Re: In b4 buttongate
 

Surprised that Chief Delphi isn't exploding over this right now.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

Unlike Dallas there is proof. Picture worth a thousand wild opinions.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

This to me is a good example of Bureaucratic ruling.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

Not sure what you mean here - the rules (and Q&A - in particular Q439) make it very clear that "support" is only transitive through other TOTES - not any other object that may be on the FIELD, regardless of whether it was intended to be there or not. Is this a literal interpretation of that? Yes, but if you start reading things into the rules that aren't there, then they become sort of "guidelines", not rules.

If I were a ref (which I'm not) the deciding factor for me would be if I could easily dislodge that button from the stack - i.e. is it just there on the edge of a TOTE, or is it really wedged in there? If the former, it scores - there is unambiguously no support being provided by the button. If the latter, then it doesn't score. From the picture, it could go either way. Of course, I defer to the ref at the match for the ruling, which was that it didn't score.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

It should be noted that Frank Merrick was field side while the refs were discussing so the refs weren't coming to their own conclusion and they have to follow the rules put before them even if it might seem silly. The refs at UNH were extremely consistent with upholding the rule book including clarifying the rules when "can wars" started dictating who placed robots first.

While an honest mistake the rules are the rules and at the end of the day the decision had no bearing on the outcome of the match. Thanks to 58, 126, 133, 213, 501, and 4564 for making for an exciting finals match up.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

Quite clear from the picture (look at the gaps between totes, left and right, upper and lower) that the button is supporting the totes above it.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

While true that it shows a button supporting a stack. There is no part of the picture that indicates that it is the stack in question. As far as I am concerned its just a stack of totes with a button on a scoring platform on red carpet. Either way the stack itself wouldn't have changed the outcome of the match, and I believe (I don't know for certain) but I believe that the intent of the strict definitions of scored objects being supported is to prevent teams from engineering a way to artificially increase the scoring level on a bin. Again I have no way of proving that.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

Can confirm that is the stack in question.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

I would imagine it would prevent you, for example, from encasing a pile of totes inside your robot, driving the whole mess onto the scoring platform, and parking there. See? Totes are on the platform! Or building a cage that stored a bunch of totes and then sliding the whole cage onto the platform. Or a ramp, bridge, or other shenanigans of the sort.

I think it was primarily meant to acknowledge that litter would be strewn all over the field and that one of the challenges would be to make sure the tote was not stacked on top of litter (allowing this could also be a safety issue if the stack became unstable).

A button that accidentally fell down, though? That seems like bureaucratic ruling to me. A lot of the rules in the handbook say "The INTENT of this rule is to ___ while making exceptions for ___", this could have been one of them.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

When you start making exceptions to rules based on circumstance you devalue the rules and those who enforce them.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

True, and going by this, the judgement in the button scenario was valid and correct.

I'm just saying that the rule could have been worded differently. For example, G25 says "ROBOTS may not intentionally detach or leave parts on the FIELD" but then the blue box clarifies that "G25 is not intended to penalize ROBOTS that encounter accidental breakage (e.g. a failed MECHANISM that falls off), as those actions are not intentional."

They could have worded the "fully supported" rule differently. Granted it would probably be futile trying to define what was OK and what was not, hence the all-sweeping rule.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

What I meant by Bureaucratic is this:

Overly concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency or common sense.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

Yes, agreed, very exciting final matches!
Thanks to everyone who participated and congratulations to all the teams.
Too bad about the button thing, that was unfortunate, but as bob mentioned, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of that match.

The UNH District was a HOOT!

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

Interesting.

It's a sad thing to occur but the rules are very clear on this and I think the call was fair. It didn't determine the outcome of the match so there shouldn't be too much drama over it, thanks for sharing.

Re: In b4 buttongate
 

Thanks for a great match..... For all the craziness it was amazing to finally get one under our belts. My 21st year with Dirty Birds and finally got a banner. Team of 8 that stuck with it!
On to WPI....Think DIRTY (Dirty Birds)