Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Blog post from Frank this morning:

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...al-final-match

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I'm so glad you called it STEAM... I wish others would accept that as well!

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I think we are in approximate agreement. I just wanted to clarify that by "picky", I didn't mean to signify the simple difference between being bypassed at t=-.001s and being disabled at t=+.001s. I intended to highlight that, while the field crew took advantage of the pre-match situation to prove ('prove') that 987 was over-height, the benefit of that same pre-match situation, i.e. being stationary, was not afforded to the team. Rather, the information was deliberately withheld, with no rule indicating whether or not it should be, and used to implement a penalty. This penalty was, at worst and apparently in truth, illegal at t<0s. At best it was potentially legal at t>0s. Would it have been legal at t>0s? I suppose one could argue that the pre-match measurement, which at least in theory could've been out of date at that point (e.g. loss of air pressure), is enough to inform a reasonably astute observer that 987 was still over height in-match. However, the need to measure precisely indicates that this same observer couldn't have made that determination from their actual vantage point at t>0s.

It's this retroactive use of G22 that strikes me as peculiar ("picky"), and I wonder what would lead someone to make such an argument in real time. Of course, we don't know that this was the argument made. It could've potentially been legal at t>0s, if significantly more complex than a G7 version. And yet, if I'm following the rest of this incident correctly, that means that the argument for disabling the over-height robot and the argument for disabling the barely-over-the-landfill robot are entirely separate. So I'm thankful for Frank's blog post.


As far as the rules themselves, I appreciate your proposed G7 change. However, I disagree with your argument that there was no room to allow a quick fix under the current manual. There was no mandate to do so, but that's not the same thing. As far as I can determine (and you seem to be better at this), there is nothing that mandates these pre-match events or the sequence thereof. There would have been nothing illegal about allowing 987 back on to at most press a solenoid or at least be a party/listener to the conversation. Was failing to do this illegal? Apparently not, had the correct order of operations been followed. But do people have a right to be upset that it wasn't done, given doing so also would've been legal?

As it stands, it appears that the only sure, known rule violation is G22 on the penalizing side, and it had no practical consequences. I'd argue this is indicative of a rather severe rules issue, given that their implementation here had such drastic ones.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I don't. Art is only tangentially if at all related to STEM. Trying to include it in the acronym takes away from the whole purpose of advocating for STEM education.

I don't think there's anything wrong at all with teaching art, but don't try to lump it in where it doesn't belong.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Maybe your team name is an acronym or something, but I think your post is a little ironic since you are on team 840 ART ;)

I tend to agree that adding arts into STEM defeats the purpose of the acronym. Adding more letters of curriculum that people think is important will only end up with a giant acronym that essentially means "All education"...

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

This is a pleasant diversion from the topic of this thread.

I've been on both sides of this....and I really don't mind including art. Good engineering, and good science, seems to include a lot of creativity, which could be argued to be art.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

The issue with your logic here is with this statement: "as soon as the match started." Remeber what G7 states:

Note the bold red statement above. It is not ambiguous or unclear. The match should not have started until the quick fix was implemented. For both teams that were disabled for that match.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Siri: I have to agree that the referees could have proceeded to let the situation be corrected. While not required by the rules at this time, I concur that this probably would have been the best course of action. Thanks for discussing this with me. It was quite enjoyable.

martin417: My argument is not that G7 was not followed through correctly. I don't think that 987 violated G7 in the first place, so all requirements were met to start the match. However, as soon as the match started, if 987 was indeed over height, G22 was violated. Either G7 or G22 was applied incorrectly if 987 was disabled before the match began.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I don't want this point to get lost in the shuffle. As much as I love 987 and feel for them (congrats on Chairman's) and 148, 2613 (yes? I'm confused) seems to be a clear victim of incorrect G7 enforcement. According to this thread, they were out of compliance with G7c by being slightly over the Landfill, and if a reasonably astute observer honestly doesn't think that pushing a robot forward 1/nth of an inch is a "quick remedy", I would like to meet them.

bstew: and thank you, this has been great. I think we've reach a rather robust conclusion based on available evidence.

EDIT: answer, yes, 2613.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Another clarification, in the interest of stopping misinformation. Several have commented on our alliance calling for a height measurement of 2613. This is not the case.

Immediately before the start of Final 3, 148 alerted our drive team that we believed 2613 was inside the landfill zone.

During the confusion and noise of the situation our drive team thought we were asking about 2613's height, and requested that they be checked. We were told "they are already disabled".

148 asked for a height check.

We at no time advocated that 2613 should be disabled, or removed from the match. 987 was not involved in the specifics of this incident.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

My friends and I have had this discussion before. Two of us really love social studies, and another wants to be an English teacher after he gets out of college. Together we came up with the SS STEAMER education
SS: Social Studies
S: Science
T: Technology
E: Engineering
A: Arts
M: Mathematics
E: English
R: Reading

*toot* *toot*
All aboard for a general education!

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

As in Read the Manual?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I think that this issue even merited a thread indicates what has been on many people's minds--that in this year's game it can be advantageous to have the third member of the alliance stay off the field. One clear example is the auto movement bonus. Going from a game that required full alliance participation to one that implicitly penalizes full participation is a step backwards.:(

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I was sitting on the scoring table side in the front row and everyone around me clearly felt that 148 was calling for a height check.

Kevin was running to the scoring table side of the driver station during the match start countdown screaming "Height Height" at the top of his lungs. Why else would he be doing this?


Technically speaking there is nothing wrong with this action, but you can't deny that it happened.


From my perspective, the blue alliance called for a height check on 2613 (who was already disabled) and got their hand caught in the cookie jar when their own partner was also over height.

I would have liked for both teams to get an extra min to set up so we could have seen a 3v3 finals, but the facts are the facts and skewing them is not productive.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Greg,
Thanks for clarifying. I was the one who signaled Kevin about 2613 being "in the landfill" but as you know things were loud down there, so I did not realize he misheard me, and did not realize what he said in his interaction with the referees. I stand by my statement that we did not advocate in any way for 2613 to be disabled or removed.

I've edited my post, and do not want to skew facts in any way.

However, I do not appreciate your implication that we did that intentionally.
If you have any other concerns about the facts from our alliance's perspective, please PM me. We value unbiased viewpoints of these events.

I'm sure all 6 teams would have preferred to play those matches 3v3. We're excited for the rest of our competition season. :)