Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

Imagine you were designing a product for a customer and they said - "we want a machine which will be able to balance on this bridge".

What do you think your customer is going to say when you give them a machine that simply wedges itself underneath the bridge against the ambutments?

Really guys.. is it that difficult to see that this is not what FIRST wanted you to do?

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

Against my better judgement, I can say the precedent was set in 2010 when the GDC allowed teams to elevate from the vertical parts of the Tower.

That being said, previous rulings from previous games do not reflect or hold true for current or future games. I can see both sides of this debate; I can also see which side is clearly "right" and intended by the rules. For those that wish to draw parallels to 71 in 2002 or 469 in 2010, those teams repeatedly, pointedly requested clarification to ensure their designs were in fact legal.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

If they said "balance this bridge" I would ask "what is the bridge?, and what is balanced?" both of which we had black and white definitions for in this case. No lawyering, no stretching, nothing.

If you wouldn't take that same approach what route would you take? The animation didn't show that?

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

That's an odd statement. It was never unclear -- the specification was that you are above the platform and not supported by another robot; they never gave any guidelines as to how. (Indeed, the only reason you had to use the tower is because it was the only possible way to do it, and not because of some rules specificity.)

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

This is exactly what the teams who implemented this strategy were thinking. Word for word.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

Agreed. However, as was stated before in this thread, all of the animation, pictures, promotional materials, etc. from Breakaway showed an elevated robot as hanging from the top, horizontal bars of the tower. That was clearly the intent of the GDC; when an innovative yet similar and exciting strategy was employed, they accepted it as viable without issue.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

It's also an odd statement to say a robot is not "on the bridge" if they gave the specification that "the bridge" is an assembly that includes a piece of lexan.

The only difference to me is that in one instance, the GDC changed the rules to outlaw a robot design, and in another, they didn't.

Why is hanging from the side of a bar "common sense" but supporting yourself with a non-obvious piece of the bridge "lawyering the rules"?

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

Yes and no. I have maintained since I started doing FIRST in 2001 that teams who play to the spirit of the rules don't run afoul of exactly these kinds of issues. It's a risk, and sometimes it pays off (469 in 2010) and sometimes it doesn't.

There's something to be said for innovative gamesmanship, but there's something to be said for doing what you ***KNOW*** is legal. Any time you think, "this is particularly clever!" you may well be right -- but just because it's particularly clever doesn't mean it won't bite you.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

With due respect Aren, you'd have to go further than that. You'd have to ask your customer about the intentions, all forseen use cases and then still accept that there will inevitibly be grey definitions afterwards.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

The vertical bars in 2010 weren't made from a sheet of lexan...

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

Really?

I double checked the official game animation from Breakaway just to make sure... there were two robots - one red, one blue - that were sitting on the platform, not hanging from the bars during the end game. In fact, it clearly showed one of the robots driving up there from the bump!

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

A sheet of 1/4" lexan that lays flat, its also around the thickness where it starts becoming bulletproof....

We've got a sheet of it, under the ramp, we wouldn't damage it at all

In my opinion the GDC's decision was based on nothing but a desire to manipulate gameplay to suit them, kind of like the "random twists" in reality tv. The reason they banned trolling was not because there was some rule that needed clarification, but because they thought it was too many points for something too easy and would anger teams who spent hundreds of hours building shooters. The reason they left the uprights in breakaway was because it was cool-looking and it wouldn't make anyone mad.

Should an innovative team be beholden to what the other teams think of their innovations, or whether they fit in the rules they were given?

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

1/4" Oh really eh? And what experience/data is this based on? Because I can assure you that it does not. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "bulletproof".

It also does not lay flat- it deflects balls.

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14
 

You were required to be in contact with the Tower in 2010.

2010:
ELEVATED: A ROBOT that is completely above the plane of the PLATFORM and in contact with the TOWER shall be considered ELEVATED.

2012:
A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and all Robots touching it are fully supported by it.

In 2010, most teams thought that rule meant you needed to be on the horizontal bars. In 2012, most teams thought you needed to be on the top surface of the bridge. In 2010, they were wrong; in 2012, they were right. In 2010, the definition of tower was never asked on the Q&A. (Whereas sitting on the platform was asked numerous times and fully approved.) In 2012, it was asked twice, once in direct reference to G40, before the definition was changed.

Also in 2010, the rules were deliberately changed to legalize ball deflection (Team Update #2: 15 Jan and #9: 9 Feb). In 2012, the rules were deliberately changed to illegalize trolling (14 Feb). In 2012, the GDC stated their intent on an 18 Jan Q&A after TU2: "Thus, a ROBOT that required a BALL to travel through a funnel or tube would be a violation of Rule <R19> (as amended in Team Update #2)", leaving deflectors with a calculated risk--but the GDC didn't re-change the rule to match their intent. In 2012, the GDC ignored the question of intent on the 17 Jan Q&A, and reversed their literal ruling on 14 Feb.

Whose common sense are we using here? I don't understand how two are lauded and commonsensical solutions (deflection and vertical hanging) and the other is a ridiculous thing to assume. Sure, it's a risk if to accept that the GDC can do whatever it wants, but what makes trolling less of an intelligent risk than the other two?