Tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, and other devices
intended to contact the LOADING ZONE to maintain the “non-interference constraint” defined in <G15>
while the ROBOT drives around the remainder of the field are against the spirit of the rule and will not be
permitted. Such devices must be removed before the ROBOT will be permitted to play in the match.

-Paul

Andy Baker

23-02-2005, 17:20

Wait a minute!! (yada yada)

Andy & Lucien,

How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon.

A couple of thoughts here:

1. The way we have been practicing is by touching the triangle with our wheel. Since this is how we have been practicing, then of course it is the way we would like to see it remain. This is for purely selfish reasons.

2. The rule is not clear, obviously, since many of us viewed this differently.

3. It is fun to see Copioil get all riled up about this. I can imagine the crazy Italian's face getting redder by the minute. (I am actually on the phone with him as this post is going out, and I can HEAR his blood pressure rise... fun stuff!)

4. For the big picture of FIRST, I think that it the rule should be "hovering over the zone" or "breaking the plane of the zone" in order to make things better for competitors and referees. However, this was not clear in the beginning at kickoff. Therefore the quandry exists. Do they modify this rule, or do they stick to their guns? For me and my team, we will go either way. We can straddle or we can put one wheel in the zone.

Andy B.

thoughtful

24-02-2005, 00:34

I think this just hit the nail in the head with a sledgehammer. FIRST should definitely change the rule from "touching" to "vertically covering" the loading zone as it clearly depicts in its own images. That was a very keen observation, thoughtful.

I have posted on Question and Answers and waiting for clarification.

I just think that the answer to ID 978 confused everyone.

ID: 978 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/11/2005
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

If there are no triangles marking the laoding zone how do we touch it :p

Greg Marra

24-02-2005, 00:53

If there are no triangles marking the laoding zone how do we touch it :p

The triangles marking the loading zones are the color of the alliance, not yellow.

thoughtful

24-02-2005, 00:58

The triangles marking the loading zones are the color of the alliance, not yellow.
I know , but the question confuses the reader. It does not explicitly suggest that the triangles are allaince colours. It seems as it it suggesting there are no triangles. Or probably its just me :o

However, my intent is not to pick on the people at First, I know its a hefty job trying to keep up with all our questions and they are doing a mighty fine job so far :D . And we should support them in everyway possible.

Back to the topic, i think First will try their best to sort this out, or allow an alternative for the teams who were confused.

jgannon

24-02-2005, 01:38

This one (978) was asked and answered quite early (1/11/05) and the "blatantly obvious" quote made it clear to me that a robot whose drive base was completely covering the triangle, but not necessarily having wheels touching would be considered O.K.
Let's take one more look at 978:
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.
When I see the phrase "must be touching", I don't think that "completely covering the triangle, but not necessarily having wheels touching" is a reasonable inference. As Billfred mentioned, remember Dean's discussion last year of the definition of "straddling". Touching means touching, not straddling, because we're engineers, not lawyers. Unless I'm way off-base, I don't think that FIRST has really changed the rule all that much; 1617 just reinforces that you must be touching the triangle, consistent with 978, and clarifies what constitutes the "base", consistent with the stipulations of G12.

Am I missing something here? :confused:

Natchez

24-02-2005, 08:25

Andy & Lucien,

How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon. You guys are being a bit harsh, aren't you?

Paul, I'm sorry if I implied that the "in the loading zone" rule was clear; it is about as clear as the Mississippi River around New Orleans. As you pointed out, many teams, including us, were surprised at the February 16th clarification about "load bearing" ... almost jaw dropping ... certainly design altering. Without saying that you are "exactly right" in your rule interpretation and how you design and train your drivers, you are 99.9999% right :D

On this topic, I really don't have a problem with FIRST admitting that the February 16 clarification was "off base", I just don't want to see the Band-Aid be to increase the size of the loading zone as they did with the human player side. Base straddling should have been accepted, as you pointed out, and I think FIRST tried to correct a wrong with their "wire tie" clarification without admitting that "load bearing" was wrong. But, I can certainly see where FIRST is gun-shy because as soon as you allow "over", there will a handful of teams that say their arm is "over" the triangle and therefore they are "in the zone" ... and, sadly, they would have gotten away with it.

In a broader sense, rules clarifying is a "process" problem that I would like FIRST to address. The Q&A system was a great advancement but I think they need a process where the rules interpreters have their finger on the pulse of the teams. With that said, I recognize that rules clarifying is a VERY, VERY, VERY difficult thing to do and I don't envy those who do it at FIRST. Think about it, other sports, such as golf, have volumes clarifying rules that don't change from year to year; FIRST must clarify a set of new rules every year ... at least for the game. Although very difficult, FIRST must recognize that participants are paying $6,000 and demand a high quality product.

Have a nice day,
Lucien

Andy Baker

24-02-2005, 08:49

I was talking to a wise man (similar to a wise guy) last night, and I heard two points about this that have previously not been discussed:

1. If the rule is "hovering over the triangle", then the drive team (and coach) has a better view than the referee does. This does not bode well for a referee when a "discussion" takes place after the match. I can hear the coach saying "I had a better view of it than YOU did, and we were IN!!" This is not a good situation. A referee must do his/her job and be respected.

2. Having the robot touch the triangle is similar to making a base-runner in baseball touch the base. The base runner is not safe at home until he touches home plate - not hovers above it.

From a referee's point of view, I am re-thinking my previous post about making things better for the referee if the rule was hovering. I tell ya, I would not want to be a referee in a position where the coach has a better view of a situation than I do. That situation stinks.

I like the baseball analogy: touch the base. This makes it simple and clear.

Andy B.

Paul Copioli

24-02-2005, 08:58

Erin Rapacki

24-02-2005, 09:03

Have any of you read Update #13 yet? I think most of these issues are addressed (working off memory here, the current computer I'm on won't open .pdf files).

I was one of the referees with Benge at the UTC scrimmage last weekend and we did notice a lot of inconsistency in regards to how to call penalties, what should be called, what shouldn't, what needs to be changed, and what needs to be more clear in the head referee handbooks. After the scrimmage the seven of us sat down together to reach a consensus about what had happened that day and how it could/should be changed. From what's written in update #13 and my personal experience; I believe that there will be fewer penalties called during the Regional Events and that this specific situation should be less of a concern.

The concept behind the increasing the size of the Human Player loading zone was a matter of safety (from what I recognized). I was one of the referees to bring up the concern that if we must enforce a "two feet in HP Loading Zone" concept, with the previous configuration, we would be forcing the human players to be closer in proximity to their robot than they need to be. Many robots were coming in at angles or had appendages extending well beyond the HP Loading Zone. In order for a HP to put a heavy tetra on such an appendage, they would have been required to contort their body in such a way that may have resulted in the person loosing balance, falling, or getting entangled with their robot. I'm glad they made the HP Zone larger.

erin

Paul Copioli

24-02-2005, 09:13

Erin,

The reason for all this banter is because we read update 13. There are two major camps with regards to the loading zones (robot):

Camp #1: Touching was always in the rules, so why are they making it easier for the teams who just ignored/didn't know the rules?

Camp #2: It has been unclear from day one as to what constituted in the loading zone. The last Q&A (load bearing surface) didn't come out until Feb 16th, what gives? The latest update allows you to put a tie-wrap hanging down from your robot base to make it legal. What's the point?

Let me ask you these questions:

1. Was it that hard to see a robot base over the triangle at the scrimmage?

2. Would putting a tie wrap under the robot base make it easier for you?

3. Would a rule like, "Your robot base should cover at least some part of the loading zone triangle to be considered in the zone", make it easier or harder for a ref?

I am curious to hear your feedback.

-Paul

Andy Baker

24-02-2005, 09:24

... but you can see the runners feet. On many robot designs, the feet (or wheels, treads, etc) can't be seen by anybody until the robot is on its back.

I challenge the point that covering can be seen better by the drive team. How does one come to that conclusion? I can see the robot BASE covering from 20 to 30 feet away. A ref will be right there.

During drive practice last night, we parcticed touching with our wheels. While the drive team had no problem touching, I had a heck of a time seeing if they touched. It was much, much, much, much (you get the point) easier to see if the drive base was over.

I wonder if the "wise guy" was from the West coast ...

Notice that FIRST said this in update 13:

"The referees will consider any item contacting the loading zone triangle, that is clearly visible and within the original 28” x 38” starting footprint, as part of the robot base. It is very important, however, that it be clearly visible to a referee standing 5 or 10 feet away. An encoder wheel or caster that is under the chassis may not be visible, and as a result, may not prevent the team from receiving a penalty."

CLEARLY VISIBLE is mentioned two times in there. When teams put on these curb-feelers, then the feeler needs to be on the perimeter of the drive base, not on the inside. If the ref does not "clearly" see the touch, then they should throw the flag.

I think that this rule is made to make things more cut and dry for the referees.

As for the coach's view vs. the ref's view, I was referring to the occasion when a team is barely passing over the apex of the load zone triangle. Even though the coach is farther away from the robot, he/she has a better angle to see if the robot "broke the plane" compared to the ref. The ref needs to have the better view, not the coach. What this "touching" rule is trying to eliminate is post-match arguements between drive teams and referees.

coach: "We were in! We broke the plane! I saw us break the plane!!!"
ref: "You did not look in from my view."
coach: "We have it on video!!!"
ref: "I can't look at video, you know that, this is not the NFL."
coach: "Well, come over to the driver's station and I can show you that I had a clear view of this... I tell ya - we broke the plane!!!!"
ref: "The decision stands. I am not going to change my mind on this."
coach: "Aaaaaah. You audibly inhale."

...as opposed to...

coach: "We were in! We touched the loading zone!"
ref: "No you weren't in. I saw space between your feeler (or wheel) and the triangle. I was only 3 feet away. I had a much better view of this than you did from 20 feet away."
coach: "OK, if you saw it better, we can handle that. You are a brilliant referee. Can I have an autograph?"

Referees... gotta love 'em.

Andy B.

Paul Copioli

24-02-2005, 09:27

No arguement that "Clearly Visible" was mentioned two times in an update that came out the day before ship.

Referees .... I can probably find something I love about 'em :D

Erin Rapacki

24-02-2005, 09:35

Let me ask you these questions:

1. Was it that hard to see a robot base over the triangle at the scrimmage?

2. Would putting a tie wrap under the robot base make it easier for you?

3. Would a rule like, "Your robot base should cover at least some part of the loading zone triangle to be considered in the zone", make it easier or harder for a ref?

I am curious to hear your feedback.

-Paul

[Keep in mind, none of my answers are official or represent FIRST's opinion on these rulings. This is only from my personal experience at the UTC Scrimmage.]

1. It was extremely difficult to tell if a wheel was on the triangle (clear lexan or not) especially since many teams had low clearances. I was moving up and down, crouching on my knees, and doing everything I could think of to see. Basically, I was one referee required to watch both HP Loading Zones on one side (red side specifically). There was too much going on during that split second when a tetra was actually being loaded (looking for a load bearing surface, two feet in HP zone, watch for other robots hitting the robot being loaded, make sure HP loads corresponding team's robot only, make sure robot is off (lights don't blink), etc...). Multiply That By TWO! Then, if the wheel is not on the triangle, we have to be quick enough to tell the HP to forget it or throw a penalty; but, everybody still gets confused and thinks the referees screwed up. Maybe it's just me, but there's a lot to pay attention to as a referee this year. However, I believe that if these rules aren't clarified or altered many quazi-inexperienced referees could easily make bad calls.

2. I doubt we'd be able to see a tie wrap (once again, too much to look for in a brief few seconds). Depends on the robot's clearance.

3.It was not difficult to tell if the 28x38 robot base was generally over the triangle (breaking the plane); I think that would make things easier and more consistent for a referee to judge.

Another thing, many of the robots were designed to load by driving straight into the triangle. However, if they drive straight into it, there was typically no load bearing surface touching the triangle unless they pulled all the way in (which didn't happen often because the HP jumped off the pad too soon). Therefore, many robots were coming in at weird angles and could have posed a safety risk to the HP.

Chris Hibner

24-02-2005, 09:43

CLEARLY VISIBLE is mentioned two times in there. When teams put on these curb-feelers, then the feeler needs to be on the perimeter of the drive base, not on the inside. If the ref does not "clearly" see the touch, then they should throw the flag.

Getting back to our wheelie bar design...

There is NO WAY for us to make a tie-wrap clearly visible to the referees: our wheelie bars cover up the front of our robot.

Here is what makes me really upset about this whole deal: If it was so "clear" that rule <G12> meant that something within the 38x28 footprint needed to touch the loading station, then WHY WASN'T THE RULE WRITTEN THAT WAY?????? Why didn't <G12> say:

<G12> Something within the 38x28 footprint of your robot must be touching the loading zone to grab a Tetra.

Isn't that simple? If it was that simple to write the rule that way, then why wasn't it? To me, it wasn't written that way in order to allow teams to a) fall over at the start of the match, b) allow their drivetrain to expand, or c) use outriggers or wheelie bars. The rule was pretty clear to say that you shouldn't violate the spirit of the rule by dropping a tether so you can gain "loading zone protection". Why was all of this "spirit of the rule" stuff included if they could've just written the rule as I have it above?

Someone asked, "where do you draw the line on how long wheelie bars can be?" Why do you need to draw a line? These things tend to govern themselves: if your footprint is too big, you're not going to be able to drive around the field due to the congestion and you'll lose anyway.

Kit Gerhart

24-02-2005, 10:02

How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon. You guys are being a bit harsh, aren't you? I don't like rule changes either, especially this one. I argue that without this rule change the referees would have interpreted "blatantly obvious" as a robot base (say, the kit bot) clearly over the loading triangle. I also think the "tie wrap hanging from the base" is a ludicrous proposal, but given the RECENT interpretation that is what my team will do.

Also, look at the picture next to rule S07. It is clear that the original intent of this rule was a drive base had to be over the zone. Notice that the wheels are not touching. Also, here is the rule as written in the FIRST manual:

-Paul
After posting this question to Q and A:

ID: 1393 Section: 4.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/28/2005
Q: As I read the clarifications so far, a robot can be straddling a loading zone triangle with the triangle extending nearly two feet under the robot, but the robot is not "in" the loading zone. Am I interpreting the rule correctly?

and getting this response:

A: See #978. It is very clear.

we started planning to have whiskers, tie wraps, or something hanging from the entire width of both ends of our robot. To me, the intent of the "loading zone" as a safety design is being missed, but we'll be ready to comply with whatever interpretation FIRST ultimately uses. In this game, the only thing worse than 10 point penalties is 30 point penalties.

Kit Gerhart

24-02-2005, 10:13

I know , but the question confuses the reader. It does not explicitly suggest that the triangles are allaince colours. It seems as it it suggesting there are no triangles. Or probably its just me :o

It's not just you. Whoever answered that question, ID978, and kept repeatedly referring to ID978, IMHO was not trying too hard to be helpful. OK, if you look at the rules thoroughly, you will find something saying that a "loading zone" equals "alliance colored plastic triangle," but until all this discussion got going, it was not all that obvious that "in the loading zone" equals "touching the alliance colored plastic triangle."

Swan217

24-02-2005, 10:52

2. I doubt we'd be able to see a tie wrap (once again, too much to look for in a brief few seconds). Depends on the robot's clearance.

3.It was not difficult to tell if the 28x38 robot base was generally over the triangle (breaking the plane); I think that would make things easier and more consistent for a referee to judge.

I agree with Erin. There will be teams out there with one or two tie wraps hanging off of the front of their robot, because they don't have the weight to add any more. It will be very hard to look for those tiewraps with all of the other things that we have to look our for as refs. I can picture this following argument:

Coach: "We HAD to have touched the triangle! We have an all-powerful ziptie on it!"
Ref: "There was a ziptie? I was busy diving for cover because your arm nearly killed me."
Ref #2: "Well, actually, I saw the ziptie, but it was about an inch away from the triangle. Still a penalty."
Coach (sobbing): "But we had a ziptie. We had a ziptie..."

Whereas if the rule went back to the original definition, with the following SIMPLE change:

<G12> The purpose of the LOADING ZONE is to allow ROBOTS to quickly and safely receive TETRAS without interference while HUMAN PLAYERS and/or field attendants are in close proximity, and then return to play. The Robot's drivebase must be clearly over the loading zone to avoid a penalty.
The LOADING ZONE is not intended to serve as a “perpetual safety zone” yada yada yada.

The conversation might look like this.

Coach: "We were over the loading zone by 5 millimeters."
Ref: "I didn't see it. The rule states that the drivebase must be CLEARLY over the loading zone to avoid a penalty."
Coach: "Oh, wow, you're right! Thank you so much for pointing out the error of my ways."
Female College Mentor on team: "You're so smart and fair. Here is my phone number. Call me sometime."

Essentially, there would be a "plane rule," but the plane would be a function of the degree of the referee's head to the loading zone instead of a vertical plane.

It is fun to see Copioil get all riled up about this. I can imagine the crazy Italian's face getting redder by the minute. (I am actually on the phone with him as this post is going out, and I can HEAR his blood pressure rise... fun stuff!)
It is a lot more fun when you see it in person, and then see him take it out on the drivers:

If you grab the joystick by the bottom again, I'm going to throw my safety glasses at you!

Erin Rapacki

24-02-2005, 11:15

Female College Mentor on team: "You're so smart and fair. Here is my phone number. Call me sometime."

I made business cards so I wouldn't have to write on napkins anymore. ;)

Jeff Rodriguez

24-02-2005, 12:15

As pointed out, the word TOUCHING has been in the Q&A #978 since 1/11/05. If you are touching the loading zone, it is obvious that you are in it.

Yan Wang

24-02-2005, 12:18

Andy, Erin, etc. basically to anyone who favors clearly touching the loading zone triangle.

What about thoughtful's post (#14)?: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=342588&postcount=14

From the first day that I read the rules, the image that FIRST put in my mind (and showed in their rules) was that covering the loading zone triangle with the robot base was acceptable. If you watch Dave Lavery's animation, the first time an HP is shown loading on a robot, the little flat blue robot is clearly over the zone but you can't tell whether or not it's touching it.

Maybe a new rule is necessary to make it more clear to the referees as to whether a robot is "in", but this one just isn't it.

Andy Baker

24-02-2005, 13:57

Andy, Erin, etc. basically to anyone who favors clearly touching the loading zone triangle.

What about thoughtful's post (#14)?: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=342588&postcount=14

thoughtful has 2 good points.

1. That picture is a bad example, as it simply shows a robot covering the load zone triangle and it is not clear that the robot is touching the surface of the load zone triangle.

2. The triangle is the wrong shape for this zone. It should be a square or rectangle.

However, it is what it is.

We all have 20/20 hindsight and it is easy to see that the zone should be of a shape different than a triangle. It would be easier for teams to score and easier for refs to make the call. Should this change be made? That is a tough question. I can see two sides to this:

1. Changing a rule or field element at this point of the season is difficult to do. 1000 teams have much momentum with planning and designing, and they have been banking on these to be plastic triangles for the past 7 weeks. Maybe someone found some design key or some advantage that uses this triangular shape in loading tetras. While it may seem unlikely, a team might have an array of photoelectric sensors who pick up the geometry of the triangle to automatically load a tetra, and therefore they depend on this triangle to be exactly what it is. If FIRST changed this triangle to a square, this team would be greatly impacted and their diligence would be diminished.

2. Looking at FIRST's rule G12, the first sentence says that purpose of the loading zones is to "quickly and safely receive tetras". Changing this triangle load zone into a rectangule (or square) would definitely let teams get their tetras quicker and give the referee a safer determination of "in" or "out" of the loading zone.

This is still a quandry. Does FIRST dash the development of a few teams who were depending on the triangle to be exactly what it is on the field prints, or do they change the load zone shape to an easier-to-determine shape of square or rectangle?

This decision is not easy. Keep in mind that this is a BRAND NEW GAME that we are all playing, and it is not going to be perfect. Just like anything developed for the first time (an unedited essay, a FIRST robot, a non debugged program code), it simply will not be perfect until it is put through its application and operated over and over and over. This game is a good one, as we can see from all of the great looking robots with amazing arms. We are going to see some neat things within the next few weeks. At the same time, we teams need to realize that we may just have to deal with these imperfections.

If I were the person making this decision, I will side with sticking to what is on the print, make the teams touch the load zone and give the refs some hardhats.

Andy B.

Natchez

24-02-2005, 14:16

Have any of you read Update #13 yet?

Erin, most respectfully, yes, I have read (& reread, & reread ...) Update #13 along with all of the Q&As concerning the topic. As a Mississippi boy, I'm especially proud that I could read & comprehend all of it. As Andy has pointed out, we are on the rails to a major train wreck and the locomotive is moving pretty fast but is still in FIRST's control. 10-point penalties are very significant in a game where 50 points will be a good score. FIRST is in a very unique situation this time though: FIRST knows that there is a problem and they can correct it by the first regional if we put our heads together and give them good suggestions.

Everyone, here is my first cut at a reasonable, proven, low-tech, not-costly solution that FIRST may want to consider adopting.

Let's take a page out of football officiating handbook and tell the teams if they are in the zone before they incur a penalty. As a wide receiver, the referee holds up his hand if you are on-sides and on the line of scrimmage. So, why don't we have a ref stationed at each loading zone (8 per field) and indicate when "they believe" that a robot is in the loading zone by raising a hand or a green flag. If the flag is up, then go after the tetra. If the flag is down, then the ref does not think the robot is in the zone and you probably should not go after a tetra ... or the ref is asleep. Of course, you would always have the option of proceeding at your own risk.

There are two major drawbacks to this solution. One, as fast paced as the game will be, the refs will need to be on their toes and their arms might get awful tired. Two, with FIRST's implementation of the new volunteer screening process, there will probably not be enough volunteers at the events.

Let's try to stop this train wreck ... what are your ideas at a solution,
Lucien

Erin Rapacki

24-02-2005, 14:17

make the teams touch the load zone and give the refs some hardhats.

Hardhats? I do agree with that! However, it won't help. We referees couldn't get much closer to the Human Player loading zones without getting in the way of the Human Players themselves! (Tripping HPs is a bad idea too.) There's no choice but to be 5 or 10 feet away. Oh well, I guess that's why FIRST wrote "Clearly Visible."

Yes, more eyes and hand signals may work.
[I'm not defending any ideas, only stating my experiences as a referee at a trial event (remember, it was a dry-run for referees too)]

Kyle

24-02-2005, 14:20

This is probably a bad idea but what if there were pieces of straws or something attached to the edges of the loading zone standing up that were pushed over so when a bot enters the zone it will be clearly seen.

I know that could cause the wheels to get cought up in them but it would be a simple and low cost way to solve the problem with out having any effect to the design of other robots.
just an idea..
edit/ this was just an idea that poped in to my head and I thought it could possibly work, I am sure one of the many many many great mentors involved with FIRST could find a way to make this work/edit

Kit Gerhart

24-02-2005, 14:45

Let's try to stop this train wreck ... what are your ideas at a solution,
Lucien
My thought would be change the rule to say that some part of the 28x38 base must extend over the triangle to be "in" the loading zone, but the robot need not touch the triangle. The referees would have to make calls, but a team would know that if they are straddling the triangle with its point a foot under the robot, they will not get a penalty. If, on the other hand, you drive up with only 2mm of triangle under the robot, you do so at a high risk of receiving a penalty.

Bharat Nain

24-02-2005, 15:15

Let's try to stop this train wreck ... what are your ideas at a solution,
Lucien How about they make it a box, and a little bigger than the triangle. Atleast that way our wheels can touch the square. Of course this does not suit the theme of tetras, but to me at least it makes more sense. Although the dangling zip ties from robots might look good(or sloppy), I don't really like the idea.

Jeff Rodriguez

24-02-2005, 15:34

]]Let's try to stop this train wreck ... what are your ideas at a solution,
Lucien

It's not a train wreck. FIRST has said that you need to be touching the loading zone.
They only need to clarify what needs to be touching.
I suggest a new rule:

<G30>
For a robot to be considered "in" a loading zone a wheel, tread, slider, non-retractable stabilizer or robot frame has to touch the corresponding HDPE triangle.

Chris Hibner

24-02-2005, 15:50

Maestro PK

24-02-2005, 17:29

I challenge the point that covering can be seen better by the drive team. How does one come to that conclusion? I can see the robot BASE covering from 20 to 30 feet away. A ref will be right there.

During drive practice last night, we parcticed touching with our wheels. While the drive team had no problem touching, I had a heck of a time seeing if they touched. It was much, much, much, much (you get the point) easier to see if the drive base was over.

....and there it is. I can't see how FIRST can ultimately come to any conclusion other than what Paul has suggested. Given the fact that many bots have heavily obscurred wheels, telling refs that they must determine each time a tetra is picked up whether or not a part of the bot is actually touching the triangle is just ridiculous. Even Dan Swando, who has the super-human ability to slow down time and zoom in with his telescoping eyes, has admitted that this would be a tough judgement for any ref to make. The drive base should have to clearly cover the triangle, not neccessarily touch it. As far as some concerns I've heard regarding bots that fold out and cover a larger space, I think a fair ruling would be to say that what constitutes the "drive base" can only be as large as the original 28 x 38 in. starting size. Any part of the bot that subsequently folds out or expands would not count and would not be able to "cover" the loading zone.

Gotta show a little support for the Copiolster ;-)

meaubry

24-02-2005, 20:41

Once the rule is written and distributed, it doesn't mean that they should still not consider the now exposed concerns and issues related to them. Every year most major sports re-evaluate the rules and change some.

We don't have nor should have to wait a year for this rule to be changed - if, the rule change is done to improve some aspect of the game experience.

In my opinion, the penalties this year are excessive and will have a major impact in the outcome of many of the matches. Does that add any value to the FIRST experience, I think not. So, why not change some that will undoubtedly be a burden on the referees (whom will be busy enough trying to sort out the interference penalties).

Defining the Loading Zone, by the HDPE triangle was debated from almost the kickoff, with FIRST responses clearly and consistently defining the zone as contacting the surface of the triangle. A question was asked and responded to early about danglers and appendages extended from the robot. Answer - NO, not good enough. Clearly, this was to discourage long arm designed robots planting themselves midfield.

Okay, so what now? Danglers from 28" x 38" base clearly visible by a ref? Sorry, but this is still somewhat silly. When teams design robots, many have protective coverings that do not allow anyone to visibly see the 28" x 38" base. And, why continue relying on the subjective decision of someone that can't really be watching 2 things at the same time. Tetra up on a stand, and robot base on the ground.

Wouldn't it be simpler for everyone concerned to simply define the loading zone as a 3 dimensional area defined by the edges of the hdpe triangle and extending 6 inches up. In order to be "in the loading zone", a robot primary drive system or base must extend into or over that defined area.

And, for the auto loader zone I'd instruct the refs to be less judgemental than in the Human player loading zone. I am 100% in support of protecting the students in the human loading zone, but on the other-side? what is the point? Isn't there going to be enough for the ref's to have to try and sort out, why overburden them with one more non-essential decision?

Anyways, thats my take on this.

Covey41

24-02-2005, 20:50

I am having a hard time feeling sorry for most of you, from the beginning the word "touching" was in the rules. As Dean Said we are engineers and not lawyers. We are upset that we just superficially glanced at the rules, and not making sure that we were understanding what we read. We like everyone Else assumed that just being over the loading zone was good enough, we were wrong!

Am I going to complain? No.

"I" did not completely read the rule. "I" did not take the time to completely understand what I was reading. Am "I" going to whine at FIRST, No!

Who do "I" blame, ME!

Folks this is the rule, LIVE WITH IT!

FIRST gave us away to live with it, they very well could have said "tough"!

Now FIRST is not about building a robot, it is about inspiring students into technology fields. It is about dealing with real world scenarios. Let's not teach our students that it is OK to whine till someone changes thing to the way we want them.

Erin,

Our team was at UTC. I counted 7 Ref's, 1 more than FIRST asks for at regionals. How can you say you were understaffed. You could say that they needed more Ref's, but maybe you should have a better idea of what is going on before you give an opinion.

For what is worth that is my 2 cents. (I know it's not worth that much.)

Natchez

25-02-2005, 00:40

It's not a train wreck. FIRST has said that you need to be touching the loading zone.
They only need to clarify what needs to be touching.
I suggest a new rule:

<G30>
For a robot to be considered "in" a loading zone a wheel, tread, slider, non-retractable stabilizer or robot frame has to touch the corresponding HDPE triangle.

Ogre, I'm sorry if I did not clarify what I meant by train wreck. I'm not saying the rule is going to be the train wreck; the train wreck, in my opinion, will be all of the jawing between the coaches and refs over incorrect calls and missed calls as Andy and others have pointed out. If the rule stands how it is now where a wheel or a wire tie might or might not be seen by the ref, I would like a penny for every time I'll hear, "We would have won but the ref threw a flag on us when we were in the loading zone."

If there is not a way for the refs to get the calls "right" at least 95% of the time, I think that the rule (whatever it ends up being) should be considered a failure. And if you think 95% is a high standard, this percentage means that there will be at least one missed call during each match resulting in a 10 point "swing" and in a game that will not see many matches over 50 points per alliance, a 10 point swing is huge and will probably swing many matches ... not excluding the World Championship matches. After thinking about it, maybe FIRST should be shooting for rules that ensure more like a 98% or 99% ref call accuracy rate; and for those that have a low accuracy rate, maybe the penalty should be less than 5% of the expected average score. These are the type of standards and litmus tests that I wish FIRST would adopt.

Lucien

thoughtful

25-02-2005, 00:56

WOW, this topic is becoming very hot. We have two sides as always to this aspect; however, i think that the rule from the start was a bit confusing. On top of that there was the confusing diagram. I think FIRST will come up with a simple solution for this. We have to keep in mind that FIRST might not be able to change the field layout as the field parts must have already been constructed and even shipped to some fo the regionals. I myself, like many other people, who are much more experienced than myself, beleive that the rule should be changed to allow a robot base to break the 3D plane over the triangle to be considered in the loading zone. As Paul Copioli mentioned its much easier to see if the robot is in the loading zone, in contrast to making a call based on a wheel touching.

My two cents.. :)

AJunx

25-02-2005, 01:15

I just reread through the original rules (<G12> through <G15>) to try to get a feel for exactly what everyone was thinking when we set out to design and build our robots. Here are two major problems (potential train wrecks) I see with the current interpretation of the loading zone rule:

1) Now that in order to be "in" the loading zone, you must have something within your 28" by 38" base touching the triangle, it is now possible to enter and exit the loading zone without moving the base of your robot. How? Well suppose you stuck the front half of your base over the triangle so that none of your wheels were touching. By the rules, your robot is NOT in the loading zone.
Next, you use a tiny pneumatic cylinder in the front center of your robot to put down a small neon green (or pink) foot to touch the loading zone triangle. Now your robot is IN the loading zone. Awfully convenient, wouldn't you say? To exit the loading zone, all you have to do is lift the foot using your pneumatic. Total lateral movement by the robot: zero.

Does it strike anyone else as odd that you can enter the loading zone AND exit the loading zone without ever moving your robot?

2) Nothing in <G12> through <G15> in any way suggests that a robot that falls on its side to make its base 38" by 60" should not be able to use its "new" base to touch or cover the loading zone triangle.

Geez, I need to stop typing so much.

Anyway, here is the point:

Enforce the rule the way it was written and the way it was meant to be enforced: If a robot is, in the opinion of whatever referee is watching, CLEARLY IN (that is, covering) the loading station, let it get a tetra. Also, the robot must be CLEARLY OUT of (not covering) the loading station before it re-enters.

Hope this was somewhat useful,
-Andrew

russell

25-02-2005, 01:34

If I were FIRST I would just put a pressure sensor under the triangle, and a sensor (be it optical, pressure, totally insane magic, whatever) to determine when a tetra is removed. If the sensor under the triangle does not detect pressure when the tetra is removed there is a penalty. Otherwise as this guy I know would say "its cool". I realise that this would cause some trouble with their little thing about being within the dimensions, and their other little thing with dangling string onto the triangle, but the point is that it would work, and it would be accurate. And it would comply with the original rules as far as I can tell.

Jeff Rodriguez

25-02-2005, 11:38

ID: 1757 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 2/25/2005
Q: In regards to ID1617, i would like to refer to Section 4.3.2, the picture on the right of <S06>. The diagram illustrates an O.K way of loading the tetra; it is clear that the robot is straddling the triangle. Please change ruling or clarify.
A: The pictures are for illustrative purposes only and may not be completely detailed. The purpose of this picture is to demonstrate the human player loading only. Also see #978... the rule has been "touching" since 1/11/2005. Using the baseball analogy,... Imagine in baseball if the runner just had to be over the base to be safe?

There you go. 'Touching' has been there since 1/11 and the baseball analogy. I believe both of those were mentioned in this thread.

Pat Major

25-02-2005, 12:28

Why do loading stations exist? To protect the human players and the referees.

Are the referees better protected if they are trying to look under the 28 X 38 perimeter of a robot to see if a wheel that may be barely visible is on the loading station triangle? What might the robots arm be doing while the ref is crouching down to look? If a robot has a cover that the referee can not see through and the cover is an inch or two off the playing field, and the robots wheels are set in a couple of inches from the edge of the robot, how could the ref know if the robot was on. There may be no way to tell if a robot is in, if the robots cover is a quarter of an inch off the ground. Andy and Paul might have to teach the referees how to do the “belly checks” that were so well done at the IRI competition. For the safety of the refs I think that the rule should be amended to read “the loading zone is a 3 dimensional area defined by the edges of the hdpe triangle” I think breaking the plan is much safer and also much easier to judge. If the rule is not changed it will just be zip tie city, and a lot of robots with skirts.

As for baseball players they do not have a 28 X 38 protective cover over their feet to obstruct the view of the base from umpire.

Speaking of baseball how about this curve ball, why not have the referees signal by raising an arm that a robot is in the loading station and it is safe for the team to remove a tetra. That way the team can keep trying to position themselves in the zone until the referee signals. No arguments over whether you were in or not, no red flags, you may not touch the tetra until his hand is raised. Assumes that we have a referee at each of the four referee loading stations

Jeff Rodriguez

25-02-2005, 12:34

Why do loading stations exist? To protect the human players and the referees.

They exist to promote creativity and exciting matches. If they were not there, a robot could easily block their opponents loading zones and effectively shutting them out.
The loading zones promote offense robots and encourage teams to design arms/lifts and tetra grabbers rather than a large, expandable wall.

Natchez

25-02-2005, 12:53

why not have the referees signal by raising an arm that a robot is in the loading station and it is safe for the team to remove a tetra.

Pat, this is a GREAT IDEA :D

why don't we have a ref stationed at each loading zone (8 per field) and indicate when "they believe" that a robot is in the loading zone by raising a hand or a green flag.

Now we have two of us on board. A couple more thousand people and maybe we can make this happen.

I'll buy you lunch if we see a bunch of refs hands going up at Championships,
Lucien

Pat Major

25-02-2005, 13:26

They exist to promote creativity and exciting matches. If they were not there, a robot could easily block their opponents loading zones and effectively shutting them out.
The loading zones promote offense robots and encourage teams to design arms/lifts and tetra grabbers rather than a large, expandable wall.
I was refering to 4.3.3. General Match Rules
<G12> The purpose of the LOADING ZONE is to allow ROBOTS to quickly and safely receive TETRAS
without interference while HUMAN PLAYERS and/or field attendants are in close proximity, and then return
to play. The LOADING ZONE is not intended to serve as a “perpetual safety zone” to prevent interaction
with opponent ROBOTS for the entire match. Tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, and other devices
intended to contact the LOADING ZONE to maintain the “non-interference constraint” defined in <G15>
while the ROBOT drives around the remainder of the field are against the spirit of the rule and will not be
permitted. Such devices must be removed before the ROBOT will be permitted to play in the match.

I also think a "large expandable wall" is very creative and would be a challange to build (I'll bet Wildstang could do it). With the trangles on the floor you can still try to keep the opposing alliance from getting to the triangles If they were not present you would be trying to keep them from the tetra holder itself, instead of the loading zone. I too am a big fan of great arms and tetra grabbers. Can't wait until next weekend to get a first hand look at all the great things that have been built in the past 6 weeks.

Andy Baker

25-02-2005, 14:01

Pat, this is a GREAT IDEA :D

I'll buy you lunch if we see a bunch of refs hands going up at Championships,
Lucien

Lucien and Pat, great idea.

Count me in as a third person. I'll get the tip at lunch.

Andy

AmyPrib

25-02-2005, 14:25

Speaking of baseball how about this curve ball, why not have the referees signal by raising an arm that a robot is in the loading station and it is safe for the team to remove a tetra. That way the team can keep trying to position themselves in the zone until the referee signals. No arguments over whether you were in or not, no red flags, you may not touch the tetra until his hand is raised. Assumes that we have a referee at each of the four referee loading stations

You would need 8 refs just to signal in or out. That's a lot of refs, and they aren't watching the overall match. The only issue I would see is that a ref's attention can be pulled away for a potentially "long" amount of time if he has to stare at your robot waiting for it to get "in" the loading zone properly. Even if that ref is assigned to watch that robot, I still think it could be an issue with watching other overall activities. And I personally wouldn't expect a ref to be my "in/out" identifier throughout an entire match. It compromises his safety if he's not watching what else is going on, and then the team gets frustrated with the ref because he's not signaling immediately if the robot is "in".

It's not the ref's responsibility to direct you "into" the loading zone, it's the team's responsibility. Though, it would take away the penalties for "retrieving a tetra while not in the zone" (not that I'm opposed to that!). But while it is the team's responsibility to follow the rules, this particular rule should be defined differently so that it will be clear to ALL people when you are in/out of the zone.

I like the suggestion for making the "in" zone to be touching with robot base or being in the 3d space 6" above the triangle. We are all logical enough to know what is 6" above the triangle to avoid argument calls - 6" allows for your drive base to be "hovering" inside the zone. But it prevents robots from reaching their long arm into the higher 3d space from 10ft away, that's not really "safe". I think touching and allowing 3d space of 6" height be to considered "in" seems to encompass the intent of the original rule.

It was a very good point about "straddling" the triangle - where you can use pneumatics to be in and out, without ever moving the robot. To me, that doesn't seem like that was the intent of the rule. But if they were tricky and thought that would be an innovative design to get around having to physically move, then...i guess ok.. But it seems like all the interpretations to the unclear rule have been such that you had to touch the triangle, or be "obviously" in the triangle. The ideas above seem like it would encompass that pretty easily, without being unfair to those who designed their robot to the original, unclear rule. Having zip ties and skirts to touch if you're straddling, just seems silly to require because it does risk safety of refs and allows for arguments over penalty calls.

Billfred

25-02-2005, 14:31

I like the suggestion for making the "in" zone to be touching with robot base or being in the 3d space 6" above the triangle. We are all logical enough to know what is 6" above the triangle to avoid argument calls - 6" allows for your drive base to be "hovering" inside the zone. But it prevents robots from reaching their long arm into the higher 3d space from 10ft away, that's not really "safe". I think touching and allowing 3d space of 6" height be to considered "in" seems to encompass the intent of the original rule.
I like this concept, except that no ref will have a six-inch measurement device handy. How about using some reference from the guardrail pipe?

AmyPrib

25-02-2005, 14:40

I like this concept, except that no ref will have a six-inch measurement device handy. How about using some reference from the guardrail pipe?

Well, that's kinda why I said we're all logical enough to know what 6" is.. including teams, and including refs. I would find it silly if people wanted to get so "exact" with the 6" and have a ruler for this rule. If you had a drivebase/body 12" above the wheels, then touch the triangle with a wheel.. but if you're straddling the triangle, I think it's obvious - even though it doesn't satisfy the 6" rule. But I'm betting we see most/all drivebases within 6-8"" of the ground.

I'm sure someone will come up with a caveat (right word?) for every "improved" rule that anyone comes up with. But it goes back to intent of the rule, and to quit being lawyers. Using a guardrail or something as a reference, fine. Maybe it would be easier if we had a FIRST official directly state what the intent of the rule was and go from there. To me, it sounds like safety for all, and to give a confined area in which you could retrieve a tetra. There have been suggestions that cover those.

Pat Major

25-02-2005, 15:07

You would need 8 refs just to signal in or out. That's a lot of refs, and they aren't watching the overall match. The only issue I would see is that a ref's attention can be pulled away for a potentially "long" amount of time if he has to stare at your robot waiting for it to get "in" the loading zone properly. Even if that ref is assigned to watch that robot, I still think it could be an issue with watching other overall activities. And I personally wouldn't expect a ref to be my "in/out" identifier throughout an entire match. It compromises his safety if he's not watching what else is going on, and then the team gets frustrated with the ref because he's not signaling immediately if the robot is "in".

It's not the ref's responsibility to direct you "into" the loading zone, it's the team's responsibility. Though, it would take away the penalties for "retrieving a tetra while not in the zone" (not that I'm opposed to that!). But while it is the team's responsibility to follow the rules, this particular rule should be defined differently so that it will be clear to ALL people when you are in/out of the zone.[I]

Four referees woud do. We do not need them at the human players side because of the human players mats.

A referee under the current system has to watch to see if the robot is in the loading station, he would be watching the same thing. The diffrence is that instead of throwing a red flag if the robot is not "in" he would throw up his hand when the robot is "in".

The referees would not be directing anyone, they would just be letting all teams know if a robot is in or out, which might also lessen the number of flags thrown for a team that gets into a pushing match with another robot thinking they were not quite in the zone...when indeed they were.

My guess is, we will all end up wearing skirts.

AmyPrib

25-02-2005, 15:44

Four referees woud do. We do not need them at the human players side because of the human players mats.

A referee under the current system has to watch to see if the robot is in the loading station, he would be watching the same thing.

The HP can still place a tetra on a robot that is not "in" the LZ by jumping off his mat prematurely. He'll just get a penalty. So either way, the team has to know when they're "in" the LZ. Sure if we just wanted it for auto side, then yeah 4.

I suppose a ref would need to be relatively focused on a robot swooping through the auto side, since being "in" and then out can happen quickly. But, it could potentially make the ref focus on just that robot for longer periods of time than he normally would need to, if a team can't get their robot in the zone 1st, 2nd, try, they will expect the ref to give them an immediate signal as soon as they do get in- which means he has to be focused on them. It may even require the ref to get down on his knees to look, which is why i don't like the "purely touching" rule because it may not always be "obvious", like the other statement made.

I still think it's not the responsibility of the ref to do us a favor in letting us know that we're "in" the zone. The ref has a ton of other responsibilities as it is. But hay - if the refs wanted to do it and FIRST allowed it, cool. But I wouldn't want to have to rely on them to do so, simply because I don't think it's fair to the refs. There could also be inconsistency between refs in doing this - even though there shouldn't be, but on the same token, there could also be inconsistency in the way they make any call. I would think it could be lessened by a clearer defined rule.

What woulda been cool is if there were sensor pads (like mentioned by someone else) associated with a red light that everyone could see, so they knew if the robot was in or out. That may be similar to a ref raising his hand, but instead takes burden off the ref. That would help eliminate arguments over the "interference rule" if other teams couldn't see they were in, as well as any other arguments of being in or out. Oh well.

Maybe FIRST will take into consideration some of the reasonable/feasible suggestions put forth, which don't seem to change the intent of the rule, or make things unfair for certain teams.

Kit Gerhart

25-02-2005, 16:11

Jason Morrella

25-02-2005, 16:38

As I haven't posted much this year, I'll make this my long post for the season. :)

Some thoughts and opinions on this thread:

While a few people are clearly very worked up over this loading zone rules, I think they will be pleasantly surprised that it does not become the big train wreck/debate they fear. Those who have a problem with the rules have some very good and valid points - every year there are some rules which teams interpret differently and which FIRST clarifies. Every year teams ask (beg) FIRST to
#1 try to have everything perfect when unveiled at the kickoff
#2 even though they try hard, if something isn't perfect and is found to be unclear - PLEASE clarify it early and only make any rule changes if it's absolutely necessary

So while people can discuss and debate how the rule "could" be different or better, here are a couple aspects of the rules all teams should be preparing for:

For a robot to interact with and retrieve a tetra from a loading zone without incurring a penalty, it must:

A) Be TOUCHING (not new, this has been the case for 46 days now and before anyone started building a robot) the loading zone triangle
B) Be clearly and visibly touching the loading zone triangle

For those who are taking notes of Law & Order reruns while preparing to argue that their robot is "over" the loading zone with refs at events - save yourself and your team a lot of time. The robot needs to "touch" the zone.

I do hold a different opinion than those who feel they would argue less with referees if they just had to be in the three dimensional place of the triangle instead of actually touching it. Take the baseball analogy - if a runner going from second to home only had to pass OVER third base and not touch it, both coaches would be sprinting out of the dugout on almost every play to argue with the umpire that the player was or wasn't over the corner tip of the base. However, in baseball it is the player’s responsibility to clearly touch the base to be safe. They can touch the center of the base, the side of the base, or just the little bity tip of the base - but they do have to touch it. If the umpire sees the base touched, safe - if he doesn't, out. It’s that simple and leads to very few arguments. FIRST refs will be much more comfortable with their judgment that they visibly saw part of the robot touching than the would be with their judgment that a part of a robot may or may not have been over an inch or two of the tip of the loading zone triangle - especially since they aren't hovering over the interaction looking down from above.

For those who feel teams are going to argue with refs that part of their robot is actually touching the triangle after the ref says it isn't. I offer this suggestion to solve any potential problem:

1. Find an unbiased stranger with no affiliation to your team (we all know almost all in FIRST are unable to consider an issue 100% objectively and with an open mind once you've taken a stance and your robot can be impacted by it in any way).

2. Ask that stranger to stand about 4-8 feet away from the loading zone triangle, about where a ref would be standing. (Forgot about the lawyers: make sure the stranger is standing up, don't ask them to lay on the carpet on their stomach)

3. Have your students drive your robot onto the loading zone triangle to the typical position/distance from the field border that your robot will be to get a tetra (2 inches over the tip of the triangle, or 2 feet into the triangle, whatever your team plans to do).

4. Ask the stranger this question: "Is that robot physically touching the triangle, not just over it?”

5. If they say, without having to squint or contort their body in any way "yeah, right there - that part of the robot is touching the triangle, it's pretty easy to see". Then hooray, you're probably good to go. Go have fun and don't worry about # 6.

6. If the stranger says "no", "I don't think so", or "at least not in a place I can see" - then you're not good to go and need to address the problem, then go have fun.

It's that simple - no need to argue with the refs at all, it's not their problem. If your first instinct is to tell the stranger (or ref) that "you're wrong, it is actually touching, it's just that the part that touches is inside the robot frame and your view is partially covered by X (insert whatever part name you want here - battery, motor, electronics, etc.)" then you are not clearly and visibly touching the triangle and should revisit # 6.

FIRST obviously took this into account when they clarified the touching rule by allowing virtually anything to be touching. Those who feel this is too easy, too simplistic, doesn't require complex engineering - you're probably right, and I'm sure most agree with you - but that's not the issue. FIRST chose not to require teams to use solutions which might require them to use lots of weight or drastically change their designs to meet the touching requirement and provided teams the option of finding a hopefully easy and low resource/cost solution if they so wish. If it's that easy and simplistic to just add some feelers, wire ties, whatever it may be as some have mentioned - then it shouldn't be a heavy burden on teams to do so. All they have to do is make sure they clearly touch the triangle so the ref can visibly see it.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with anyone that with hindsight the loading zone aspect of the game could be done a little better (maybe a different/bigger shape, rules worded a little more clear, etc.). There will be a few instances like this in every game every year. Luckily, these instances have become much fewer and less controversial the past two years.

What I do disagree with is the thought that this is a train wreck about to happen, that the sky is falling, and so on. I think back to the ball corral and goaltending rules last year. People should remember that many posted on here that those rules could ruin the game, that most matches would be decided by penalties and have zero scores, and so on. What happened is that there were a lot of penalties for the ball corral issue in week 1 and on Friday morning of some events. Then the teams adjusted, realized what the drivers and human players needed to do to avoid the penalties, and there were very few and many times no penalties on Saturdays and during the playoffs. I predict this is what will happen this year, teams will realize "wow - we (or they) got a 30 point penalty (ouch) for hitting the a robot while it was in the loading zone. We don't want that to happen again, let's not drive anywhere close to the loading zones of the other alliances whenever they have a robot in that area". I predict most teams will never get penalized for that more than once - if they do, then they really can't blame anyone else, it's there choice to be taking that risk. If some teams get 10 pt penalties for not clearly touching the loading zone, I predict they will address it, fix it, and will not get further penalties.

I think some underestimate our teams, students, and mentors. Is the loading zone issue a nuisance for a number of teams, and does it really seem to bother a few people in particular? Yes, that's clear. But a window bothers a bird in a house also - the difference is that the bird flies into the same window repeatedly and really gets a headache, while the FIRST team member recognizes the window is there, wishes it wasn't, probably curses the people who placed the window there in the first place, and then designs something to prevent them from making the same mistake again so that the window is no longer something they need to waste their time or energy complaining about.

If this is the biggest potential train wreck we experience in the 2005 game, then I think things are looking pretty good. Doesn't mean other issues or controversies won't come up, but so far this seems to be it.

Finally - based on what I sawand heard from many teams last weekend at various events, in my years in FIRST I've never seen such a high percentage of robots functioning so well at this point. I think this speaks volumes for the improved kit of parts and for all the hard work put in by the students and mentors. Congrats to everyone for 6 weeks of hard work, now go out and enjoy the fruits of your labor - good luck and have a blast at your upcoming events!

JM

AmyPrib

25-02-2005, 20:21

For a robot to interact with and retrieve a tetra from a loading zone without incurring a penalty, it must:

A) Be TOUCHING (not new, this has been the case for 46 days now and before anyone started building a robot) the loading zone triangle
B) Be clearly and visibly touching the loading zone triangle

Take the baseball analogy - if a runner going from second to home only had to pass OVER third base and not touch it, both coaches would be sprinting out of the dugout on almost every play to argue with the umpire that the player was or wasn't over the corner tip of the base. FIRST refs will be much more comfortable with their judgment that they visibly saw part of the robot touching than the would be with their judgment that a part of a robot may or may not have been over an inch or two of the tip of the loading zone triangle - especially since they aren't hovering over the interaction looking down from above.

What I do disagree with is the thought that this is a train wreck about to happen, that the sky is falling, and so on. I predict this is what will happen this year, teams will realize "wow - we (or they) got a 30 point penalty (ouch) for hitting the a robot while it was in the loading zone. We don't want that to happen again, let's not drive anywhere close to the loading zones of the other alliances whenever they have a robot in that area".

I'm not taking either side on this issue, because we can work with it either way. I'm cool with the touching requirement. However, I feel like the baseball analogy is slightly different than our case here.

A baseball players legs are fully visible to everyone that has their eyeballs open, and you can see them from all angles. But a FIRST ref standing on the right side of a robot isn't easily going to see what's happen on the left side of the robot when there's a full robot body, side panels, etc on it. Few robots have ever been completely clear and have huge wheels easily viewable.

I think the biggest issue is that having an entire robot straddling and obviously sitting on top of the triangle is not considered in, because the distance between their wheels happens to be bigger than the triangle. I don't know that anyone has wanted to dangle a robot part over the triangle and call it in, as in the baseball analogy. Yes - that would be difficult to call (did he pass over the corner of the base, etc). It's when a robot is on top of a triangle such that the triangle itself is not visible, seems odd that that is not considered in. A stranger could stand 4-8ft away and tell you that it's obviously in, even if something underneath isn't touching. But if he's on the right side of the robot, and my robot is touching such that he could have obviously seen if he was on the left side of the robot, then standing on the right, he may not see that. I would hate to see a ref tripping over himself to rush to the left side to verify.... safety first..

I think it was also frustrating that it was 2/16/05 when the drivebase/drivetrain was defined as being inside the 28x38 dimensions. While I don't know there will be a lot of teams with this issue, it could significantly affect those that do. It went from "touching", to "being obvious", to "a part of the 28x38 base touching". I'd like to think common sense in conjunction with rules will be used when making the "in" calls. But there is inconsistency in common sense also.

I don't think that this will be a train wreck either. I have also said before that I think when you see a robot near it's loading zone, don't even think about going near it, to avoid a huge penalty. I think teams will be able to correct along the way. If you have issues with the autoload side, work the HP side to death... at least you won't get a penalty for accidentally touching the tetra before touching the triangle.

In hindsight, "in" could be defined as "touching the triangle, or obviously straddling/covering/sitting over the triangle (if the intent was to obviously be in a designated load area). But I guess the intent of the rule was to be touching the triangle in a manner that a ref can see from no matter where he's standing, even though that could almost be physically impossible, unless your whole robot is clear. I hope regionals are able to recruit minimum 10 refs/match - that's not even an exxagerated number.

And I thought the bird story was humorous....yet true.
Eh - We'll see how it goes, live and learn.

meaubry

25-02-2005, 22:24

I would have to agree that this is "the" topic this year. I am certain that every team will abide by whatever rule the refs decide to call. Yes, some will re-think, re-design, and re-build part of their robot to better avoid getting unwanted penalties.
And many will argue and take the same attitudes that have been observed as part of this thread. Whenever a human being is asked to determine if a rule is being broken (no matter how obvious it is) someone will have a different perspective as to whether or not the rule was broken.
In this case, Jason makes some good points. The baseball analogy is somewhat questionable as the opposing team must challenge in a speciifc way that a player missed touching a base. A different baseball example that might occur this year is the "phantom tag" at second while executing a double play. Umpires use judgement to determine touching / tagging out a runner all of the time, even the best make mistakes and sometimes arguements occur.
Why put someone in that position when it could be avoided? It's hard enough to get people to volunteer to be a ref, it won't be any easier when they are told that matches may be determined by a spilt second decision.
What is "blatently obvious to one person is not to another" - I challenge anyone to determine if a robot moving towards the loading station touches a tetra a split second before or a split second after it touches the hdpe triangle loading zone. It's pretty darn hard to watch 2 things that are not right next to each other at the same time, no matter how far away you are.
Oh yeah, one otherthing - Do ties go to the runner?

Swan217

26-02-2005, 00:46

Umpires use judgement to determine touching / tagging out a runner all of the time, even the best make mistakes and sometimes arguements occur.
Why put someone in that position when it could be avoided? It's hard enough to get people to volunteer to be a ref, it won't be any easier when they are told that matches may be determined by a spilt second decision.
Umpires also get paid for making these split second game altering decisions. ;);).

Oh yeah, one other thing - Do ties go to the runner?
This is FIRST - ties always go to the runner :)

Also repeating the fatal flaw to the baseball analogy: Baseball players aren't wearing full length skirts when they run the bases.

AmyPrib

26-02-2005, 00:46

I challenge anyone to determine if a robot moving towards the loading station touches a tetra a split second before or a split second after it touches the hdpe triangle loading zone. It's pretty darn hard to watch 2 things that are not right next to each other at the same time, no matter how far away you are.

Precisely why I think there have been many concerns over this issue. While everyone will try to figure out a way to abide by the rule as written, I think it's going to be extremely difficult for anyone to judge this in action, no matter how obvious one might think it is that they're touching, esp if you're not in the right position to see the obviousness. Because the triangles are on the ground, there's likely 3 of 4 directions in which the touching action may be visibly blocked. For the auto zone, if you plan on swooping in and picking up the tetra quickly, you might end up having to slow the process down a bit so the ref can have a chance to see, I don't know. That's kinda unfortunate when time is so precious. Can't wait to check out the first week's regionals. I dont' envy a ref's position as it is sometimes a difficult spot to be in, but overall I think it'll all go well.

rees2001

26-02-2005, 11:51

I have no problem with the idea that it needs to be obvious that your robot is in or even touching the LZ. That can be done in many ways. The problem I see is when did the 28x38 base come into play. 4 weeks in is waaaaaay tooooooo far to make that kind of change. Many teams are done with their robots by then and others are way too far in to make that kind of change. All along we went with the premise that if we made it obvious that we are in the loading zone & we have some part of our robot make contact with the HDPE we would be considered in the LZ. We have been patient about the rules changes. All of them seem to be for the better of the game. But you cannot expect a team to redesign their robot because the robot base needs STAY 28x38. If your teams robot is designed to tip to create a 38x60 base and you completely and entirely cover the LZ when acquiring scoring objects, should you not be considered in?

Andy,
I know you have been a head referee at many FIRST events. Is this a letter of the law or an interpretation of the law? If it is obvious we are in the loading zone/completely covering the loading zone will you throw a flag? I shouldn't put you on the spot like this so, who among us would throw the flag and who wouldn't?

I just asked because I heard YOU will be the Ref at the Finger Lakes Regional next week here in Rochester. And how you deal with it in the first week sets a precedence for the entire season.

rees2001

26-02-2005, 14:54

After reading & re-reading the Q&A system about this subject I will use one of FIRST's analogies.

They like to use the baseball analogy of touching a base. I agree that a baseball player is not safe just by hovering over a base but what about the baseball player that slides into a base? they are still their original size, just oriented differently. I know no umpire that would rule a player out because he slid.

Covey41

26-02-2005, 15:47

nuggetsyl

26-02-2005, 16:25

Guy's,

Give up!! After reading Jason's reply it is obvious that FIRST is not going to change the rule. It's going to stay the same as it was on 11JAN05. You must "touch" the loading zone triangle.

I would also question the integrity of any Ref who would not follow FIRST's instructions on the rules.
I would agree with you if that was the rule on 11jan05 but that is not what the rule said, It said robots must be in the zone never did the word touch come into play until the a few weeks in the build.

meaubry

26-02-2005, 16:38

Hey Covey,
This website was created many years ago by my team, for the purpose of allowing the FIRST community to share their thoughts and ideas, yes even complaints are welcome (if directed in a non-personal way, with good taste, and abiding by all of our rules).
You are allowed your feelings, let everyone else post theirs too.
Your previous post was clear thet you "don't feel sorry for anyone", which is cool, no problem - but don't take it upon yourself to tell others to "give up" posting their feelings about this really stupid rule.
Yes, I agree that Jason's post makes it pretty clear that FIRST will most likely not change or clarify the rule again, but that doesn't mean that this website or thread should be closed or folks should stop posting their feelings about touching the loading zone.
Perhaps next year, if not this year, rules like this will be addressed in a different (hopefully better) way.
And, I would never question the integrity of a ref, under any circumstances - those folks volunteer their time. They are human and sometimes make mistakes - we all will need to deal with that (even more so, this year).

Jeff Rodriguez

26-02-2005, 16:44

I would agree with you if that was the rule on 11jan05 but that is not what the rule said, It said robots must be in the zone never did the word touch come into play until the a few weeks in the build.

No, it said touch. Q & A ID:978 answered on 1/11/05
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

The Q & A take precedence over the manual.

Bharat Nain

26-02-2005, 17:29

No, it said touch. Q & A ID:978 answered on 1/11/05
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

The Q & A take precedence over the manual. Again, they confused us a little bit by saying "The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone" They did not say it should be in the original 28x38 dimensions. if they had the word "touching" italicized or bolded or something it would've been much more clear to us that we had to build something that had to be TOUCHING. When they said it should be in the 28x30 box and touching, many many many many teams must have spent hours or days figuring out how to modify their drive train to fit that. I know we did.

meaubry

26-02-2005, 17:34

Ogre, True - but it wasn't until few weeks later that the answer to my question finally defined the part about the robot base. I asked the question because of the words "robot base AND/OR drive train".
Drive train was clear and understandable, but robot base was NOT. Base when we start? Base when we fall over? What part of the base? What is a robot base? And, "blatently obvious will draw far less attention", left me to wonder if that meant the ref's wouldn't be so quick to throw a flag in marginal conditions.
By then, we had already committed to a design with wheels spread 26" apart, and a secondary drive which rotates out in front of the 28" x 38" base, pivoting about our primary drive system axle. Once the match starts we intended on rotating the front bumper/secondary drive and play the match that way.
So, now we will change our strategy a little, and drive with the bumper up so the ref's can clearly see that the load bearing parts that we have on our 28" x 38" base are indeed touching before we collect a tetra.
We have practiced alot and I can tell you that we approach the loading zone quickly, grab the tetra and go, very very quickly. If the ref is watching the wheels for a load bearing violation they may miss us picking the tetra and if they are watching the tetra for a touching violation they will miss seeing our wheels. All in all, I really don't want to have to tell the students to go really really slow so the refs can see that we are blatently obviously bearing a load on the hdpe triangle - time is really important in order to put up a lot of tetras.
But, as Jason said earlier, We will adapt in order to not burden our alliance partners with unwanted and unnecessary penalties.

rees2001

26-02-2005, 19:44

Again, they confused us a little bit by saying "The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone" They did not say it should be in the original 28x38 dimensions. if they had the word "touching" italicized or bolded or something it would've been much more clear to us that we had to build something that had to be TOUCHING. When they said it should be in the 28x30 box and touching, many many many many teams must have spent hours or days figuring out how to modify their drive train to fit that. I know we did.

As usual the rules changed. FIRST probably looked at the the rule & thought this was an easy fix to say in the 28x38 dimension & touching. Touching makes sense, it is absolute, binary, you are or your not. There is no real grey area, the rule that has the most bearing on our team is the 28x38 footprint. That rule came 6 days before ship. 6 days! We had already designed & built a robot the falls from the 28x38 to 38x60. There is no redesigning possible at that point. We figured they would catch their wording and make one last change. I am confident that they still will. FIRST is a terrific program, run by normal people like Dave Lavery and Dean Kamen and Woodie Flowers...Maybe maybe not normal but very much like you and I.

jgannon

26-02-2005, 21:57

Okay, one more time.
As usual the rules changed.
The last time this rule changed was on 1/11/05. That was three days into build season... not an unreasonable amount of time.
FIRST probably looked at the the rule & thought this was an easy fix to say in the 28x38 dimension & touching.
"Touching" was part of the 1/11/05 ruling... long ago. 28x38 was a recent reminder of what a "base" is. In <R05>, it says that your robot must not exceed "a flat, level rectangular base 28 inches x 38 inches, and a height of 60 inches". The base is the 28x38 side, perpendicular to the 60in height, irregardless of what your robot does after the match starts.
the rule that has the most bearing on our team is the 28x38 footprint. That rule came 6 days before ship. 6 days! We had already designed & built a robot the falls from the 28x38 to 38x60. There is no redesigning possible at that point.
HOWEVER, your saving grace is that QA #978 also specifies "drive train". Since your base is not parallel to the floor, you most likely won't be able to use the ziptie/string method, but you are okay if your wheels touch. QA #1617 only discusses what comprises a "base", so the drive train clause is still valid.
We figured they would catch their wording and make one last change. I am confident that they still will.
Based on what I've said, do you still think a rule change is necessary?
Again, they confused us a little bit by saying "The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone" They did not say it should be in the original 28x38 dimensions. if they had the word "touching" italicized or bolded or something it would've been much more clear to us that we had to build something that had to be TOUCHING. When they said it should be in the 28x30 box and touching, many many many many teams must have spent hours or days figuring out how to modify their drive train to fit that. I know we did.
Based on the definition of a "base" from above, where is the confusion? Your drive train does not and never has needed to be in the 28x38 base to be legally touching the loading zone triangle, and thus in the loading zone.

The Q&A, the manual, and update #14 have consistently indicated that either something within the 28x38 base of your robot OR the drive train must be touching the loading zone triangle. I personally don't see what's left to argue.

Billfred

26-02-2005, 22:22

As usual the rules changed. FIRST probably looked at the the rule & thought this was an easy fix to say in the 28x38 dimension & touching. Touching makes sense, it is absolute, binary, you are or your not. There is no real grey area, the rule that has the most bearing on our team is the 28x38 footprint. That rule came 6 days before ship. 6 days! We had already designed & built a robot the falls from the 28x38 to 38x60. There is no redesigning possible at that point. We figured they would catch their wording and make one last change. I am confident that they still will. FIRST is a terrific program, run by normal people like Dave Lavery and Dean Kamen and Woodie Flowers...Maybe maybe not normal but very much like you and I.
That hurts.

I'd suggest either asking Q&A for a clarification for such a design, or make it so the side you start with on the floor somehow touches the loading zone. Really long strings and such.

jgannon

26-02-2005, 22:32

I'd suggest either asking Q&A for a clarification for such a design
Can you explain what clarification is needed? Their drive train is presumably touching the floor (unless they have a hoverbot, of which I would be extremely jealous), and you are allowed to touch the loading zone triangle with your drive train no matter where it is on the robot.

Billfred

26-02-2005, 22:33

Can you explain what clarification is needed? Their drive train is presumably touching the floor (unless they have a hoverbot, of which I would be extremely jealous), and you are allowed to touch the loading zone triangle with your drive train no matter where it is on the robot.
That is correct--but in the Q&A, they mentioned 28x38. Therein lies the confusion.

Alex1072

26-02-2005, 22:35

"Touching" was part of the 1/11/05 ruling... long ago. 28x38 was a recent reminder of what a "base" is. In <R05>, it says that your robot must not exceed "a flat, level rectangular base 28 inches x 38 inches, and a height of 60 inches". The base is the 28x38 side, perpendicular to the 60in height, irregardless of what your robot does after the match starts.

I would disagree with this. Our team is not at all effected by this change (to give this some objectivity). I think what you are saying is one possible way to interpret that rule. However, when I read that, I assumed it was refering to the base of the box that the robot had to fit in. If the word "base" in <R05> was refering to the robot base, the rule would imply that all robots must have a flat, level, rectangular base. Since this is obviously not what is intended, I think 'base' refers to the base of the sizing box.

EDIT: oops, pressed enter before finishing

jgannon

26-02-2005, 22:38

That is correct--but in the Q&A, they mentioned 28x38. Therein lies the confusion.
1617 says:
The robot base is considered to be any load-bearing surface within the maximum 28" x 38" robot base size.
The 28x38 refers only to the "base". The drive train is not redefined in 1617, so the ruling of 978, that the drive train counts as touching, still stands regardless of size.

jgannon

26-02-2005, 22:45

If the word "base" in <R05> was refering to the robot base, the rule would imply that all robots must have a flat, level, rectangular base. Since this is obviously not what is intended, I think 'base' refers to the base of the sizing box.
It doesn't say that your robot must have a flat rectangular base, but rather that it must fit in a box with a flat rectangular base, and maintain those dimensions until after the start of the match. The way I see it is that the top of something remains the top forever, even if you drop it on its side, so the base in the box is your base in the match. Nonetheless, your interpretation is still valid. We will probably see one more Q&A question come up that will further clarify.

thoughtful

26-02-2005, 22:55

As i told you guys before that i asked the question about the diagram, it has been answered in update #14 and ID:1757

#1757
The pictures are for illustrative purposes only and may not be completely detailed. The
purpose of this picture is to demonstrate the human player loading only.
Also see #978... the rule has been "touching" since 1/11/2005.
Using the baseball analogy,...
Imagine in baseball if the runner just had to be over the base to be safe?

I have to admit i am a bit disappointed, but i think that by allowing us to use zipties, string e.t.c to make our robot touch the HDPE triangle, FIRST has made it easier for the teams who were previously confused. I can understand their point of view, and of many, that the 3D space analogy might create problems. I am not going to let this ruin mine or my team's excitement, spirit and commitment. We are engineers here, its our job to overcome challenges. So lets just ride the tide, and have another great, fun-filled year.

Cheers :)

Alex1072

26-02-2005, 23:18

I guess what it comes down to for me is that I don't understand what the point of this is. The intent of the rule was to make absolutly sure that noone got too clever and decided to make an arm that would reach in and still be "over" the loading zone. That's why it must be "touching" in my view. I don't think the touching clarifcation was intended to aid judged because, as the judges have stated above, it doesn't. The point was to make sure that your actual robot was in the zone, not an appendage, or some kind of weird borderline case that still creates a safety hazard. So, if they're allowing hanging zipties to count, I don't understand why they don't want to allow the 3 dimensional space interpretation. I don't see how it changes ANYTHING at all other then preventing teams from having to add string and zipties to the front of their drivetrain. Since the "base or drivetrain" part of the rule would be unchanged, it would still ensure that you are over the loading zone with your actual robot. I don't see anyone who such a ruling would harm either, since all it does is let people remove zip ties. How would the current rule be effected if "virtual zipties" were assumed? (other then a couple grams of weight saved)

To the people who say that the touching is required to remove gray areas, I would say that it actually just moves the gray areas to a different place. If hovering is allowed, the gray area is "was this robot far enough in?" If touching is required, the gray area is "was it actually in contact?". At the very least, having a hovering rule would have allowed teams to make it clear by driving farther in. With the "touching" rule, the teams themselves arn't sure if they are "in". I don't see a problem with a judge saying, "you wern't far enough over the loading zone for it to be clear". This is a subjective judgement, but it is a fairly easy one to make. I think touching/not touching would be much harder call to make,

I doubt FIRST will change this ruling at this point though, so I guess we'll just have to deal.

jgannon

26-02-2005, 23:50

To the people who say that the touching is required to remove gray areas, I would say that it actually just moves the gray areas to a different place. If hovering is allowed, the gray area is "was this robot far enough in?" If touching is required, the gray area is "was it actually in contact?".
The difference for me is that touching is a binary situation. Either you're touching, or you aren't. As you note, hovering is much more subjective.
I think touching/not touching would be much harder call to make
Absolutely. My big hope at this point is that the vast majority of teams saw the rule between 1/11/05 and ship date, and are planning on actually touching the triangle with a wheel, which will be much easier to see than a zip-tie. This weekend's regionals ought to be very interesting.

AJunx

27-02-2005, 01:57

These are just some thoughts I had about the loading zone, tomorrow I will post an idea for interpreting the original and enforcing the rule at competitions, called the Sunlight Rule.

Not to be lawyerly, but I think we can all agree that a "zone" can is accurately defined as "An area or a region distinguished from adjacent parts by a distinctive feature or characteristic." In this case, the distinctive feature is the HDPE triangle.

Also, I think we can agree that there are all sorts of zones. An end zone (as in football), an elevator, and a house all qualify as a zone, as they are each regions that are distinguished from adjacent areas by lines, walls, etc.

Now, in examining zones, we can see that being "in" a zone takes on different meanings depending upon the type of zone:
-To be "in" an end zone in football, you must be touching the ground within the end zone (there are one or two exceptions, but they don't seem particularly relevant).
-To be "in" an elevator, we can all agree that you need not be touching the elevator at all. So long as you are contained within the elevator, you are "in" the elevator.
-To be "in" a house is analogous to being in the elevator.

Which type of zone does the loading zone most closely resemble? --I realize there might be other types of zones, but it is 1:45 and I can't think of any more--

The loading zone is NOT an enclosed, 3-D space. Therefore, based on analogy alone :rolleyes:, in order to be "in" the loading zone, it makes sense that one must be touching the zone in the same way that one must touch the end zone in football.

I offer these statements just as thoughts.

-Andrew

jgannon

27-02-2005, 02:06

rees2001

27-02-2005, 09:40

Actually, in football, you need only break the plane of the goal line with the ball to be considered "in" the end zone. Thus, all three definitions of "zone" seem to imply three-dimensional space, contrary to the loading zone definition. I now have a better understanding of why people are so darn confused. :)

<edit>
Someone just PMed me an explanation of how an endzone can also be 2D. When a receiver catches the ball in the corner of the end zone, his feet have to touch the ground in-bounds. No touch? Doesn't count. Makes sense to me. *shrug*
</edit>

To cut this short, that same football player is also in if he lands on his back, or his knees, or, his head. As long as he retains possession of the ball.

All I am saying is, to the common observer it will be blatantly obvious (rule 978) that our robot is in, on, completely covering, the loading zone. But for some reason I have lost sleep the past few nights wondering if the ref's will see it the same way. My kids robot will probably be one of the safer in terms of removing tetras from the auto loading station but for some odd reason it may not be legal.

I have been doing this for 6 years and FIRST has never really disappointed me. If this ruling stands as is ....

trev2023

27-02-2005, 10:13

I don't think that the idea of the rule being "clear and concise" since 1/11 is fair.

For instance, when I first read the rule, I thought "blatantly obvious, okay, we just must have to make sure that we're over the loading zone". I didn't take time to analyze the one question out of the X many of them that are in the system. Like many others, I figured that this was to keep teams from extending arms into the loading zone to grab tetras.

It wasn't until after the build season has been over (my fault) that I or any of my team has seen the modifications. We have been busy working on the robot, not analyzing the rules. Now that I have read the Q&A's and have read all about the controversy. I guess we will just be putting some zip ties on the front of our robot to abide by it.

Finally, I think that it is unfortunate that so much has been made about what seems to be a small part of the game. The rule (in my opinion) has been made primarily for the safety of the participants, and ggetting lawyerly about it clouds this.

My point is: The problem is not however many times "touching" is stated in the manual or the Q&A system. The problem is that there are many teams who still don't understand this rule, even after the build season has ended.

AJunx

27-02-2005, 15:44

Preface: I do not like the idea of changing the rules (via reinterpretation or rewording) after teams have spent countless hours designing a robot that follows the spirit of the original rules.

In order to make the enforcement of the original rule as fair and simple as possible, I have devised (with the help of all those who have posted their valuable thoughts) a way to interpret and enforce the rules that does not seem contrary to the spirit of the original rule and will not require a full platoon of referees.

The Sunlight Rule:

In order to be IN the loading zone, your robot must be in a position so that it is blocking sunlight (any kind of light that would be coming from above the loading zone) on some part of the loading zone. In so doing, the base of your robot must be blocking enough sunlight to make it CLEAR and OBVIOUS to the referee that you are IN the loading zone.
In order to avoid changing the spirit of the rule, <G12> still applies (no tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, etc).

According to the original rules, in order to receive another tetra from the [human or automated] loading station, you must EXIT the loading zone. We can all agree that to exit means to leave the loading zone. The Sunlight Rule deals with this in a straightforward manner:

In order to be considered OUT of the loading zone, your robot must move to a position where the base is not blocking any of the sunlight falling on the loading zone. In so doing, it must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS to the referee that your robot's base is now OUT of the loading zone. <G12> still applies.

Now, if a team wants to get another tetra, they may re-enter the loading zone and make sure that the base of their robot is covering enough of the loading zone to make it clear to the referee that they are again IN.

In order to enforce the 'Sunlight Rule', there need not be 8+ referees per match (one per loading station + general referees). At the most, we would need one referee per pair of loading stations. All of this is null and void, however, if people feel as if the Sunlight Rule is not sound.

I should clarify that the term "base" when used in the Sunlight Rule is not referring to the 28" by 38" base, but rather to the common sense base (the base that the robot is driving around on, whether it be 20 X 20 or 38 X 60). Also, the base does not consist of arms, tethers, tape measures, long extenders, etc.

I have a habit of writing too much :) , so I'll stop. Hopefully we can come up with a reasonable solution.

-Andrew

rees2001

27-02-2005, 15:53

Preface: I do not like the idea of changing the rules (via reinterpretation or rewording) after teams have spent countless hours designing a robot that follows the spirit of the original rules.

The Sunlight Rule:
In order to be IN the loading zone, your robot must be in a position so that it is blocking sunlight (any kind of light that would be coming from above the loading zone) on some part of the loading zone. In so doing, the base of your robot must be blocking enough sunlight to make it CLEAR and OBVIOUS to the referee that you are IN the loading zone.
In order to avoid changing the spirit of the rule, <G12> still applies (no tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, etc).

I should clarify that the term "base" when used in the Sunlight Rule is not referring to the 28" by 38" base, but rather to the common sense base (the base that the robot is driving around on, whether it be 20 X 20 or 38 X 60). Also, the base does not consist of arms, tethers, tape measures, long extenders, etc.

-Andrew

I think you have hit the nail on the head here Andrew. I especially appreciate your definition of "base." A common sense base is what my kids thought they had made. It seems blatantly obvious as to which side is a teams base. Not every team is going to use the 28x38 footprint. We shouldn't be restricted to using it with 6 days of construction left.

Thanks

Jeff Rodriguez

27-02-2005, 16:19

The Sunlight Rule:

In order to be IN the loading zone, your robot must be in a position so that it is blocking sunlight (any kind of light that would be coming from above the loading zone) on some part of the loading zone. In so doing, the base of your robot must be blocking enough sunlight to make it CLEAR and OBVIOUS to the referee that you are IN the loading zone.
In order to avoid changing the spirit of the rule, <G12> still applies (no tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, etc).

According to the original rules, in order to receive another tetra from the [human or automated] loading station, you must EXIT the loading zone. We can all agree that to exit means to leave the loading zone. The Sunlight Rule deals with this in a straightforward manner:

In order to be considered OUT of the loading zone, your robot must move to a position where the base is not blocking any of the sunlight falling on the loading zone. In so doing, it must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS to the referee that your robot's base is now OUT of the loading zone. <G12> still applies.

Now, if a team wants to get another tetra, they may re-enter the loading zone and make sure that the base of their robot is covering enough of the loading zone to make it clear to the referee that they are again IN.

I should clarify that the term "base" when used in the Sunlight Rule is not referring to the 28" by 38" base, but rather to the common sense base (the base that the robot is driving around on, whether it be 20 X 20 or 38 X 60). Also, the base does not consist of arms, tethers, tape measures, long extenders, etc.

-Andrew

I agree that the base requirement needs to be flexible for teams that fall over or expand.

I do not agree with the 'sunlight rule'.

How much sunlight is enough? What about the lights from above the whole perimeter of the field?

We can argue for days telling everyone not to act like a lawyer, but this is what everyone is doing.

FIRST uses the baseball analogy to make the rules clear. If you are touching the loading zone you are in. If you are not touching the loading zone you are out.
There is no argument with a rule like this.

I can see the argument about a robots wheels being covered and not highly visible to the ref. Let me ask everyone this: How many robots have you seen that you couldn't tell where they contacted the floor?
Looking at the the pictures of robots this year, there are very few that do not have any wheels/treads showing.

I don't see this being as big a problem as everyone predicts it will be.

Again, the rule has been there since 1/11, giving teams plaenty of time to design properly.

jgannon

27-02-2005, 16:28

I don't think that the idea of the rule being "clear and concise" since 1/11 is fair.

For instance, when I first read the rule, I thought "blatantly obvious, okay, we just must have to make sure that we're over the loading zone". I didn't take time to analyze the one question out of the X many of them that are in the system. Like many others, I figured that this was to keep teams from extending arms into the loading zone to grab tetras.

It wasn't until after the build season has been over (my fault) that I or any of my team has seen the modifications. We have been busy working on the robot, not analyzing the rules. Now that I have read the Q&A's and have read all about the controversy. I guess we will just be putting some zip ties on the front of our robot to abide by it.
One more look at 978:
ID: 978 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/11/2005
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.
The "blatantly obvious" clause is from 978, not the manual. Thus, if you are familiar with "blatantly obvious", then you should have seen "must be touching", too, since they're in the same paragraph.

AmyPrib

27-02-2005, 17:12

I can see the argument about a robots wheels being covered and not highly visible to the ref. Let me ask everyone this: How many robots have you seen that you couldn't tell where they contacted the floor?
Looking at the the pictures of robots this year, there are very few that do not have any wheels/treads showing.

I don't see this being as big a problem as everyone predicts it will be.

They may be visible so long as you're looking at that side of the robot. If the ref is not on that side of the robot, or cannot get to that side quickly enough, he may or may not call that "in". It was blatantly obvious to everyone standing on that side, but for the ref in the "wrong place at the wrong time", he couldn't see it because there was a whole robot body with side panels in his way. So does he flag it cuz he just missed it, or does he let it slide cuz it seemed like the robot was "in"? To be "in", is it mandatory for a ref to physically see it each time, or is there some allowance in there?
If there's enough refs (12 min) to cover the field and see things from all angles, this hopefully shouldn't be an issue.

I don't think it's fair for a team to have to slow down their retrieval process so that a ref can get there and see it - if he's not in the right line of sight to see you're "in" to begin with.
I guess I just can't agree with the baseball player running over a base analogy that Update14 states. My opinion is that it's not the same situation purely because of visibility issues. The touching part - yes, ok. Visibility of seeing the touching - no.
I don't watch baseball much, but there's usually a ref (at home and 2nd?) that can watch 2 runners at a time, and they can tell if they touched the base from 50ft away. If there's a ref assigned to each LZ, we have a better chance of consistency and good calls. But doubt all regionals will have 12 refs available.
Throwing in the confusion of what a "base" is near the end definitely throws a wrench in the works for some, after already saying the drivetrain can touch....As long as the drivetrain doesn't have to meet the 28x30, then you should be ok.

I like the touching, I just can't wait to see how the "obviousness" of the touching is called. If there's problems, HP zone might be easier to make it obvious since you probably have to be in a less accurate position to get a tetra. Any refs out there that have a take on it prior to first regional?

I just hope everyone can work it out and that this long thread proves to have been riled up for nothin'.... We'll wait and see... and will be interested to hear the comments after first few regionals are over with.

Raul

27-02-2005, 21:46

I have a suggestion for making it easier for the refs and participants to judge if they will be legal or not. This may take a little extra time during inspection, though:

Set up a small loading zone area next to the weigh in stations (1 HDPE triangle against a mock barrier and/or auto loader station) and "certify" each robot as they pass inspections to let them know what orientations of approaching the loading zone will be considered legal. Then create a card that the teams show to the refs who judge this area of the game so they will know they do not have to stoop over every single time that robot comes to the loading zone if it approaches the zone in it certified orientation and or direction.

OK, that may be too much to ask. But consider this - I think the refs will get to know the robots after a while and will not have to look so carefully to make the call every time. I am more concerned about the "which happened first" than the "are they touching at all".

For us, we know we are not capable of touching the tetra on the autoloader unless our drive wheel (which are very visible this year) are on top of the HDPE. By design, there is at least a 10" gap from the the time the wheel touches and the time we touch the tetra. And we like to do the pick up rather quickly. But unless the refs sees us go slowly a few times, it may seem like we are touching the tetra first.

Raul

meaubry

27-02-2005, 21:57

For everyone that refers to the rule not changing since 1/11 for "touching the hdpe with the robot base and/or" (answer to question #978) ... you must not have been wanting it to or something. There were many questions relative to the lack of understanding as to what or how a robot base could be touching? If the zone was 3 dimensional? Do extensions from the robot count as being in the zone? ect, ect, ect. Yes, many of the answers were "refer to question #978". My guess is that the responder must have thought that the response to #978 was clear - at least to some.
It wasn't until 2/16 that "load bearing within the max. 28"x38" base" was issued as a response to question #1617. I asked the question because I was still confused as to how a robot base could be touching the hdpe triangle in a way that would be blatantly obvious to the ref.
In retrospect, I am very glad that they have included "danglers extended from the 28"x38" base as a way to meet the requirement. As you all know that have been following the Q&A, that question was originally responded to with "No".
So, by allowing danglers now will give a larger group of teams(especially those with wide wheel bases) a chance to meet the requirement.
I wonder if an alternative solution would have been, turning the loading hdpe triangle around so that the flat side is facing out and the point is facing the loading station, as clearly the geometric problem for wide wheel based robots is that the point of the hdpe triangle is pointing out making them drive to the point that they are almost touching the rail. The tetra grabbers usually need some amount of room to do the magic - that distance and space is normally designed in, based upon the understanding of the starting position, which may not be the best solution or choice for picking up a tetra from a loading station.
Tom, due to feedback from the scrimmages the rule was altered. The discussion is good and maybe this and other discussions will also be something to remember at the summer meetings. Lessons learned so as to try to improve can be a good thing, improvements for next year.
So, whatever FIRST does we will all adapt to - because that is what we do.

Collmandoman

28-02-2005, 15:21

:::::sigh::::: There wouldn't be so much controversy over a rule if it just made sense, it's hard to not talk about because whenever you are reminded of it.. it makes you feel like you are in a dream world where logic is disallowed... so you must speak out, and not shove forks into your eyesockets

Ken Patton

28-02-2005, 16:37

I am late coming in to the discussion about what is “in.” I was hoping it would be resolved cleanly, but I don’t think that has happened.

What Q&A978 failed to do was to say specifically WHAT needs to touch the triangle. The “robot base and / or drive train” is what Q&A978 said. Some teams took that to mean robot-base-components including those outside the 28x38, things like wheelie bars and outriggers. Some teams might have tip-over designs that use some other dimensions on the floor.

We believed we satisfied 978 because when we pulled into the LZ it WAS blatantly obvious that we were over, and touching, the triangle. In plan view, it would be hard for a ref to *find* the triangle when we drive in straight and bump our wheelie bars against the field border. We’d be touching in at least three locations if you count the wheelie bars.

Then, on Feb16, Q&A1617 said that any load-bearing surface WITHIN 28x38 counted. Then, on Feb18, Q&A1698 said outriggers outside the 28x38 were NOT going to satisfy touching. SINCE WHEN IS THE ROBOT BASE REQUIRED TO BE 28x38? How is the ref going to say where 28” ends and 28+” begins? How does the ref know which side of the robot is the 28” side and which is the 38” side? What about tip-over robots? Why did FIRST decide this on Feb 16??

This ruling is way too late, and even worse, it is arbitrary in its use of the 28x38 box. It ought to be changed to something that does not penalize teams who are legitimately using their drive base as a drive base and NOT as a deployable “keep-me-in-the-LZ” device.

If the ruling stays as it is, it forces the refs to spend valuable effort to find a point of contact when the intent of the rule is simply to determine if the “body” of the robot is in the LZ. The ref should be looking for interferences and safety concerns at this point, not searching the ground for contact points…..

FIRST, this is an opportunity to simplify. It might not make you look really consistent, but it will save a lot of headaches and controversy and delays during the tournaments. Make a rule that’s easier to ref. Make a rule that satisfies your intent (safety, and eliminating deployable-keep-me-in-the-LZ devices). I hope you make a rule that doesn’t disadvantage teams who thought they were doing the right thing until Q&A 1617 came out.

Ken

rees2001

28-02-2005, 19:19

Dan-o

01-03-2005, 04:38

Well they answered my question...I think?

ID: 1773 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 2/28/2005

Q: We designed and built a robot that would tip from 38x28 to 38x60. The “new” base and drive train is “blatantly obvious that our robot is in the LZ” and ”has a load bearing surface in contact with the hdpe”. Is our robot in the LZ?

A: If we understand your question correctly, yes. Robots that "flop" basically must declare a 28" x 38" of their robot to be the "robot base." This is the section that the referees will always use to determine if your robot is in the loading zone.

Does this mean we can declare the 28x38 section of the robot that makes contact with the LZ the "Base"

I'm not sure they followed your lead Ken. Great suggestion, maybe too late? All I know is the area of our robot that covers the LZ is the base, the rest ... who cares.

Oh god, I hate to say it, but FIRST just opened another can of worms. Say my team, instead of flopping on its side lays out outriggers in front of us designed to touch the HDPE and we tell the refs that that is the part of the robot that we want to be judged on. My team is not looking at doing this, but I'm sure that this will throw yet another wrench into what used to be a fine oiled machine.

My suggestion to the FIRST community is to back off a little, and beg headquarters to release a statement on the matter. Ask them to be very clear and concise with their wording. Also, ask that there be mention of exactly how each regional will judge this at the drivers' meeting before the competitions. At this point, all of you are just repeating each other through 106 posts. Getting all up in arms about the semantics of the rule would be great IF it was directed at FIRST officials, and NOT other people who are just confused as you are. So my advise to you all is to just calm down, and let FIRST do what they have always done.

Until competition, your local Dr. Phil signing off

Natchez

02-03-2005, 07:58

While a few people are clearly very worked up over this loading zone rules, I think they will be pleasantly surprised that it does not become the big train wreck/debate they fear.
As the proud introducer of "train wreck" to this discussion, I now believe that you are 100% right, this will not be a big issue this year; not because the refs will get the calls right more than 80% of the time, but because the flags will be staying in their pockets on 95% of the violations.

NOTE: I have been very impressed with the above-the-belt discussion that this thread has maintained. Likewise, please do not misconstrue my passion on this subject as a personal attack on Jason. I have a HUGE amount of respect for Jason and he has given so much to FIRST that I would never dismiss his comments ... just respectfully disagree. Since I feel that FIRST is philosophically going in the wrong direction concerning rules, I present the following in an effort to encourage change.

The reason that I believe that we will be pleasantly surprised in '05 is that the refs will introduce an "in the neighborhood" policy for being in the loading zones similar to how we train our FLL refs, "Enforce the rules but give the teams the benefit of the doubt." Furthermore, I predict that only the blatant offenders will ever be called for loading zone violations. This will make the offending teams happy because they did not get a flag; and the opposing alliance will never know the difference because they will not have been paying attention to the other alliance and even if they did see a violation, they would be chastised for not being gracious professionals if they appealed the no-call.

Concerning being "worked up", I'm not "worked up" about this rule nor about us losing a few matches if my prediction becomes reality nor about the disadvantage that we are now at because we chopped off our arms then wire ties were allowed; I'M WORKED UP BECAUSE WE ARE SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE TO A FUTURE GENERATION. If my prediction becomes reality, we are sending a message to our youth that, "you don't have to follow the rules, just adjust to what is being enforced." If you are looking to refute my prediction, you don't have to look too far back when the Championship came along with, "Mom, I know that I chewed up and buckled the carpet ... you didn't punish me 6 weeks ago when I did it so why are you going to punish me now?"

Concerning the future that has little to do with this year's game, I am striving (begging if I thought it would change the world) to get back to a society where rules are not to be broken irregardless of who is watching. Please remember, that all of the FIRST high school participants have grown up in a heavily lawyerized world where justifying rules violations is the norm instead of the exception. It will literally take generations to turn this ship around but I've always thought that there are a few organizations (Scouting, Religions, FIRST, Ultimate Players Association, etc.) that are making significant strides in the right direction. Trust me, the stones that I cast are VERY small ones (pea gravel at best) because, Lord knows, I stay in the "gray" zone far too often.

Concerning "you don't have to follow the rules, just adjust to the enforcement", I contend that when people are on the losing end of this philosophy which results in the loss of food and shelter for their family, they really get why this is wrong. It happens thousands of times each day in America, the "shrewd" businessman finds the loophole that steals work from the honest guy ... even to the point of putting him out of business.

Example #1
You told me that the sand was $3 per yard ... your bill says it is $10.50 per yard. Yes m'am, the sand is only $3 per yard but you never asked about the delivery charge which was $7.50 per yard. I could have bought it from Billy for $6.00 per yard!

Example #2
I'm glad to hear that we won the contract to build the next Mississippi River Bridge for $2 billion dollars. By the way, would the government like to upgrade to standard sized lanes or go with the 6 foot lanes in our bid? It will only cost another billion dollars. WHAT DO YOU MEAN, UPGRADE? Oh, did you not know that you only requested 4 lanes in your Request for Bid and not 4 DOT Standard Lanes. In 1924, it was specified in an official Mississippi government document that automobile lanes shall be 6 feet wide so our bid included 6 foot wide lanes. YOU *@#&&@#^&%^$(@. Sir, again, we'd like to thank you for the $2 billion dollar ... hmmmmm ... $3 billion dollar contract.

Granted, as a society, we have to meet in the middle on this. The rules makers (congressmen, homeowner associations, school boards, etc.) must get better about writing reasonable rules while we must get better about following rules.

Enough of my "I'd like to save the world" & "I'd like to teach the world to sing" talk ... a few quick thoughts about Jason's response.

Be TOUCHING (not new, this has been the case for 46 days now and before anyone started building a robot) the loading zone triangle
If you leave the word "triangle" out then you are exactly correct that this rule has been around for 46 days but "TOUCHING the loading zone" is different than "TOUCHING the loading zone triangle"

The robot needs to "touch" the zone.
See, it is very easy to leave off the word "triangle". Don't forget that traditionally in sports, "zone" refers to a surface that is projected across a distance. For example, the end zone in football is a 10x55 yd rectangle projected to infinity or the strike zone in baseball is the plate projected from the knees to the letters.

Take the baseball analogy - if a runner going from second to home only had to pass OVER third base and not touch it, both coaches would be sprinting out of the dugout on almost every play to argue with the umpire that the player was or wasn't over the corner tip of the base. However, in baseball it is the player’s responsibility to clearly touch the base to be safe. They can touch the center of the base, the side of the base, or just the little bity tip of the base - but they do have to touch it. ... It’s that simple and leads to very few arguments.
EXACTLY!!! But what about the unwritten rule that the short-stop or second-baseman only needs to be "in the neighborhood" of second base when turning a double play? Even though there are many violations, there doesn't seem to be a lot of "coaches would be sprinting out of the dugout on almost every play to argue with the umpire." The rule says that the short-stop/second-baseman must tag the base while having control of the ball for the runner from first to be out. Rarely is this violation "called" unless it is blatant. This scenario of being "in the neighborhood" is exactly what I think will happen this year ... lots of violations with very few of them called.

For those who feel teams are going to argue with refs that part of their robot is actually touching the triangle after the ref says it isn't.
They will not be arguing because, in general, only the unarguable violations will be called. Likewise, the teams that would like to argue the no-calls on the other side of the field know better because their alliance got a couple "breaks" and it would not be in the Spirit of FIRST to argue. BUT, if this was going to take food and shelter from their family, you bet there would be a lot of arguing ... it's not the case so this point is moot.

What I do disagree with is the thought that this is a train wreck about to happen, that the sky is falling, and so on. I think back to the ball corral and goaltending rules last year.
I think back to sticks protruding outside of the arena going 15 feet per second, which violated the safety rules in my opinion, and FIRST making "back room" agreements (outside of the Q&A system) that made it legal. We ended up ditching all of our autonomy work because there was no way we could get to the middle of the field before "sticky" got there and resulted in us implementing a not-too-sophisticated "meet our sticky neighbor" algorithm.

I think some underestimate our teams, students, and mentors.
NOT ME! I just underestimated FIRST this year ... Put down your tools; No software development; .......

Rules are NOT to be broken ... not the letter nor spirit,
Lucien

:) I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony :)

Peter Matteson

02-03-2005, 08:29

It's official we have this year's "infield fly rule".

For those of you who missed this last year see the link below:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27784&highlight=infield+fly

Pete

dlavery

02-03-2005, 09:16

If you leave the word "triangle" out then you are exactly correct that this rule has been around for 46 days but "TOUCHING the loading zone" is different than "TOUCHING the loading zone triangle"

...

See, it is very easy to leave off the word "triangle". Don't forget that traditionally in sports, "zone" refers to a surface that is projected across a distance. For example, the end zone in football is a 10x55 yd rectangle projected to infinity or the strike zone in baseball is the plate projected from the knees to the letters.

...

EXACTLY!!! But what about the unwritten rule that the short-stop or second-baseman only needs to be "in the neighborhood" of second base when turning a double play? Even though there are many violations, there doesn't seem to be a lot of "coaches would be sprinting out of the dugout on almost every play to argue with the umpire." The rule says that the short-stop/second-baseman must tag the base while having control of the ball for the runner from first to be out. Rarely is this violation "called" unless it is blatant. This scenario of being "in the neighborhood" is exactly what I think will happen this year ... lots of violations with very few of them called.

Jason's remarks and quotes were right on target. There is no difference between the "loading zone" and "loading zone triangle." Specifically, refer to Section 4.2.1 of the Manual, Definitions: "LOADING ZONE – The triangular colored area on the floor at the sides of the field where robots may receive and/or retrieve TETRAS that are introduced into the game." You are trying to make a distinction between "loading zone" and "loading zone triangle" where there is no difference.

The comments regarding a baseball short stop being "in the neighborhood" are amusing but irrelevant. We are not playing baseball, and MLB rules do not apply. A single analogy with baseball was used to try to help clarify a single point of discussion with regard to the 2005 "Triple Play" rules. But everyone understands that is all that it was - a single analogy. Don't push it too hard, beyond its' intended use.

Lucien, I honestly don't know where you are trying to go with this. Within just a few paragraphs, you urge the referees to ignore rules violations unless they are so blatent that they cannot be ignored and adopt some completely undefined "neighborhood" policy for determining the robot/loading zone condition, yet then you admonish everyone that "rules are NOT to be broken."

The logic of many of the statements in this thread eludes me. FIRST made it clear in the Manual released at kick off what constituted the Loading Zone (see above reference). They made it clear on 1/11 that being "in" the Loading Zone required "touching" the loading zone, and that you needed to be blatently clear about touching the zone, with the robot drive system or base. The only thing I can see as a possible source of confusion is the determination of what is the robot "base." That was clarified later, which is what everyone seems so worked up about in this and other threads. But I have to ask, if there was so much confusion about what would be considered the "base" of the robot and this was such a big deal, why did everyone wait to actually ask FIRST about it until 2/16/2005 (the first time this shows up in the Q&A system)? One would imagine that if so many teams were really confused by this, and if the determination of the answer would lead to drastic impacts on their robot designs, some one would have asked about it much, much sooner in the process. I have to wonder, is this really a catastrophic issue for the majority of teams? Or is it really an issue for a very small number of teams, who just happen to be very vocal? (I looked through the threads to see how many teams were represented vs. repeated to reach my own conclusion, I will let you reach yours).

-dave

Peter Matteson

02-03-2005, 09:44

AmyPrib

02-03-2005, 12:24

This is an interesting question:

: 1785 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Unanswered Date Posted: 3/1/2005
Q: re Q&A 1773: May robots who permanently deploy and then never move base extenders such as wheelie bars ALSO declare a 28x38 box like the robots who flop (since these are functionally the same thing)?

I didn't ask it - I just thought it was interesting.. I don't think they're trying to skirt around rules, but it's a fair question. Every new answer that FIRST provides seems to open up another discussion.

I think the whole issue of being "in" may affect few teams in the grand scope of things. But, I think bottom line is that people want to know exactly how refs will make their calls and throw penalties. Must they see it with their own eyes? What if they happen to miss the touch for whatever reason (blocked view, not paying attention, short staffed, etc)? Etc.. etc... I'm sure it'll be one of the first things addressed at driver's meetings..

Ken Patton

02-03-2005, 12:32

But I have to ask, if there was so much confusion about what would be considered the "base" of the robot and this was such a big deal, why did everyone wait to actually ask FIRST about it until 2/16/2005 (the first time this shows up in the Q&A system)? One would imagine that if so many teams were really confused by this, and if the determination of the answer would lead to drastic impacts on their robot designs, some one would have asked about it much, much sooner in the process.

Perhaps it was because we all thought we knew what the base was, until the 2/16 ruling came out. I submit that when FIRST defined the base to be only that which remains within the 28x38 box, many teams were surprised. This ruling ruled out tip-over bots and bots which expand beyond the 28x38.

Since 2/28, tipover bots were allowed as long as the team makes an arrangement with the ref about what is considered "in" the 28x38 box.

Those of us with "expanders" are worried because we have not been allowed to redfine our box.

I have to wonder, is this really a catastrophic issue for the majority of teams? Or is it really an issue for a very small number of teams, who just happen to be very vocal? (I looked through the threads to see how many teams were represented vs. repeated to reach my own conclusion, I will let you reach yours).

I'm not sure how many teams it affects. It might not be catastrophic for any of us - we are all buying *really* visible zipties, maybe? :) I'm sure there are some who are not vocal and who are just hoping it gets sorted out. I'm sure there are some who have not even read these forums and who missed the Q&A, and who are reading only the updates.

I thought the point was not how many teams were affected, but an ongoing effort to make the rules and game simple, easy to understand, consistent, and grandmother-friendly....

Ken

Natchez

02-03-2005, 13:16

Lucien, I honestly don't know where you are trying to go with this. Within just a few paragraphs, you urge the referees to ignore rules violations unless they are so blatent that they cannot be ignored and adopt some completely undefined "neighborhood" policy for determining the robot/loading zone condition, yet then you admonish everyone that "rules are NOT to be broken."

I'm truly sorry if I conveyed that I was urging the referees to ignore the rules violations. I was simply predicting that the refs will not call most of the violations. This, I believe, will be for a number of reasons that is a thread unto itself but goes down the same line as why I don't call all of the fouls and walking violations in peewee basketball. Thoughts like, "they did not gain an advantage" or "let's not stop the flow of the game for a small foul" are going through my head during a game. Granted, I have not ref'ed a peewee game in a long time so things may have changed. Please allow me reiterate that I do not see this as an issue with the refs but with the spot in which they have been put by the rules. It was just a prediction of what will happen. With that said, as a team, we will stick to the rule as it is written and clarified and not adjust to the way that it is enforced if the two turn out to be different.

Off of the specific rule and onto "where I was trying to go with this," I was simply trying to say that if the rule and the enforcement turn out to be different then we are sending a wrong message to the FIRST community. The wrong message is that we, as a society, must not worry so much about the rules as much as the enforcement of the rules. This is a great time to remind everyone that I'm throwing pebbles here and not rocks ... I drive 63 in a 55 because I'm aware of the enforcement of the law while violating the law itself ... I've got another 5,389 rules that I routinely violate because I know the enforcement ... violating a few of them that start with "Thou shall" or "Thou shall not" might result in me residing in a place that I'd rather not be. It's true and am embarrassed to admit it!

The reason that I discuss societal values in the context of current rules is because "there is a lesson learned in everything we do." AND because I have an enormous respect for FIRST for the positive influence the program has on our youth and mentors. I hope to be part of the solutions that bring FIRST to become a more positive influence on the FIRST community. Trust me, I know that I'd be laughed out of the room if I was to trying to convey my "don't bend the rules" philosophy to a room full of high school football coaches. That's what makes FIRST so special ... we strive to create a society that our grandmothers would be proud.

Jason's remarks and quotes were right on target. There is no difference between the "loading zone" and "loading zone triangle." Specifically, refer to Section 4.2.1 of the Manual, Definitions: "LOADING ZONE – The triangular colored area on the floor at the sides of the field where robots may receive and/or retrieve TETRAS that are introduced into the game." You are trying to make a distinction between "loading zone" and "loading zone triangle" where there is no difference.

You are correct and touching is how many, if not most, of us read the rule. I was simply giving credence & sympathetic understanding to those who read it in a different light.

The comments regarding a baseball short stop being "in the neighborhood" are amusing but irrelevant. We are not playing baseball, and MLB rules do not apply. A single analogy with baseball was used to try to help clarify a single point of discussion with regard to the 2005 "Triple Play" rules. But everyone understands that is all that it was - a single analogy. Don't push it too hard, beyond its' intended use.

ALL of my comments are irrelevant if the rule is enforced as it is written. If this is the case, I will publicly applaud FIRST AND apologize for using everyone’s valuable white space and time.

Hope this clarifies my post,
Lucien

Andy Baker

02-03-2005, 14:22

I'm truly sorry if I conveyed that I was urging the referees to ignore the rules violations. ...(lots of stuff snipped).... If this is the case, I will publicly applaud FIRST AND apologize for using everyone’s valuable white space and time.
Hope this clarifies my post,
Lucien

Lucien,

You are bringing up an excellent discussion here and on other issues with the YMTC. With many of us being long-time, passionate FIRSTers, we all know that a new game brings new challenges, rules and changes.

One of the things that makes FIRST cool is that there are many brilliant people who are putting in their time to make FIRST great. As the case with typical brilliant people, they don't all think alike.

Since we have all of these changes from year to year and we have people who can think independently, we will see conflicts of opinions. You see this, and you try to raise issues early to see what these conflicts are. Some people escape from conflicts, others try to address them head on. You're a "head on" type of guy, and for that, I applaud you.

You may think that you are "using everyone's white space", but you are not. You are bringing up situations now that would have reared their ugly head later, when people (GDC, FIRST, referees) are not prepared to put together a unified answer. While your attention to this matter probably ruffled some feathers, it made us all aware of some gray areas that need to be closely looked at during the early weekends of Regional competition.

We now have a situation where many informed people will be looking at loading zone situations, seeing if things are being called consistently, and doing their best to touch the loading zone. Without your instigation to question the clarity of this issue, we would have many teams suprised by penalties during the early weeks of Regionals.

Thanks, Lucien.

Andy B.

dlavery

02-03-2005, 18:25

To all the partof this rule that really upset me I don't think has been truely addressed, Dave's comments above made me feel the need to point this out. Most of you seem to be talking more about the human player loading zone which isn't where I see the problem.

In Team update #8 on 2/4/04 FIRST added the following line to <G14> which in my opinion drastically changed the rules of the game:

If a robot touches a loading station tetra before it is in the LOADING ZONE, the offending alliance will be assessed a 10-point penalty and the tetra will not be scored.

Actually, I made no distinction between the automatic loading station and the manual loading station. My comments apply to both. I also do think that it is worth a re-read of Rule <G14>. In Update #2 on January 14, the rule was ammended to read:

<G14> Field attendants will place TETRAS on the Tetra Loading Stations on the side of the field opposite the HUMAN PLAYERS (i.e. the “automated” LOADING ZONE). A ROBOT must enter the corresponding LOADING ZONE, to retrieve the TETRA from the Loading Station, and enter it into play. The HUMAN PLAYER does not have to leave the pressure pad sensor during this operation. When the TETRA is removed from the Loading Station and the ROBOT has left the LOADING ZONE, the field attendant will place a new TETRA on the Loading Station at the first safe opportunity. Robots may not intentionally interfere with field attendant’s efforts to place TETRAS on the Loading Stations.

This update clarified the language in the orginal manual to make it clear that robots must enter the loading zone before retrieving a tetra. This did not change the basis of the original wording, but removed potential for mis-interpretation. The original wording ("At any time, a ROBOT may enter the corresponding loading zone to retrieve a tetra...") focused on the point that an alliance robot has an option to retrieve tetras from the automated loading stations (e.g. the use of "a ROBOT may enter the..."). But FIRST recognized that it could cause confusion when determining the temporal sequence of events, so issued the clarification. This was done very early in the process, in the first week after kick-off, so any impact to detailed robot designs should have been minimal.

In Update #8 on February 4, the following sentance was added: "If a robot touches a Loading Station tetra before it is in the LOADING ZONE, the offending alliance will be assessed a 10-point penalty and the tetra will not be scored." This update did not modify the rule, but simply stated the penalty associated with a violation of the rule that had been in place since January 14 (actually, since Kick-off and just clarified on 1/14). I don't see how this drastically changed the rules of the game.

I'm not sure how many teams it affects. It might not be catastrophic for any of us - we are all buying *really* visible zipties, maybe? :)

I bought a whole bag of nice bright day-glo orange ones at Home Depot. :)

One of the things that makes FIRST cool is that there are many brilliant people who are putting in their time to make FIRST great. As the case with typical brilliant people, they don't all think alike.

Andy -

The best part is that Lucien and I have known each other for the better part of 15 years, and we both DO think alike. And if that doesn't scare you, nothing ever will! :)

-dave

Natchez

03-03-2005, 16:34

... Without your instigation ... Thanks, Lucien.
Andy B.
Andy, thank you very much for the kind words.

... The best part is that Lucien and I have known each other for the better part of 15 years, and we both DO think alike. And if that doesn't scare you, nothing ever will!
Even though we might think alike, the two things Dave failed to mention are that he thinks a thousand times faster and ten thousand times more often than this Mississippi boy. As for Dave's ability to "set me straight" and to make me "explain myself", he has been doing this for about 15 years and I dearly appreciate it; it really makes me a better person and I consider him a mentor ... even though I'm going to roll his yard and leave 10,000 EMPTY Krispy Kreme boxes on his front lawn the next time I'm in D.C.

dlavery

03-03-2005, 22:05

... even though I'm going to roll his yard and leave 10,000 EMPTY Krispy Kreme boxes on his front lawn the next time I'm in D.C.

I still say that you owe me two more FULL boxes from a certain bet from two years ago... :)

Natchez

04-04-2005, 04:36

ALL of my comments are irrelevant if the rule is enforced as it is written. If this is the case, I will publicly applaud FIRST AND apologize for using everyone’s valuable white space and time.From a post-regional perspective, I believe that this conversation is very healthy for FIRST. The experience of many CDers to predict when a rule might be an issue could be a very valuable resource to FIRST. If FIRST could somehow capture this knowledge before January each year, it could certainly help with the finer details of the rules; BUT with that written, I realize that it is an enormous task to create a new game each year and that time does not allow for a "committee" to discuss the finer points of the rules for a month ... also, the secrecy element of the game must be taken into consideration.

As the proud introducer of "train wreck" to this discussion, I now believe that you are 100% right, this will not be a big issue this year; not because the refs will get the calls right more than 80% of the time, but because the flags will be staying in their pockets on 95% of the violations.

The reason that I believe that we will be pleasantly surprised in '05 is that the refs will introduce an "in the neighborhood" policy for being in the loading zones similar to how we train our FLL refs, "Enforce the rules but give the teams the benefit of the doubt."From what I have seen and heard, the "in the neighborhood" policy was in place at most of the regionals. Do you think it was?

Get your loading-zone-feelers here. For the low price of $399, you can forget all of those, "Oh, we got a penalty because we were straddling the loading zone" headaches. With our advanced design, installation is a zip. With our advanced distribution, you can have your loading-zone-feelers TODAY! Please send $390 to

Mississippi Curb Feelers, Inc.
PO Box 55555
The Great Sate of Mississippi

and then with the remaining $9, please go to Home Depot and pick up some wire "zip" ties. As soon as we receive your $390, we'll fax you instructions as to how to properly install the wire ties so they touch the floor . Please include your favorite charity with your payment and we'll send some money to them so we'll get a tax break and will not feel so guilty for gouging you.
Hundreds of robots with Loading-Zone-Feelers and not one check :( . So much for early retirement.

I bought a whole bag of nice bright day-glo orange ones at Home Depot. :)
...
I still say that you owe me two more FULL boxes from a certain bet from two years ago... :)
Can we call it even since you never sent in your $390 to Mississippi Curb Feelers, Inc. :D. Okay, okay, I'll bring your Krispy Kremes to the Championships ... I bought them right after the '03 Championships ... I'm sure they are still in the attic :yikes:

why not have the referees signal by raising an arm that a robot is in the loading station and it is safe for the team to remove a tetra.I'll buy you lunch if we see a bunch of refs hands going up at ChampionshipsAt the Lone Star Regional, the refs would give a thumb-up signal to the human players when the robot was in the loading-zone. The refs would also, without penalty, wave the human players back if their robot was not in the loading-zone so they could try again. Hopefully, I'll still be buying lunch ... even if it's just a thumb going up!

If there is not a way for the refs to get the calls "right" at least 95% of the time, I think that the rule (whatever it ends up being) should be considered a failure. And if you think 95% is a high standard, this percentage means that there will be at least one missed call during each match resulting in a 10 point "swing" and in a game that will not see many matches over 50 points per alliance, a 10 point swing is huge and will probably swing many matches ... not excluding the World Championship matches. After thinking about it, maybe FIRST should be shooting for rules that ensure more like a 98% or 99% ref call accuracy rate; and for those that have a low accuracy rate, maybe the penalty should be less than 5% of the expected average score. These are the type of standards and litmus tests that I wish FIRST would adopt.Do you think that the refs have been over 95% accurate on the loading-zone calls?

All in all, I think that this was the most common "missed" call this year with contact with a robot in a loading zone coming in a close second. It has been fun reviewing this post with 100/100 hindsight ... I was only at one regional so I definitely don't have a clear view of this issue. Again, I commend everyone on keeping this thread above-the-belt.

Finally & most importantly, this has not been a knock against the refs. They do a great job and we are forever grateful for their service.

I hope you had a great year,
Lucien