Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

Yup. I'm actually pleased that FIRST is moving even more toward a non-positivist rules set, wherein reasonable interpretation of intent guides design. It's much more realistic...

...at least FIRST doesn't change parameters like footprint, weight, and allowable power sources during the build season -- that would be an even more realistic engineering project!

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

Well this certainly allows you guys to become the troll under the bridge.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

I remember in 07', we got to champs and they told us that if any part of a tube was touching your ramp then the lift didn't count. Which made us very mad.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

Wait, people were surprised by this update?

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

It was worse that that, they said any part of the robot.

In the first match we had two robots on top of us and they ruled that our arm was touching a tube so it didn't count. The ruling was that the the tube was supporting us!

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

I was going to write some angry and long winded post about this update, but I'm in too good of a mood after watching this video.

Thanks 179.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

Not surprised by this update, but a bit disappointed that it wasn't taken care of earlier, especially after the multitude of Q&A's. I'm sure the GDC will be catching quite a bit of flack for this, so I'll just pose this question to teams out there. Who was actually planning on taking advantage of this loophole, and what is your plan now?

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

C'mon, the Q&A was asked what parts of the opponent's bridge were legal to touch; the answer was none of it. Certainly the answer was not meant to create another way to score a balanced bridge. Of course this means of "balancing" would be disallowed.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

My belief is that there are numerous ways to hang from the bridge, either on the end or side, without grabbing, grasping, or grappling. Since the GDC has refused to define what that means some are more suspect than others.

I think 179's is clearly not grabbing, grappling, or grasping. That being said, the end of the bridge is pretty non-rigid (it's nothing but unsupported polycarb/HDPE at that point. I have no idea how the GDC intends to handle that, or if "grab, grapple, or grasp" will be up to the judgement of the referees at each event.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

You're missing his implicit point. FIRST apparently can just change perfectly clear rules at any time, so there is no logical reason to believe any design or aspect of the game will remain the same at all.

All we have is "common sense"... But common sense to one is not common sense to another.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

The fact it's week 6 and we had some things based off the "official" answer to two QandA questions, that were "official interpretations", yes I am surprised by it.

Engineering drawings don't have gray area, the one they referenced even had the balloon breakouts labeling every part, and they used that twice as answers to what defined "the bridge", you'd think if they were referencing a drawing they could at least read the list that is on the page for the sole purpose of quickly showing what is included in an assembly....

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

Tough luck for the teams who built a design around this concept, but I have to say I saw this one coming a million miles away. To me, it was always obvious that the intent of the rule was to get you to balance while only touching the top of the bridge. Since the Q&A that defined the bridge wasn't related, you probably should have been a little more suspicious about this one.

I feel like they definitely should have had a ruling out on this sooner, though.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

Even though this doesn't affect us, this makes me really mad :mad:. I remember when I was at champs in 2008 and one of the teams had a base that couldn't move and a crane that picked up the ball and moved it around the field. They won their regional, but the GDC screwed them between then and champs by changing the rules to make their strategy illegal. This seems wrong. Think how discouraging it would be to any teams who did use this strategy.

I don't like the comparison to engineering either. This is not engineering, this is a sport. The objective is to compete within the framework defined by the rules. The rules should be static and not open to killing edge-case designs. No one changes the rules of hockey because they came up with a new play. Even battlebots had the decency to let Son of Wyachi ride it's lawyering to a victory before changing the rules next season.

My 2 cents,

- Alex

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

This is not true. 190 was always in violation of the rules. It did not take a GDC ruling to figure it out. They just somehow managed to compete at one event regardless of the legality of their robot.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

I'm a bit to steamed to make this long winded, so I'll make it short.

I feel sorry for the teams I know that built short bots. It does slightly annoy me that a major part of the game is now illegal on week 6 because if mis-definitions.

But how could the GDC know this strategy without someone posting "Is the Bridge considered balanced if the robot is fully supported by something other than the top surface? (or ball ramp)"

-Nick