Major Issue in Team Update #1

[Nuttyman54]

There are some subtle nuances in the Team Update 1 that I'm not sure are intended. If anyone can make heads or tails of how this is supposed to be interpreted, be my guest.

Here are the 3 rules in question, as of TU1:
Definition of Balanced Bridge:
“A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and any Robots touching it are fully supported by it.”

[G25]
Robots may not contact or otherwise interfere with the opposing Alliance Bridge.
Violation: Technical-Foul. If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced.

[G40]
“When the final score is assessed per [G37], Robots completely supported by a Balanced Alliance Bridge, per Section 2.2.5, earn points as follows:”

The Issues:
1) "A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and any Robots touching it are fully supported by it." or conversely, if any robot that is NOT supported by the alliance bridge is touching it, the bridge cannot be counted as balanced. For example, your partner cannot sit on the ground and balance the bridge for you, and hold it through the end of the match. (This has been mentioned in another thread already). This doesn't apply to opponents, as [G25] would come into play.

2) The way the [G40] is now written, it's the robots which score the bridge points, not the bridge. It now appears to read that if two robots are balanced on the bridge, each scores 20 points. I have to assume this is not what they meant, since it drastically changes the value of the bridge, but it appears to be how it is now written. This means 3 balanced robots in qualifiers is worth 60 points, and 3 in eliminations is 120!

3) Going back to the [G25] penalty, let's say red robot interferes with blue getting on the bridge. Blue doesn't end up supported by the bridge because of the interference. The bridge is counted as balanced, but because of the new [G40], the alliance does not receive any balance points, because no robots are fully supported.

The re-write of both the definition of balancing and [G40] seems to be redundant. If the GDC had intended for the bridges to be giving points to the alliance as 10 points for 1 robot balanced on a bridge, 20 for 2 and 20 or 40 (qualifiers vs eliminations) for 3, the addition to [G40] from TU1 is unnecessary. [G40] SHOULD still read as it did pre-TU1, that a balanced bridge gives X number of points, based on how many robots are on it, since the definition of “balanced” now requires the robots to be fully supported.

Another possibility is that the GDC originally intended for the robots to be scoring those points, and 1 robots is worth 10 points, 2 is worth 20 each, and 3 is worth 20 or 40 points (qualifiers vs eliminations). This severely changes the scoring dynamics of the game. I think this is the least likely, since I doubt this could have slipped through the cracks in the original rules.

The third possibility is that the definition of balanced supersedes [G40] in this case: because the bridge is being counted as balanced, the robot is considered fully supported even though it’s not, for the purposes of scoring. This would then give the balancing alliance the bridge points, even though they didn’t make it on due to the interference.

If the third option is what’s being used, it opens an entirely new can of worms. If two blue robots are trying to get on, red interferes and prevents blue1 from being fully supported and blue2 never gets a chance to try…how many points does blue get for a balanced bridge? Did red prevent one or two robots from getting on?

Does anyone see a flaw in my logic that would clear this up? Otherwise I think a Q&A is in order. I do not believe the intent was to change the scoring, however with the [G40] re-write it is now very explicitly stated that the robots are receiving the points.

[Trying to Help]

I'm certainly no expert but it sounds like this will be an interesting discussion to follow.

Trying to Help

[pfreivald]

I think you're over-complicating something simple. :)

[spacepenguine]

I agree with your second issue, as it seems they made a grammatical error that unintentionally changed the meaning of [G40]. However, I would argue that issue 1 and 3 are exactly as they intend them. If you have to have a team member supporting your bridge from the ground to balance it, I don't think they want it to count for points. And as for issue 3, if a robot's not on the bridge, why should it count. This allows for end-game defense.

[Nuttyman54]

And as for issue 3, if a robot's not on the bridge, why should it count. This allows for end-game defense.

It doesn't allow for defense though. The offending robot (the red robot in my example) gets a technical-foul and a red card. It's still very illegal, it just robs the blue team of bridge points. When the original version of the rules came out, before being fully supported was a requirement for balancing, the penalty for [G25] gave the offending team a technical-foul, a red card and consolation bridge points for the alliance that was interfered with, which I believe is the intent.

The new rules introduce an ambiguity where defense is still a very severe penalty (disqualification), but the alliance that was interfered with may not receive their bridge points due to the interference.

[Tristan Lall]

1) "A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and any Robots touching it are fully supported by it." or conversely, if any robot that is NOT supported by the alliance bridge is touching it, the bridge cannot be counted as balanced. For example, your partner cannot sit on the ground and balance the bridge for you, and hold it through the end of the match. (This has been mentioned in another thread already). This doesn't apply to opponents, as [G25] would come into play.Actually, it's worse than this. The word "any" is the problem. "Any" does not necessarily mean "all". It can also mean "a subset of" (up to and including the whole set). This should be clarified via Q&A.

A note about your converse: that's not necessarily true, because of the linguistic imprecision I noted above.

2) The way the [G40] is now written, it's the robots which score the bridge points, not the bridge. It now appears to read that if two robots are balanced on the bridge, each scores 20 points. I have to assume this is not what they meant, since it drastically changes the value of the bridge, but it appears to be how it is now written. This means 3 balanced robots in qualifiers is worth 60 points, and 3 in eliminations is 120!That's ambiguous and worth a Q&A to verify. I think we all have high confidence about what they meant, but there's no way FIRST should have expected that to have been obvious to an FRC rookie.

3) Going back to the [G25] penalty, let's say red robot interferes with blue getting on the bridge. Blue doesn't end up supported by the bridge because of the interference. The bridge is counted as balanced, but because of the new [G40], the alliance does not receive any balance points, because no robots are fully supported.This appears to be a correct interpretation. Hopefully the GDC will pay close attention and formulate an appropriate update.

If the third option is what’s being used, it opens an entirely new can of worms. If two blue robots are trying to get on, red interferes and prevents blue1 from being fully supported and blue2 never gets a chance to try…how many points does blue get for a balanced bridge? Did red prevent one or two robots from getting on?This is a particularly good point. The referees have no basis in the rulebook to make that judgment call—without a rule revision, through no fault of their own, they would be forced to adopt an ad hoc interpretation. (And a lack of consistency in officiating is one of the things that the GDC does not particularly enjoy.) If we're to read the rule in the way that generates the fewest logical problems, we might be led to assume that the GDC intends for the bridge to be balanced, but points to only count if robots are present on it (with full support).


While you're at it with drafting a Q&A, I suggest asking what is meant by "fully supported". Firstly, does the determination of full support neglect things like thrust, buoyancy, etc. (hopefully it does)? Secondly, if you have one robot, stacked completely on top of another robot, are they both counted when the bridge is balanced? Or just the bottom one? What if there is a partial stack, so the first robot rests on the second and the bridge, and the second rests on the bridge? (In other words, if you're only supported by a thing that is fully supported, and/or the bridge, are you fully supported as well?)

[Kims Robot]

Its funny, I've always been one to really nitpick the rules and dig things apart to make sure that we fully understand them.

This year (maybe because Im not locally mentoring a team), I've found I'm taking a 10,000 foot approach to the rules.

This one seems easy to me. Their intent is that the bridge is balanced and not supported by anything other than the balance. If an opponent causes issue with it, it still counts as balanced. I was at first impressed that their point structure seemed to make a lot of sense. The values of the bridge made it worth it, but not overwhelming. So I am again going to assume that they intended our original read.

I expect the fretting to be over nothing. My guess is that they will clarify the wording (again), to make it such that it is worded more closely to the intent. I think we all know the likely intent, so I would craft a Q&A to get it clarified, but I wouldn't waste too much time worrying over it. Now if they do really change the meaning of the points, that would be a whole different ball game, but I have to assume their original intent was for the balance points to be worth doing, but not overwhelming.

Ultimately, I keep looking back at the "launch the minibot" scenario from last year. Yes, actual detailed reading of the initial rules allowed for it, but to me, it was fairly clear that the intent was to have the minibot climb the pole... sure enough, the GDC clarified that. I would expect this to end up the same.

[Taylor]

There are some subtle nuances in the Team Update 1 that I'm not sure are intended. If anyone can make heads or tails of how this is supposed to be interpreted, be my guest.

2) The way the [G40] is now written, it's the robots which score the bridge points, not the bridge. It now appears to read that if two robots are balanced on the bridge, each scores 20 points. I have to assume this is not what they meant, since it drastically changes the value of the bridge, but it appears to be how it is now written. This means 3 balanced robots in qualifiers is worth 60 points, and 3 in eliminations is 120!


Upon re-reading the update, I think the key word is "Robots" - not "Robot". The collection of Robots, plural, on the bridge creates the 10, 20, or 40 point bonus, not each individual robot.

[pfreivald]

Its funny, I've always been one to really nitpick the rules and dig things apart to make sure that we fully understand them.

This year (maybe because Im not locally mentoring a team), I've found I'm taking a 10,000 foot approach to the rules.

I have found that the intent of the rules are, in general, rather easy to parse, and that if you don't lawyer them, what you think they mean ends up being what they actually mean after they've been updated!

[indubitably]

Upon re-reading the update, I think the key word is "Robots" - not "Robot". The collection of Robots, plural, on the bridge creates the 10, 20, or 40 point bonus, not each individual robot.

G38 uses the plural of alliance with the intent of alliances being able to score seperately.

[G38]
Alliances will be immediately awarded points for each Basketball that passes completely through a Hoop as follows:

But I think that the only thing to truly be worried about is the wording of (G40). I feel that the GDC's intentions are rather easy to determine otherwise. However, in G40, you really do not know if they intended to make the bridges worth that much.

[Taylor]

G38 uses the plural of alliance with the intent of alliances being able to score seperately.

[G38]
Alliances will be immediately awarded points for each Basketball that passes completely through a Hoop as follows:

But I think that the only thing to truly be worried about is the wording of (G40). I feel that the GDC's intentions are rather easy to determine otherwise. However, in G40, you really do not know if they intended to make the bridges worth that much.

It's worded like that because the alliances get the scores, not the individual robots in the alliance. The grouping of robots determines each alliance's score.

[GaryVoshol]

[G25] overrides the definition of balanced that is now provided. It says that if touching the bridge interfered with balancing, the bridge will be counted as balanced, no matter if it actually is balanced or not.

I agree that putting the definition of balanced into the rules in two different places is redundant, but I don't think it makes it unclear as to how the points will be awarded. It's 10, 20 or 40 for the act of balancing, depending on how many robots are balanced.

[adam the great]

There are a few good points but it is fairly simple to understand what the intent of the rules are. The point of there being so much less rules is because they don't want it being lawyer-ed to the point where they need to mention "buoyancy" in the act of balancing the bridge. IF the bridge is balanced and there are robots on the bridge you get X amount of points regardless of how if "one robot is stacked on top of the other"

[Bob Steele]

[G25] overrides the definition of balanced that is now provided. It says that if touching the bridge interfered with balancing, the bridge will be counted as balanced, no matter if it actually is balanced or not.

I agree that putting the definition of balanced into the rules in two different places is redundant, but I don't think it makes it unclear as to how the points will be awarded. It's 10, 20 or 40 for the act of balancing, depending on how many robots are balanced.

I would tend to agree with you if the following blue box were not in the rules:

As the level of competition at the FIRST Championship is typically very different than during the competition season, the Game Design Committee will possibly alter the value of Balancing at the FIRST Championship within the range of 5 to 15 points per Robot.

In this description of some possible alteration in scoring it specifically states "within the range of 5 to 15 points per Robot...

I think that makes it less clear...I believe that this is one case where past animations that showed how a game would be scored (at the end usually) would have shown the intent much better.

This question MUST be posed and answered in Q and A quickly because a decision on game strategy and robot design is GREATLY affected by it...
I think that there is significant ambiguity to question how the scoring would done.


The other question is about the blue box... what does 5-15 range mean?
- 15 to +15 ? or + 5 to +15? This concerns me because if the rules committee is only thinking about giving extra points for balancing (which appears to be the case because you couldn't subtract 15 points from 10 points) This is important to know ...

Obviously everyone has figured out how difficult it is for 3 full size robots to balance end to end on an 88" bridge...

Decisions have to be made quickly about whether a smaller robot in length is going to be worth the trade-offs in stability and space availability.

For example: If the bridge is REALLY worth 40 X 3 points for the balance the trade study on smaller robot size is different from a 40 point balance.
AND if we are talking about a potential 15 point push at CMP PER ROBOT
that would mean conservatively the 3 robot balance could have a value of 85 points at CMP!!! 85 points is worth more than 28 - 3 point baskets...hard to overcome...

We just need clarification quickly so we can make informed clear decisions about the points scoring so that we don't get surprised later...

thank you

[Chris Hibner]

Here's the question that I have:

Two robots are trying to balance an alliance bridge and an opposing robot interferes at the very end of the match causing the bridge to become unbalanced. When power gets cut at the end of the match while the bridge is unbalanced, one robot coasts down the bridge onto the carpet. How many points are awarded?

I would like to think that they get credit for a balanced bridge with 2 robots, but the wording for the coopertition bridge in the unbalanced condition makes me wonder if this is true.

[Nuttyman54]

Let me clear some stuff up about the reasons for my original post. I've been around a while, and yes I completely understand that in all likelihood, the scoring has not changed. But for a rookie team reading the rules, as Tristan mentioned, this is not necessarily the case. Barring rookies, rules are rules. I can think about how I believe they are intended all I want, but until the rules actually reflect that, I will never be 100% confident. Likewise, if this remains through competition season, I want the scoring to be enforced by what the rules say, not what we think they meant. That is the point of having rules.

The change in bridge scoring however, is not really my primary concern. I'm confident this will get clarified quickly. I'm more concerned with the other two implications. The wording of the definition for "balanced" and what it means with regards to a robot being allowed to hold a ramp balanced for its partners is not trivial. People can read the rules in different ways, and interpret them in different ways, and this is a strategic possibility which may or may not be legal.

How many teams thought when they read the rules in 2011 that ramp minibot launchers were legal? Not many, in fact several teams though it was definitely illegal. Same with 469 in 2010. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that most people, even after acknowledging that it was legal according to the rules, thought that it was not what the GDC had intended. Yet it was legal by the rules, and thus allowed to play.

This is why I am concerned with how the rules are written. One person's interpretation may be different than another's, but the ONLY thing that can and should be enforced is what is written. Anything else gives rise to a huge gray area that none of us want to deal with, especially inexperienced teams.

Personally, I really enjoy seeing the out of the box robots like 469, and I would love to see a team make a balance bot like 111 in 2001, but with the current wording of the rules, that is a completely unclear strategy option.

[G25] overrides the definition of balanced that is now provided. It says that if touching the bridge interfered with balancing, the bridge will be counted as balanced, no matter if it actually is balanced or not.


The point I am making is that yes, [G25] overrides the definition of balanced, but due to the redundancy, even if the bridge is balanced that is not wholly sufficient for points in [G40]. This leaves two options:

1) The redundancy is in place ONLY to deny bridge points if the opponent interferes (this is the only case that I can see where both conditions of [G40] cannot be met simultaneously)

2) The redundancy doesn't matter and the points are awarded for balancing, which leaves open what Chris and I pointed out: that there is then no place in the rules where it is stated how to determine the amount of balance points allotted due to the interference.

[DonRotolo]

I have found that the intent of the rules are, in general, rather easy to parse, and that if you don't lawyer them, what you think they mean ends up being what they actually mean after they've been updated!
Just shows what an expressive language we have. It is difficult at time to be as precise as you need to be.

Yes, we all agree that we know what the GDC meant, but it's not what they wrote, and until they fix their language we have to go with the literal interpretation of what is written (which is the definition of "Lawyering the rules").

I'll recommend to Bill Miller that they bring an accomplished college professor of English onto the GDC. :rolleyes:

[pfreivald]

Just shows what an expressive language we have. It is difficult at time to be as precise as you need to be.

Yes, we all agree that we know what the GDC meant, but it's not what they wrote, and until they fix their language we have to go with the literal interpretation of what is written (which is the definition of "Lawyering the rules").

I'll recommend to Bill Miller that they bring an accomplished college professor of English onto the GDC. :rolleyes:

One of my hats is 'novelist', and I used to do some technical writing both for game companies and for microchip manufacturers. The technical writing for the game companies was by far the hardest when it came to specificity!