Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

Again, thanks for making my point. Folks have rammed the GDC into a corner to the point we are arguing semantics.

EX: "the leads attached to a battery are non COT parts" from a few years past...

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

I completely agree, but my point was that if you want to know for sure if looping a rubber band around the prongs of an H shaped appendage would make those prongs contiguous. If you have access to Q&A, I would like it if you asked. I'm rather curious of their answer now. :cool:

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

sadly, they will not comment on specific designs.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

Very true.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

There have been 2 questions asked upon this topic.

FRC148:
Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21
Q. Recent G21 rulings may make any wheel,gear,roller,etc on an appendage illegal. There will ALWAYS be a moment between when the wheel edge and the center shaft cross the frame perimeter that a discontiguous piece of wheel will be outside the FP. Is this intended? Are all wheels on appendages illegal?

FRC1619:
Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21
Q. In light of the Q&A responses restricting an appendage design well beyond the actual wording in the manual, will the manual be updated? Otherwise, teams designing to the current manual’s appendage definition could seemingly have more design freedom versus teams that have followed the Q&A responses.

I hope that this either opens up the interpretation, or completely answers any and all questions once and for all (until the next update).

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

I know this has been hashed to death but intent of the rule is clear. You can only have one "thing" outside your frame perimeter at a time. If something is extended out the front, say to manipulate the ramp, nothing can be extended out of the back or sides at the same time. And you can only extend that "thing" up to 14".

I honestly think that when writing the rules, the GDC didn't want to use the word "arm" to define the "thing" so they settled on "appendage".

Any team that has designed within these constraints should be fine. Should be.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

The intent of the original rule is very obvious. A robot can only deploy one appendage at a time over one edge of the frame perimeter.

The Q&A responses are what are being debated. The GDC has now said that an all parts of an appendage need to be contiguous at all times.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

I have to disagree with you here. I know numerous teams that designed within the constraints who have designs that have now been ruled as illegal by some of the Q&A responses.

I don't understand why the GDC can't make this simple and say 'If it moves as one assembly and is connected at some point to make it one assembly, then it is considered a single appendage.' Would make early events much less hellish than they will be if the rule is not clarified.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

This is one of those few posts where Chief Delphi needs a like button.

I don't understand myself why it can't be this simple. What, has 469 found a way to break the game again if that was the ruling?

-Nick

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

I whole heartedly agree with you!! Many initial designs for ball catchers were using surgical tubing "whips" to grab the balls. Unless these designs were totally within the frame perimeter - not even the ends of the tubing can be beyond the perimeter now - they are now illegal because the contiguous portion of the mechanism would not be beyond the perimeter.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

Fair enough but if you're a team that doesn't follow the Q & A's and you got to competition I think you could make a pretty convincing case to the LRI based on the manual definition.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

As a person who has been asked to volunteer as a robot inspector (possibly LRI), this ambiguity is the sort of thing that would lead me to decline. I would expect the GDC to clarify things for inspectors and referees in order to get consistent policy. If they can do this for inspectors & refs, I would like to see them do it for teams, as well. If they won't do it for inspectors & refs, then I would be inclined to decline. I don't want to be put the position of enforcing my own personal interpretation of something this significant.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

I propose that all of who are paying attention send out messages to the coaches in our regions directing people to the Q&A and this thread or at least a summary of it. I've done that in the Pacific NW but I don't know what's going on in other regions. Hopefully FIRST will include this in an update.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

Does anyone have any ideas on what may have happened to the following question that has disappeared from the Q&A log:

FRC1619:
Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21
Q. In light of the Q&A responses restricting an appendage design well beyond the actual wording in the manual, will the manual be updated? Otherwise, teams designing to the current manual’s appendage definition could seemingly have more design freedom versus teams that have followed the Q&A responses.

This question was still there (and unanswered) earlier today but now is gone.

I don't recall a poster having the ability to Edit or Remove a question once posted.

Maybe someone from Team 1619 might have an explanation???

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

I would expect this to be handled similarly to 2010, where it was the responsibility of the inspectors to ensure that a ball could not get more than 3in into the frame, so that the refs only have to look for obvious violations of the rule, like deploying two completely different appendages at the same time.