Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

After reading this thread, I began to ponder the greater implications of this ruling. By saying that tape is illegal in bumper construction because it is not specifically allowed as a construction material, does that apply to the rest of the robot as well?

In the pneumatic rules, R74 states:

I don't see a similar rule pertaining to bumpers. If the GDC is going to apply this interpretation to bumpers, then what about the rest of the robot? I don't think it would be possible to build a robot under that interpretation. Is aluminum, plastic, plywood, or fiberglass explicitly allowed as a fabrication material? I don't think so.

Sometimes the law of un-intended consequences gets even the best of us. I thing the GDC needs to clarify their intent. Making tape illegal in bumper construction might be an inconvenience to some teams, but by extension of the ruling, staples are also illegal, and that might end up creating a situation where bumpers are less robust and not as effective.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Did you miss R21? It states "BUMPERS must be constructed as follows (see Figure 4-8)" and then goes on to explicitly list the materials allowed in bumpers, even providing a picture of the required cross section.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Rule seems pretty clear. The cross section in Figure 4-8 doesn't include adhesives.

I don't see a rule that says "ROBOTS must be constructed as follows"

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Do you use staples in the construction of your bumpers? We always have (we have never used tape). If so, that is not legal (staples are not mentioned in the list of materials or the cross section, only wood screws). What about the system by which you attach the bumpers? the cross section shows a tee-nut and bolt, is that the only legal method? I have seen many other methods for attaching bumpers that are not pictured, are they not legal?

If the GDC does not provide a basis for this ruling, then the ruling can be extended to every other part of the robot, or at least at a minimum (if you only apply it to the bumpers), makes staples illegal.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Martin,
To be fair the question was...
"Is it legal for teams to use tape, shrink wrap, or other soft material to secure the pool noodles to the wood underneath the bumper fabric? In previous years teams have had issues with pool noodles that would sag below the wood?" The simple response was "No". That is all.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

I agree that was the question, and the answer. But every answer must have a basis in the rules. They cannot make rule through Q&A. So if there is a rule that prohibits the use of tape what must it be? This is important because it has other implications. The only basis I can see for ruling against tape is that it is not explicitly allowed. If we take that as the basis, then by extension, nothing can be used that is not explicitly allowed.

If my logic is flawed, perhaps you can show another basis for disallowing tape? One that does allow staples?

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

You could read the answer as "Is it legal...to secure the pool noodles to the wood" is not allowed.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

So, we can interpret the answer as not disallowing tape, but disallowing any means of attaching the noodles to the wood?

I might buy that. I still wish the GDC would be more clear in their answers. Sometimes they give the basis for a ruling:

In this example, the question was answered, and a basis was given. It is very clear why a piloted valve is not legal.

but often they just give a one-word answer with no explanation, as they did in the bumper/tape case. Without a basis, we are left to determine what the basis is, and how that affects our interpretation of the rules.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

I think you're making well more of this than there is to make.

The bumper rules specify how bumpers are to be constructed. The question was whether or not those rules could be deviated from; the answer was "no". It doesn't apply to general materials usage, or non-bumpers, or anything else--just bumper construction.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

I respectfully disagree. FIRST wants all teams to conform to the rules, even the rules that aren't readily inspect-able. I believe that most teams want to comply with all the rules. To do that, teams have to be able to understand what those rules are. When they answer a question without giving a basis for the answer, and that basis is not obvious, they are leaving it up to teams to interpret what they mean. If some teams interpret things differently than other teams, or differently than inspectors, it can lead to trouble.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Multiple people here have pointed you to R21 as the likely basis for the ruling. the GDC doesn't need to qualify or explain every single answer. They include additional explanation when they feel the question requires it. In this case, they didn't feel the question required additional explanation. Their answer is in accordance with the rules as they are written. If you're getting so worked up about this, why aren't you also getting worked up about all of the responses disallowing specific items from use with the pneumatic system? It's the same thing... the GDC listed exactly how you need to set up your system and what you're allowed to use (just like they did with the bumpers in R21), and teams ask if they can use something that's not on the list.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

If the ruling was based on R21, and the cross section, then reversible bumpers and bumper covers should also be illegal.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Both of those fall under "D. be covered with a rugged, smooth cloth."

We don't need to get ourselves all uber-strict and lawyer the rules to death just because of one GDC ruling...

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Yes multiple people have pointed out R21. That is exactly my point. If R21 is the basis for the ruling, then anything not listed in R21 (like staples) are illegal, and any method of attaching the bumpers to the robot other than a tee-nut and bolt are also illegal. I do not believe that this is the intent of the GDC, but it is the result of their answer if you take R21 as the basis.

I am not "getting worked up", I am simply pointing out that when the GDC interprets a rule, that interpretation has broader implications, and has to be applied to all aspects of that rule. If R21 makes tape illegal because tape is not listed, it makes staples illegal because staples are not listed.

Al Skierkiewicz posited that perhaps the basis is that noodles may not be attached to the plywood by any means, but I can't find that rule anywhere, so it would be a new rule not an interpretation.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Not sure how you can interpret that from anywhere in the rule. Figure 8-4 posts "example fastener system ...", and the verbiage of 21F is pretty clear about not being specifically defined:

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

One man's "lawyering" is another man's quest for disambiguation.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

I feel like a bunch of you are ganging up on Martin here - but he is absolutely right. I too have worked in a specifications-driven industry and, regardless of the "perceived significance" of an official interpretation, these kinds of discrepancies can have far reaching implications on other rules.

If the illegality of tape is due to a possibility that teams may build up enough tape to add structural strength under the bumpers that is one thing...if it is to prevent a team from adhering the noodles to the wood before wrapping (though I can't understand why that would be disallowed) it is another. With no basis given for the rule, an entirely new set of questions are now valid and in play...most notably: "Are staples legal?". There are no staples shown or referenced in R21 or Figure 4-8.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

I think we are in the weeds here. IF we really wanted to get wacky, the tubes in the rule book are all blue. That means we can only use blue tubes...

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Martin,
Point taken.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

I agree that the rules don't say this, but my point, which everyone seems to be missing, is that if we accept R21 as the basis for the GDC ruling that tape is not legal, then the only way that can be the basis is by saying that anything not explicitly listed in R21 is forbidden. There can be no other justification for R21 as the basis.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Much ado about nothing.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

OK, lets play "what if".

What if your team interprets the ruling the way it was probably meant, no other implications other than no tape. You build your bumper the way you always have and staple the fabric to the plywood backing. You attach the bumpers to the frame using De-sta-co clamps and arrive at your regional ready to go.

The LRI, on the other hand, has read the Q&A carefully, and interpreted the ruling to mean that nothing is allowed that is not listed in R21. He says your bumpers are not legal, and you have to remove the staples and come up with a different way to mount your bumpers. You spend all day Thursday bringing your robot into compliance. You miss all practices on Thursday, and two matches on Friday morning because you weren't inspected.

Wouldn't you wish then that there had been no ambiguity? Wouldn't it be simpler and make all regionals and inspections go more smoothly by making things crystal clear now? What is the advantage to waiting until Inspections to find out if your interpretation is correct? (or more importantly, in line with the interpretation of the LRI).

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

My point was a reversible bumper or cover has 2-3 layers of cloth, not a single layer. Also involves velcro or drawstrings. Certainly a further deviation than a few strips of tape or dabs of glue.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

To take this one step further, what about those elastic bumper covers? R27 says "Each ROBOT must be able to display red or blue BUMPERS to match their ALLIANCE color...". The definition of a BUMPER is "BUMPER: a protective assembly designed to attach to the exterior of the ROBOT and constructed as specified in Section 4.6: BUMPER Rules.". If the prevailing wisdom is that a BUMPER must be constructed per R21 then where in the rules does it say those elastic bumper covers are legal? When using an elastic bumper cover isn't the underlying stapled, glued, whatever fabric cover now serving the exact same purpose as if the pool noodles were taped to the wood? R21 does not specifically allow 2 layers of fabric either.

For the record, my team has often used a small strip of tape either between the pool noodles and wood or around the pool noodles and wood as simply a "3rd hand" to hold the 2 pool noodles while stapling the fabric on. Was it necessary? No. It was simply a matter of convenience. Will they do it this year? No. The GDC has specifically ruled and and we will of course comply. We can simply grab another student to fulfill the "3rd hand" requirement and move on.

However, as an LRI, I am very interested in this thread and where it leads with any future rulings by the GDC on this subject. If Martin's strict interpretation is correct then I do not see how reversible bumpers nor elastic bumper covers are legal per the picture in R21-F.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

For the record, this is not my interpretation. What I mean by that is that I don't believe that the GDC intended to to outlaw any material not listed in R21. I am trying to point point out the dangers of answers on the Q&A that do not explain the basis of the ruling. And I am trying to prevent ambiguity and the potential for anyone to misinterpret a ruling.

Nobody wants inspections to be a nightmare, with teams and inspectors disagreeing on the meaning of a rule or a Q&A. Why not make the ruling clear and move on?

If the GDC is trying to model real life, and the frustrations of dealing with poorly defined requirements, then that might be an explanation, but I hope that is not the case.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

This would explain a lot of what happens each year...

To perhaps add to the discussion, I would point out the following from the Introduction of Section 4 "The Robot" in the 2014 Game Manual:

I would argue that the first sentence supports Martin's detractors in that he's reading too much into the rules. But I would say that the 2nd sentence fully supports the questions that Martin is bringing up. His clearly stated intent is to understand the reasoning -- and this is not a simple issue, despite what some of you interpret.

Ultimately, the GDC needs to respond and clarify. Has someone actually posted a followup in the Q&A, or is there just heated debate in the forum?

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Maybe I am missing something here. The question was about using tape to secure the pool noodles to the play wood backing. The answer was a simple no.

"Q. Is it legal for teams to use tape, shrink wrap, or other soft material to secure the pool noodles to the wood underneath the bumper fabric? In previous years teams have had issues with pool noodles that would sag below the wood.
2014-01-24 by FRC3847
A. No."

The answer makes no reference to any other rules. It says simply no you can not use tape to secure the pool noodles to the plywood. There is simply no inference that staples or anything else are prohibited materials.

Biblically speaking, let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

I agree with Martin417. It seems like every year there are some rules that are too strict while others go by the way side. One year we had to cut our driver station down 1/4" because it was 12.25" and the rules said that it could only be 12". However we played with and against teams that had saggy bumpers and fabric that were well below the bumper area. In one match the fabric was dragging on the ground the whole match but because it was a rookie team that could barely get bumpers on their robot for inspection everyone looked the other way and no penalties or disqualification was issued. This Q&A is another one of those situations I hate. Using a little bit of tape to hold the noodles to the board before you wrap the fabric is very helpful and makes for good bumpers. I have seen very many veteran teams use this method and teach this method at competition when trying to get rookie team to pass inspection. Now should we wrap the noodles all the way down to side with 20 wraps of duct tape and create uber bumpers NO. Maybe the GDC should have a little common sense and say no more than 12" of tape in two places along the bumper may be used. But Oh wait what about the teams that use 12.25" of tape. I mean come on. Are we going to have Xray camera examine our bumpers now to determine if we use tape or not? If we are caught helping a rookie team make bumpers by using tape does that disqualify a rookie team or better yet our team even though we our being gracious by helping them. I think Martin417 has the right idea. When does it all end. It does not say I can use staples in my bumpers. Maybe I should just use the wood screws as mentioned but use real long ones, that way they stick all the way through the wood and noodles and have real sharp edges sticking out from the noodles. It does not say I have a restriction on length of wood screw so that means I can use the longest size I can find. Right?

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

FIRST does have an issue with rules enforcement--some are draconian, some are ignored. That's true of every organization that has or makes rules, actually, but that's no excuse for not looking for ways to improve upon what's here.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Yes, it does. :)

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

The problem is that the guy who is answering the questions isn't trying to help teams figure out their solutions. Teams asking questions want to understand what they're trying to do. The GDC answers with a totally ambiguous answer. I really hoped that after the robonauts in 2012, with IMO was one of the worst decisions they've ever made, that the question and answer would be a little better. Building robots isn't easy for a bunch of high schoolers on a rookie team. They don't need to get garbage as a response. This rule really doesn't make any sense at all, and can't really be enforced.

These rules this year are pretty poor. They can't be interpreted word for word, otherwise some interesting possibilities come up. I struggle to see how much the GDC really reads over the rules before the game. They're historically missed some big stuff. For instance, this year, they didn't think what would happen if a ball got stuck in a robot. It took about an hour for multiple people on our team to point this out as being possibly problematic. In 2013, they obviously never tested the throw all the white discs in the last 30 seconds part of the game, and in 2011, they didn't get the stored energy minibot. I keep hoping that there will be improvements, but it isn't happening.

There is a huge negative reputation given to people who try to "lawyer" the rules. I disagree completely. The responsibility of FIRST is to give us a set of rules that don't have any loopholes they don't want. A good engineer will analyze the game and figure out a way to get the most points while preventing the other team from getting as many points. If you're making something in the real world, and you come up with a clever solution (like 469 did in 2010) that solves the problem given to you, then your company will win the bid, and you'll get paid to make the part. FRC does a great job mimicking a real world customer in terms of ambiguity. The rules are the specification given to us. If there is a "shortcut", then it is part of the specification, and the solution is ok. If your robot meets the rules, but doesn't follow the intention of the rules (118's definition of grasp, vs. the GDC's undefined definition of grasp), and this is illegal, then you get into a very subjective grey area.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

The former has been complained about since I got involved in FIRST (2001). The latter is intentional--you're not supposed to try to lawyer the rules, you're supposed to read them for intent.

This is, IMO, the only way to keep this competition and those involved with it sane.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

This thread is starting to remind me of the bumper nightmare of 2010 when everyone was having to do a lot of rework to put continuous solid backing behind the bumpers.

We carried bundles of thing wood trim and double sided tape so teams at 2 regional's could get past inspection.

I think the GDC is creating a situation here that is going to backfire at inspection unless things get clarified.

So what holds the fabric on the bumper ? magic ?

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

You're right. I am not allowed to use any fasteners to attach my fabric but I do have the option of using aluminum angle per -E. -F only pertains to attaching the bumper to the bot so I guess I will just have to balance the angle on the wood and hope that is holds the fabric . There is no section that covers what materials can be used to attach the fabric to the wood other than the optional angle. But it does not say that I can use any fasteners in the angle.

I realize the picture says use woods screws through the angle to attach the fabric but pictures are not rules. Anything that say R21-A,B,C,D,E,F are the rules if you want to get technical about it. If they wanted you to use wood screws through the optional metal it should have been mentioned in -E and not just shown in the picture.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Let me restructure this arguement:

1. Nowhere in the rules on bumpers does it even mention tape
2. When asked in the Q&A, the GDC ruled that tape was illegal to hold the pool noodles to the plywood
3. Based on 1 and 2, the argument is that anything not white-listed in the bumper rules is also illegal for bumpers
4. Based on 3, staples are therefore illegal
5. Expanding the interpretation in number 3, anything not white-listed in the entire rules is illegal
6. Based on 5, general materials such as plastic, wood, aluminum, etc are illegal.

I think we all can agree that number 6 is false, but also realize that number 2 is fact. Based on only what we know, number 3 must behave like number 2, as they are in the exact same situation. (reminds me of this quote)
But who is to say that the bumper rules are special? They are just one of many sub-sections of rules under main section ROBOT, how could we expect the others to be governed differently? But again, we run into the common agreement that number 6 is false.

The problem is where to draw the line, which was made controversially blurry by number 2

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Q&A responses aren't totally garbage. The problem is, you're statement here implies that you are expecting responses from them that "give the answers" to problems teams are having. That's not the purpose of the Q&A. There are other avenues (yes, other than CD) for that. Sure, they could be a little better, but to say they are "absolute garbage" is unnecessarily offensive and critical.

The quality of the manual this year is, in my opinion, no different than any other year. You can't expect them to expect those certain holes in the game that you listed. Also, you're viewing the manual for a different lens than the GDC. When they read it, they know their intent for everything, and will interpret things how they interpret, knowing how they "want the game" to play out. And in regards to the 118 2012 situation, I'd like to believe that 118 knew they were taking a risk with that strategy, but the exact specifics of what the GDC told 118 are not public knowledge (to my opinion). In my opinion, it was a risk because I highly doubt the GDC designed the game with the intent for a 118-type balance to be doable.


And the reason there's a "huge negative reputation given to people who try to "lawyer" the rules" because of this statement at the beginning of Section 4 of the manual:
emphasis mine.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Some might be interested in this previous discussion on how closely to read the bumper rules (from 2010). In that thread, I said:
While I still hold those opinions, particularly that the rules should generally be read as standalone specifications that do not depend on a knowledge of past practice, I think it's fair to revisit the question of precedent under the current circumstances. After all, it might be suggested that FIRST's ongoing intent has been to keep the bumpers mostly similar from year to year, and that the omission of staples was inadvertent and based on an unspoken presumption (on the part of the GDC) that teams could keep doing what they'd done previously, as long as it didn't contradict the GDC's updated intent. Another example of this is the definition of what constitutes an acceptable bumper fastening system: that definition has evolved over the years, but simply looking at the 2014 rulebook, it's not clear exactly what FIRST means or what it will accept. That kind of thought process would be an easy mistake to make, particularly if the GDC were concentrating on other, more important details.¹

If that's true, does it imply that a "proper" reading of the rules is only likely with specific knowledge of the past (e.g. that staples used to be specified as options for bumper construction, and are thus unlikely to arouse the concern of the officials or the GDC)? I hope not; firstly because there are relatively few people with that knowledge (or the inclination to amass such esoteric knowledge), and there's no need for them to be the gatekeepers to the rulebook; and secondly, because the downsides of codifying everything to a widely acceptable degree of precision are minimal when you have absolute control of the rule-writing process, so there's no need for half-measures that introduce widespread uncertainty.

Everyone's interests are served by simply clarifying the rule's intent (via Q&A), and if necessary, issuing updates that make that intent clearer and which can guide the teams and officials alike. The fact that this might reiterate past rulings is immaterial, and the fact that this might contradict past years' rulings—while not immaterial—at least shouldn't be reason for great consternation.


¹ And make no mistake, several of the most important ongoing deficiencies in the bumper rules have been corrected in the last couple of years. The bumper rules are still far from perfect, but they're not nearly as bad as they used to be.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

Well said then, well said now, Tristan.

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

The analogy between the rules of the game and the rules that govern a society is not entirely apropos. I think FRC is purposefully designed to mimic a quick-turn engineering effort by a company of mixed talents and resources (energetic young engineers and older wiser engineers, ie students and mentors). It is intended to mimic "real life". We build web sites, project management is encouraged, many teams have corporate-ish structures, etcetera. So the rules are more like a contract which is a standalone-ish document. The contract may refer, for convenience, to external guidelines (the Federal Rules of Acquisition, safety practices and/or technical standards like RS-232 for example) but the contract stands alone. Precedence does not play a role. The terms of the last contract for the same product or with the same customer carry no particular weight. There is contract law of course but that generally classifies contracts and deals with disputes, methods of offerance and acceptance etc. Contract law would not typically cover differences in technical practices or ambiguity in requirements.

No contract is ever perfect - my experience is that many are pitiful. So try to methodically arrive at an agreement with the customer, FIRST in this case. Instead of "lawyering" terminology it is important to query the GDC and process the rules and the answers in a common sense manner. A few years ago I got in trouble with some young engineers on CD by suggesting (and in the end being way too snarky) that they not risk other people's money (sponsors) on what was, to me and other grey hairs, obviously a drawing with incomplete comments destined to be corrected. The GDC did correct the drawing.

A good outcome in the "real world" is where you deliver a clever conforming solution, make a profit and your customer is satisfied and inclined to return. A good outcome in FIRST is productive and enjoyable participation of the students and a clever robot that passes inspection and plays well. Good luck to all!

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

I sympathize with and share your frustrations. But it is simply not possible to make the rules perfect - at least with a reasonable amount of time and effort. Like other things in FIRST this mimics the real world. A perfect contract is also not possible. Both sides must make a best effort and proceed in good faith to clear up areas of disagreement. Otherwise only the lawyers are making any money! ;o)

Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!
 

I read the question as asking whether tape, etc. could be used to secure the pool noodles to the wood.

In truth, the fabric secures the pool noodles to the wood. A couple of strips of duct tape to hold the noodles while being secured with the fabric and staples or aluminum angle and screws are not securing the pool noodles to the wood on their own.

Perhaps the GDC was just saying that we should not count on those other materials to secure the noodles to the wood.


You see... interpretation is a tricky thing... with an simple answer of "NO" We are open to our own interpretation.

As a teacher there are many circumstances when I am working with students when I want to just give a short answer ... like "NO"...

I have found that this is not the answer that students want... they want the reason...and that helps them in understanding the
'why' and allows them to not have to ask further questions that waste their own and everyone else's time and allows them to go on and do constructive activities.