![]() |
The Tournament
Someone suggested that I re-read The Tournament section of the the rules earlier today, and I found quite a lot of interesting rules. I'm usually the person on my team who knows all the rules, and I was quite surprised to find not one, not two, but three rules I had no idea existed. I would suggest that everyone takes another look at The Tournament, you might find some hidden treasures.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The Tournament
Wow thanks! you are not the only one who had no idea of these rules.
|
Re: The Tournament
[T32] captures a policy that was enforced by FTAs previously, but not formally part of the tournament rules. It's also kind of a cop-out: if FIRST is providing teams with specifications, and they do a competent job of assembling the field, what's the problem with proving it? By all means restrict the measurements for logistical reasons (e.g. only during downtime, when a field crew member or official is present to observe, etc.), but don't deliberately keep teams guessing as to whether you screwed up, in ways that are very likely to be pertinent to gameplay. The rule should instead allow the head referee to override specifications in extenuating circumstances (i.e. irreparable damage to the field)—so FIRST still has its out if the field isn't quite right.
[T30] and 5.6.2 are pretty much unchanged (except for a correction to a 5-year-old error). |
Re: The Tournament
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The Tournament
Quote:
I have always wondered why teams are held to real numbers and the field has a tolerance. I will give you an example. In our inspection at Portland this year our team was dinged for having an operator interface that was 3/32 too wide (we were 12 and 3/32) The team member who designed and made the interface had cut the end panels to 12" and had not taken into account the thickness of the sheets of aluminum outside the end panel. I had not caught the change in this year's rules ...(a maximum size requirement for the operator interface...is in the rules...) We were eventually allowed to compete... I saw several other OI's during competition that were well over 12" so this allowance must have been extended to other teams... (or not caught) I totally understand the length because of the short driver station this year. I am not sure why they instituted a rule on the width... it is the same width of shelf we have used for many years... The problem is that the shelf and the width of the driver station for the field both have tolerance....but your operator interface does not... It was interesting... |
Re: The Tournament
[T32] is one of my least favorite rules for all of the reasons previously mentioned. There are much better ways for FIRST to get an "out" for an out-of-spec dimension than forbidding teams to measure it.
|
Re: The Tournament
Quote:
-Brando |
Re: The Tournament
Another rule I hate is [T28]
Quote:
If they want to offer their timeout, why shouldn't they? The greatest display of gracious professionalism in an FRC event was when the first seeded alliance (341 and 365, of course they were awesome) at Philly 2010 donated their timeout to us, because we were the 7th seeded alliance playing against them in the semifinals, and one of our teammates had a broken C-RIO. They didn't want to play an unfair match; we would lose certainly if we didn't have a third robot, and we didn't want to call for a replacement. For whatever reason, the refs allowed them to call it even though the rule was still in effect in 2010. We played, and it was one of my strongest FRC memories. We lost 7-8 due to a penalty of our side panel coming off, but I've been cheering for Miss Daisy and Moe ever since. |
Re: The Tournament
Quote:
|
Re: The Tournament
Quote:
|
Re: The Tournament
Hmmm... I'm not quite ready to assume that the "don't measure the field" rule is to prevent teams from discovering an "out of spec" field. I suppose if a team had reason to believe that a field component was "out of spec" that they still have the option of requesting the referees measure the component.
I'll also point out that teams are given a tolerance in their robot designs. For instance a 28"x38" robot is actually a 27.5"x37.5" robot with a half inch tolerance. It isn't stated that way in the rules, but maybe it should be... I'll agree that FRC has some kind of quirky rules, but by and large... and given the complexity of the competition... I have to say that I am extremely impressed by the quality of the rule book. My congratulations to the OP, however, for emphasising the importance of reading ALL the rules. Jason |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:07. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi