The "What the!?!?!" Rule Thread

[Lil' Lavery]

Well, its about 36 hours until kick-off, and it happens every year. There's always a rule that seems to incite riots in the streets. People are flabbergasted, shocked, and awed. Well here's the [preemptive] thread for it when it happens. Have fun :D

[ChuckDickerson]

Should we speculate ahead of time what it will be or wait until Saturday and just complain about it?

[Lil' Lavery]

Should we speculate ahead of time what it will be or wait until Saturday and just complain about it?

Just wait until saturday

[ChuckDickerson]

OK, but that sure takes the fun out of it. :D

[Steve W]

I suggest that everyone waits till Sunday when they have had lots of time to read and re read the rules. So many questions are answered when people actually read the rules. :eek:

[Peter Matteson]

I suggest that everyone waits till Sunday when they have had lots of time to read and re read the rules. So many questions are answered when people actually read the rules. :eek:

Well put Steve. I hope we don't have a situation like we normally incur here on CD where we continually answer questions by people who haven't read the rules at all. I hope we can be at a level where we just discuss the interpretation of rules (last year's shooter rule) or explain those which come across as unclear (last year's off board compressor rule).

[Lil' Lavery]

The intent of this thread was not really for clarification and questions about the rules, but really for commentary about the rules themselves. Each year there are always a few rules that are remarkable changes. The change in the draft system last year, the switch to 3v3 in 2005, the introduction of autonomous in 2003, the 4v0 scheme in 2001, the creation of alliances in 2000, etc. Even large changes to the gameplay and large variances from FIRST trends may be worthy of posting (such as not only allowing, but encouraging, projectiles in 2006).
There always seem to be a couple rules that bubble up every year, and this thread is for the discussion of those rules. But there is validity to what was posted, please know the rules before discussing them.

[Ian Curtis]

If we're voting for irritation factor, I'd say a large number of people are slightly annoyed at going out and buying new batteries.

As for the game, I've got a split vote. Carrying one tube at a time is interesting one, but I'd say the more exciting one is the whole changing weight based on changing height. Also, the scoring is logarithmic, how cool is that! :D

[Richard Wallace]

...Also, the scoring is logarithmic, how cool is that! :DExponential. And yeah, that's cool.:cool:

[hallk]

The end game rules are really the only ones in my mind. They are just kinda new is all, like the penalties.

[Lil' Lavery]

I think the height/weight "classes" are probably the rule that is the most surprising to me. Especially considering it's not really game specific and we could see it again in the future.

[robind]

I think the height/weight "classes" are probably the rule that is the most surprising to me. Especially considering it's not really game specific and we could see it again in the future.

For sure. Quite frankly I'm surprised they haven't done this in previous years.

What I am probably the most surprised about is the use of only one color for the targets. I guess I was sorta expecting multiple colors after the big hubbub at nationals.

[Rafi Ahmed]

I am surprised with the high contact rule. The one with the yellow flags and cards. Its going to be interesting to see how many yellow cards are actually used and how many disqualifications are made.

[Cyberguy34000]

The rules are actually quite tame in changes for this year. Overall they just feel more simplified and more fleshed out than in previous years. I like how the pinning rules have been relaxed around the Rack, which means that we can still have those pushing matches which are a lot of fun to watch.

I'm thinking of the horrors of Triple Play two years ago. I thought the game was a really cool idea, but the rules were just not fleshed out very well and contributed to a ridiculous amount of confusion and inconsistency. Anyone remember the "Loading Zone Violation Penalties"? (shudder)

Well, we've still got another 6 weeks to sift through the rules to see if some ridiculous thing was overlooked, but overall it looks pretty tight. I'm really looking forward to this season.

-Chris

[Jack Jones]

"What the!?!?!"
8.3.4.2 Additional Parts and Materials Rules
...
However, COTS items that have been specifically designed are in and of themselves as a solution
to portion of the FIRST Robotics Competition challenge may or may not fit within the FRC intent,
and must be carefully considered.
...

English!?!?!

[EricH]

"What the!?!?!"


English!?!?!It was English. IF a COTS is designed specifically for FIRST (not likely to be available to other robot comps or outsiders is how I see that), it will invite inspection. And, please consider the rest of that rule. IF it is just "plug and play" with little or no assembly or design work, it will not play. If it could be used in multiple places (e.g. AndyMark trannies), it will be allowed. For the record, here is the full text of that paragraph:
However, COTS items that have been specifically designed are in and of themselves as a solution to portion of the FIRST Robotics Competition challenge may or may not fit within the FRC intent,and must be carefully considered. If the item provides general functionality that can be utilized in any of several possible configurations or applications, then it is acceptable (as the teams will still have to design their particular application of the item). However, COTS items that provide a complete “pre-packaged” solution for a major ROBOT function (e.g. a complete manipulator assembly, pre-built pneumatics circuit, or full mobility system) that require no effort other than just bolting it on to the ROBOT are against the intent of the competition, and will not be permitted.

[Nick 568]

One new rule I find interesting is the "your pit cannot be taller than 10 feet" rule.... Why you ask?
Well, last year, when I lived in the DC area, I was on team 1885. At the championship, we had a 42" plasma mounted about 9' off the ground, so it was over definitely above 10' total height, lol.

http://www.pwcs.edu/news/battlefield/nationals3.jpg


Is anyone else having problems with their sevaa server? Our mysql isn't working, so our forums and cpanel aren't accessible. I believe they were attacked or something because their support forums are filled with nothing but spam.

[JohnBoucher]

<G29> ROBOT orientation - ROBOTS must start the match with their long (maximum) dimension in a vertical orientation.

[Travis Hoffman]

<G29> ROBOT orientation - ROBOTS must start the match with their long (maximum) dimension in a vertical orientation.

I bet 67 is happy - flop-bots are back in style. There's another team that could use their '04-'05 design in this year's game with little modification. Heck, they even already have a ramp on their backs (although I imagine a little reinforcement would be in order).....

[Taylor]

The part I found interesting is that there is a 10 point penalty for scoring for the other alliance, yet qual points are awarded based on the losing team's score. I wonder how many times, for example, the Redabots will be winning by 60 (which, given the exponential structure of the scoring, is by no means out of the question!) and score for the Blueabots, taking the 10-pointer but still winning the match.

[efoote868]

One new rule I find interesting is the "your pit cannot be taller than 10 feet" rule.... Why you ask?
Well, last year, when I lived in the DC area, I was on team 1885. At the championship, we had a 42" plasma mounted about 9' off the ground, so it was over definitely above 10' total height, lol.


uh, that rule actually isn't new. There was an update last year (about midway through the season) that said no pit displays were to be taller than 10 feet. No one really followed it, and the mentor in charge of the display was really angry whenever he saw something "soaring" into the air...

He was also joking with me about it this year:
If your robot has unfolded to more than 10 feet tall during the match, and it goes into your pit, is that a violation?

[smurfgirl]

7.3.6
<G56> ROBOTS in HOME ZONE - ROBOTS score bonus points at the end of the match if they are entirely in their HOME ZONE, not in contact with any element of the field (carpet, alliance station, goal etc.) and the lowest point of the ROBOT is higher than 4 and/or 10 inches above the carpeted field surface/ The number of bonus points an ALLIANCE receives is based on the total number of ROBOTS satisfying these conditions. Each ALLIANCE ROBOT entirely in their HOME ZONE at the end of the match is eligible to receive the following bonus points:
- Each ROBOT between 0 and 3.9 inches above floor level- 0 bonus points
- Each ROBOT between 4.0 and 11.9 inches above floor level- 15 bonus points
- Each ROBOT 12.0 inches or more above floor level- 30 bonus points



I know they referred to 12" everywhere else, so is the 10" just a typo?



Also:

7.2.3.2
<G07>The RACK will be moved (translated and/or rotated) to an arbitrary position so that the center of the RACK is within a 3 foot radius of the playing field center but the exact location and orientation of the RACK is unpredictable. After this point in time no ROBOT may be moved or repositioned until the match starts.



Wouldn't this mean one alliance could have an unfair playing advantage if the rack is shifted 3 feet towards the opposite end of the field (the end where they pick up their game pieces)?

[Billfred]

Wouldn't this mean one alliance could have an unfair playing advantage if the rack is shifted 3 feet towards the opposite end of the field (the end where they pick up their game pieces)?

Not especially--if they're not planning on it being three feet closer, they're gonna have a rude awakening.

In theory, with the sensor capabilities we have this year, the extra three feet should be negligible to getting the robot to score the keepers.

[AndyB]

I find it a bit disappointing that you can only really put one ring on a spider leg. I liked the format in 05' where you could keep stacking your tetras, i guess with this setup, it relies on more quick thinking as you only have 2 spoilers to your disposal, but still, it would have been interesting.

[Xufer]

RULE <R46> The last line says "Electric Solenoid actuators are prohibited from use" to that I say WHAT THE !?!?! its another added annoyance to overcome this year, its not a big deal but solenoids where always a nice component to fall back on... not this year! I'd imagine it s for safety reasons because I always foresaw an issue with a solenoid over heating and burning a person who did not know it was hot.

[jgannon]

RULE <R46> The last line says "Electric Solenoid actuators are prohibited from use" to that I say WHAT THE !?!?! its another added annoyance to overcome this year, its not a big deal but solenoids where always a nice component to fall back on... not this year! I'd imagine it s for safety reasons because I always foresaw an issue with a solenoid over heating and burning a person who did not know it was hot.
This rule has existed since at least 2004 (though I would guess it's been around forever). I think it's probably more of an issue for maintaining equal maximum power between teams, rather than a safety issue.

[Xufer]

Are you sure i remember using them in 04 but i know i havent used them in the past 2 years. its possible i never notivced because i never thought to use them those years.

[petek]

I bet 67 is happy - flop-bots are back in style. There's another team that could use their '04-'05 design in this year's game with little modification. Heck, they even already have a ramp on their backs (although I imagine a little reinforcement would be in order).....I expect some clarification on this rule. As I read it, <G29> would mean that a basic Class 1 low-profile KOP robot (e.g. a rookie team boxbot) that is 28w x 38l x 18h in its normal running configuration would have to start the match standing on end and would have to flop to run.

[Nick 568]

uh, that rule actually isn't new. There was an update last year (about midway through the season) that said no pit displays were to be taller than 10 feet. No one really followed it, and the mentor in charge of the display was really angry whenever he saw something "soaring" into the air...

He was also joking with me about it this year:

Oh, ok, I was under the impression this was a new rule since no one at the championship seemed to follow it...we only got complaints about our display sticking out from the pit area some, but not the height.

[NiGhtMarE_AnGeL]

Im stoked about having the idea of the "tic tack toe" style again :) like from tripple play, only extended.

And it was said earlier in the thread that if you had a bot from that year (tripple play) you could modify it and see if the same idea works for this year. Its funny because we were sitting in our chairs, the 4 of us mentor girls from the years before saying that!..only, we pretty much tore it apart to use it for LAST years game... lol

im just wondering how many more intertubes we are going to deflate in accordance to how many tetras we broke. (which unlike the tetras, can still be scored! )

This is me, being stoked :):D :D :D

[jgannon]

I expect some clarification on this rule. As I read it, <G29> would mean that a basic Class 1 low-profile KOP robot (e.g. a rookie team boxbot) that is 28w x 38l x 18h in its normal running configuration would have to start the match standing on end and would have to flop to run.
While I hadn't thought of this interpretation, and I agree that it will probably be clarified, is it possible that this is intentionally to prevent such 'bots? Unless you're gonna flop, you have to be at least 38" tall. (Though, if you slap the flag holder on top of your kitbot, you're already at 30".)

[Kristian Calhoun]

The part I found interesting is that there is a 10 point penalty for scoring for the other alliance, yet qual points are awarded based on the losing team's score. I wonder how many times, for example, the Redabots will be winning by 60 (which, given the exponential structure of the scoring, is by no means out of the question!) and score for the Blueabots, taking the 10-pointer but still winning the match.

I found that rule to be interesting as well, because rule <G21> states:

<G21> SCORING for opponents - ROBOTS may not HANG a GAME PIECE of an opposing
ALLIANCE. If this rule is violated a 10-point penalty will be assessed per infraction.
Then later in the manual, when talking about Ranking Points:

9.3.8 Ranking Score
The total number of ranking points earned by a team throughout their qualification matches,
divided by the number of matches played (excluding any SURROGATE matches), then truncated
to two decimal places, will be their ranking score. Note: because your ranking score is derived
directly from the match scores of the losing ALLIANCES in the matches you play, it is in your best
interest to support your opponents and win by helping each ALLIANCE score as many points as
possible.
Unlike in previous years' games, in Rack 'N' Roll it is impossible to score for the opposing alliance. Hanging a ringer of the opposing alliance would result in a 10 point penalty. I can see the intent of rule <G21> in that it intends to stop, lets say the blue alliance, from hanging a red ringer over another red ringer (originally placed by the red alliance) in order to negate that spider leg, and breaking up any rows that have been formed. So as boiler mentioned, I'm curious as to see how many teams will willingly take the penalty in order to negate row(s) formed by the other alliance. Then once the spider leg has two red ringers on it, the red alliance would not be able to remove the second red ringer without being DQed as per rule <G20>, and even then the ringers on that spider leg would be considered void as per the same rule.

You can further not score for the opposing alliance by climbing onto a robot in their home zone as prohibited by rule <G35> and are penalized for being in their home zone during the end game as per rule <G25>. Therefore, the only way to help the other alliance score more points would be to lighten up on the defense...

[NiGhtMarE_AnGeL]

oh, and i also think its funny that a robot that is taller than me must weigh less than i do!

im like the equivalent of a robot! haha

[paradoxal]

The part I found interesting is that there is a 10 point penalty for scoring for the other alliance, yet qual points are awarded based on the losing team's score. I wonder how many times, for example, the Redabots will be winning by 60 (which, given the exponential structure of the scoring, is by no means out of the question!) and score for the Blueabots, taking the 10-pointer but still winning the match.

they made that rule because a leg is ignored if there is two ringers of the same alliance on it

[NoSkaOnTheRadio]

i'm all for pit height restrictions - some of the displays i saw last year were pretty over the top (ha!), and i think this rule will actually facilitate communication between neighbors. it's good to be friendly, you know?

[ahecht]

While I can certainly hope that members of the Game Design Committee read this thread, I just wanted to remind everyone who has posted a discrepancy in the rules has actually submitted it to the Q&A (or had their designated team representative post it). Don't just assume someone else will.

[Sean Schuff]

Gotta gripe again about the batteries rule.

What the !?!?!

Sean

[EricH]

I expect some clarification on this rule. As I read it, <G29> would mean that a basic Class 1 low-profile KOP robot (e.g. a rookie team boxbot) that is 28w x 38l x 18h in its normal running configuration would have to start the match standing on end and would have to flop to run.You mean 28wx48lx(something under 38)h, don't you? Something 28w x 38l is in the box already.

[petek]

You mean 28wx48lx(something under 38)h, don't you? Something 28w x 38l is in the box already.If a team was to build the 28 x 38 chassis out of the box but made their robot less than 38 in high, the 38 in length of the kit chassis would be the long dimension so, per <G29>, would have to start with the chassis standing on end and the bottom of the robot (when running) would be vertical at the start.

For the teams that barely get the kit robot working in time to ship this could be quite a surprise when they get to their first regional.

[GMKlenklen]

Yah, it's a weird rule, I'd plan on attaching a useless peice of something just as soon as a ref or inspector said something about it... unless they come out with a clarification before the end of build period.

Or just try to go for the lower spiders no matter what! That's probably something they are trying to foster there... maybe a train of thought that goes like this: "Might as well try! we may learn something".

[Michael Hill]

I'm upset we can't use the 2005 Breaker Panels. It made everything so much cleaner and localized. Also, it was a lot less work.

[Gary Dillard]

From the Q&A Forum:
Q.Rule <G40> states that "ROBOTS may not intentionally detach parts or leave multiple mechanisms on the field." Is the definition of detached merely any component no longer connected to the robot? We would specifically like to know if having robot parts that leave the main robot frame but are still connected to it by a small "tether" would violate rule <G40>.

A. Any mechanisms "attached" to the robot via a tether are likely be considered an entanglement hazard and a violation of Rules <G38>, <R04>, and <R32>.

My comment (still beating that dead horse): Unless, as in 2002, Woody Flowers says it's OK because you spent alot of engineering time developing it, so it would be a shame not to let you use it even though it's blatently illegal.

[Donut]

From the Q&A Forum:
Q.Rule <G40> states that "ROBOTS may not intentionally detach parts or leave multiple mechanisms on the field." Is the definition of detached merely any component no longer connected to the robot? We would specifically like to know if having robot parts that leave the main robot frame but are still connected to it by a small "tether" would violate rule <G40>.

A. Any mechanisms "attached" to the robot via a tether are likely be considered an entanglement hazard and a violation of Rules <G38>, <R04>, and <R32>.

My comment (still beating that dead horse): Unless, as in 2002, Woody Flowers says it's OK because you spent alot of engineering time developing it, so it would be a shame not to let you use it even though it's blatently illegal.

It's okay, we abandoned the tethered ramp idea anyway :)

[Guy Davidson]

I found that rule to be interesting as well, because rule <G21> states:

Then later in the manual, when talking about Ranking Points:

Unlike in previous years' games, in Rack 'N' Roll it is impossible to score for the opposing alliance. Hanging a ringer of the opposing alliance would result in a 10 point penalty. I can see the intent of rule <G21> in that it intends to stop, lets say the blue alliance, from hanging a red ringer over another red ringer (originally placed by the red alliance) in order to negate that spider leg, and breaking up any rows that have been formed. So as boiler mentioned, I'm curious as to see how many teams will willingly take the penalty in order to negate row(s) formed by the other alliance. Then once the spider leg has two red ringers on it, the red alliance would not be able to remove the second red ringer without being DQed as per rule <G20>, and even then the ringers on that spider leg would be considered void as per the same rule.

You can further not score for the opposing alliance by climbing onto a robot in their home zone as prohibited by rule <G35> and are penalized for being in their home zone during the end game as per rule <G25>. Therefore, the only way to help the other alliance score more points would be to lighten up on the defense...

Check the latest team update. It adresses this to the wire.

-Guy

[bobotics319]

I have two gripes. One is the 72x72 rule, which I believe has no relevance other than to hinder us (although we can position our robot diagonally in the box giving us over 100 inches of length). Another is the identical pneumatics <R105> rule. Which says we can't use pneumatics unless they are identical to those on the "Pneumatics Components Order Form" Where is this form? Anybody?

[Ricky Q.]

I have two gripes. One is the 72x72 rule, which I believe has no relevance other than to hinder us (although we can position our robot diagonally in the box giving us over 100 inches of length). Another is the identical pneumatics <R105> rule. Which says we can't use pneumatics unless they are identical to those on the "Pneumatics Components Order Form" Where is this form? Anybody?

Last page of the Pneumatics Manual:

http://www2.usfirst.org/2007comp/other/2007%20FRC%20Pneumatics%20Manual.pdf

[Tristan Lall]

I have two gripes. One is the 72x72 rule, which I believe has no relevance other than to hinder us (although we can position our robot diagonally in the box giving us over 100 inches of length). The rule probably exists so that you can't block enough of the field to lock down the gameplay. Consider 179's tri-fold robot in 2003: it was designed to vault over a field element and block a 12-foot section of the field, preventing most opponents from reaching its' alliance's scoring stacks.