I was trying to show how to make it fair.

Don't you think that teams are changing their robot during the week they have it.

I believe if everybody has the same time than that would be fair and in line with the spirit of the rules. By saying if you have money then you get to have more time with your robot that is not.

So to make it fair when the first robot is open up all teams then can start making pieces for there robot even if they do not have the robot in front of them.

If teams do make big changes they only have the regionals to touch there robot.

That would be more fair than for the team to sit there not improving there robot not like everybody else who is fixing theirs at the regionals.

Re: Re: Example 5 Math Error
 

It's not that simple. I'm quite proficient with reading, see, as I've been doing it since before Kindergarten.

Rule GM31, as it was originally published, certainly has no loop holes. It prohibits contacting multiple surfaces with the intent of wedging your robot in place, making it immovable. It prohibits robots from supporting themselves on the top outer field barrier and on the top of midfield barrier (not a safety feature, but a field feature, in my opinion). It says, specifically, "Contact with all of the barriers is acceptable."

Saying that the "extra wording" confuses things is patently false. It changes the rule. Reading the rule would reveal that.

FIRST didn't patch loopholes with regard to this rule. They've changed it, multiple times, and without any real consistency. The wording is not misleading, however your interpretation is incorrect; at least as the rule existed at kickoff.

So, with all due respect, don't tell others they don't know how to read because you fancy yourself to be so important as to be able define what words in a rule are superfluous or poorly chosen. Those words aren't confusing, misleading, or unnecessary. They define the rule by elucidating, specifically, what it means to 'react' against the playing field.

FIRST, clearly, wasn't happy with this rule, or they themselves didn't know what it was intended to do, as it has changed many, many times. Where contacting multiple surfaces at a single time is concerned, I think it has remained clear. Where interfacing with the midfield barrier is concerned, FIRST's later use of wording like 'incidental contact' and allowing mechanisms that lower the light mechanically by hitting the barrier, while seemingly making other, similar mechanisms illegal leaves a lot to be desired.

A few things left unclear...
 

Well I think that there wasn't a meeting of the minds by many teams with regard to this rule, I do agree that I believe FIRST has changed its mind slight through the process of making update 20.

Update 20:
Teams should take careful note on this:
FIRST will enforce GM31 thoroughly. Assemblies/appendages, which straddle the midfield barrier, will be thoroughly reviewed and likely disallowed as they clearly are intended to react with the field. Robot devices which are deployed or in a fixed position in order to avoid being pushed under the midfield barrier are designed to react with the field and will likely be disallowed.

Devices, which “lock” onto the platform, ramps, carpet, etc., and are subsequently pushed by another robot so as to cause/potentially cause field damage, must then be disengaged. The potential for damage rests with the deployer of mechanisms.

I understand what FIRST is saying here, however they are saying it in a way that is open to interpretation. I don't think FIRST is being clear enough when they write these "rule changes"! What I get from this is no matter what kind of arm or device you have that leaves the original configuration of the robot, if FIRST considers it to be locking (definition left unknown), and if another robot pushing that portion into any part of the field, you can be disqualified. My question is what if you design yourself to dig into the carpet, using legal materials and methods, upon another robot running on top of you. To try and clear that up, what if you have an arm that digs into the carpet upon another robot running into you (I envision a ramp, where weight is then transferred to your arm)? Maybe dig-in is the wrong word, maybe I should use the word lock or limit the amount of movement. I don’t see why you should be DQed if you are the team that has the arm when it is the result of the other robot doing the action. No field damage is done; you simple can’t be moved easily. I argue this is not locking because they could simple left the robot straight up. I would define locking as not being able to travel in any direction without damage of any degree to the playing field.

Also when they say “cause/potential” damage what degree of potential are they meaning? I guess that is just open ended and up to the referees to decide.

I am however confused on what they mean by deployer. Please help with this? Are they meaning a device that is strong enough to destroy the field on its own? If that is the case, I have never seen a competition robot able to do this. Robots try to react with the playing field (i.e. carpet), not destroy the carpet. An example is Beatty last year, they weren’t destroying the carpet, it was the result of others spinning them.

Well the rule change has been hard to handle, something needed to be done to address issues like this. Although I still don’t believe FIRST is all that clear on this subject…

Re: A few things left unclear...
 

I believe this is quite clear. If you have a robot that digs into the carpet, someone else rams into you, and this results in damage to the carpet, you (the deployer of the digging device) are at fault. In this context, if you had a robot that reacted with the playing field with an incredibly tractive device, and someone spun your robot and this destroyed the carpet, you (the deployer of the amazingly tractive device)would be at fault.

If no damage is done, then there is no issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by "changing their robot during the week they have it". Teams only have their robot for the 3 days of the event, and even then they're constrained to the hours that the pits are open. And, a good portion of those three days is spent actually competing. Why should a team who is not at a regional get all that time to make whatever they want? The teams who are at a regional have a very limited set of equipment, time, and other resources. No solution is completely fair here, but like Dean and Woodie said at the beginning of the year, this is not a fair competition and it's not meant to be. It seems to me the rules they've made are more reasonable than allowing any team to work on a robot whenever a regional is happening.

As a side note, our team is attending two regionals, so we're still losing out on time from this rule like you are, although not as badly.

You've summed it up right here. Teams at regionals are mostly fixing their robots. Teams at home would be doing nothing but improving their robots. How is that better than the current system?

Re: Re: Re: Example 5 Math Error
 

I think you meant unacceptable, or at least that is what I am assuming based upon your arguements.

This is what GM31 initial said:
GM31 The outer field barriers are safety features of the playing field and robots should not be designed to react against them. Reacting is grabbing or using the top of the field borders, the top of the driver stations, the top of the pipes at midfield, and the top of the platform/ramp polycarbonate sides with the intent of supporting a robot or robot part. It is also unacceptable to grab onto or push hard enough against multiple surfaces simultaneously in order to wedge and make immovable a robot. Contact with all of the barriers is acceptable. Pushing a container against a barrier is acceptable if the forces applied are not sufficient to damage the barrier or otherwise deform the playing field. Minor forces associated with activating contact sensors carried by the robots or similar minimal-force contact methods to detect and locate the field barriers are permissible.

The outer field barriers: As always, FIRST uses these barriers for safty purposes and we would never have even dreamed of using them.

Reacting: When they state top, we assume they mean the highest most part of the pipe on the midfield section. Since we don't touch this part or the pipe ever (with major failure, anything is possible) we don't see how this applies to us.

Reacting against multiple surfaces: Since we are only setting on the ground surface of the playing field how are we reacting on multiple surfaces?

In update 20, they now say that we can't design robots that could damage the playing field by locking onto a portion of the playing field. (Well I hate to say it, but its alittle late to be telling people once they have shipped, :-) but since we don't lock on... )Since we don't lock on to the playing field in any manner that could be viewed as a potential destroying factor the arms which straddle the midfield section should be legal, since they don't lock on to the pipe. Yes there is a possibility that they could react with the field upon another robot pushing the arms into it, however in the orginal GM31 it didn't disallow all contact with the playing field, only the top of the midfield section (other field components are non-important in is arguement). The definition of straddle is to stand, sit, with legs wide appart. I don't see how simply straddling the midfield bar is illegal as described in GM31 initial. Also I don't believe stradding and locking are the same. Since locking is to fasten in or out or to make secure or inaccessible; I don't believe our arms attach that way to the midfield bar at all, since they don't attach at all.

Just my two cents on how GM31 goes.

Re: Re: A few things left unclear...
 

This may have been a bad example of what I was getting at. I feel that I used dig-in out of context to that in which I was meaning. I was getting at the fact that almost any robot can cause damage to the playing field if another robot can control their actions. Sorry for the miscommunication. I think I cleared things up alittle in my last post. Thanks for the agruement back...

I am assuming you mean 68's robot. I know you are somehow affiliated with them, but I am clearing it up for others. I must say it is a shame FIRST is singling out a particular robot with the new rules (as I believe they are), but if I were an engineer on your team (which I am not) I would have aggressively argued against this approach since it is in a very gray area and very risky according to the way I read the rules.

My opinion still stands that the outer wings look like they are designed to react against 2 midfield barriers when necessary and that is in violation of the rules.

Sorry, but I have to call them like I see them.

Respectfully,

Paul

Thank you Paul, I know that many of my fellow team mates are feeling the same way about the way FIRST went about this rule change. I am glad that other teams out there see/feel how we feel currently. If you read in my second to last reply, I think I spell out the way that we view the rules. There was no gray area for us. I am still having a hard time with how everyone didn't read the rules the same was I discribed, however I know enough to understand that everyone is different.

I am glad you worded your reply the way you did. As of now you think that based upon pictures posted (which could be misleading), we would call us for being in voliation of the rules. However I also believe that by the way I read your post, you would be willing to give us a shoot to prove what we really do before you cut us down. I thank you for this!! I just wish others would have.

Sorry for not stated team 68's robot. This is my affiliation with team 68: member for 4 year and then graduated high school and became an advisor. Went off to college with other people from big name FIRST teams and start team 857 which I mentor when I am at school along with team 68 from a distance. My mother is an advisor and my brother is the team student captain along with the being the driver. These were my function roles before graduating. My cousin is also on the team and my entire family is very involved in the team and trying to make it a sucess. Hope this answers your questions. O I am also on the strategy team for team 68. :-)

I think we're all missing something here, or at least it hasn't been said. FIRST is trying very hard to keep consistency between all the regionals this year, a task that is not easy to do.

They have come right out and said, any such device will be thoroughly evaluated, and possibly DQ'd.

68 - If you feel your device is perfectly legal, then don't worry about it. However... since many within the FIRST communitty do not make the same distinctions you have concerning the legality of your device, perhaps the referee's and inspectors will be the same way.

This ruling seems almost like a warning shot, from FIRST directed at team 68, and all others like 68 (I haven't seen any).

FIRST is saying (in my interpretation)... we don't like what your doing. If we look at it closer, and still don't like it, be prepared for the DQ. They are trying to clarify this ASAP because they want the ruling to be consistent across the nation. It is unfortunate that such a ruling was necessary, but not completely uncalled for.

The very fact that there IS such debate in these forums about 68's mechanism, almost calls for such a ruling from FIRST.

They NEEDED to speak out publicly, openly, and ASAP to make sure everyone understands (including the inspectors and refs) what the "official" ruling should be.

Consistency is getting harder and harder. FIRST is doing it's best to eliminate all "tether-like" issues this year, before they become a problem.

68 - I like your mechanism. However, I too question it's legality. I almost wish FIRST had been more specific in their ruling, as there is still debate. Their intent seems relatively clear to me, however maybe it is not as cut and dry as I think.
If it is true that you have other modular modes, perhaps you should strongly consider using those? I know 229, and 45, (other ramp dominators) also have fall-back modules...

Another thing that needs to be said...
This ruling is NOT just for team 68. It seems like it could be aimed directly at them, because they are the most vocal team that could have this problem.
This rule is aimed at ANYONE that could potentially have the same problem. I applaud FIRST for trying to nip this in the bud early on.

Again... this is my opinion...
$.02 more... take it as you will

[quote]Originally posted by JVN
[b]68 - If you feel your device is perfectly legal, then don't worry about it. However... since many within the FIRST communitty do not make the same distinctions you have concerning the legality of your device, perhaps the referee's and inspectors will be the same way.

FIRST is saying (in my interpretation)... we don't like what your doing. If we look at it closer, and still don't like it, be prepared for the DQ. They are trying to clarify this ASAP because they want the ruling to be consistent across the nation. It is unfortunate that such a ruling was necessary, but not completely uncalled for.
[quote]

I can not comment on what are actions will be at the FIRST competition regarding this issue. Time will tell, but it will be a fun competition none the less.

That is an interesting way to look at it... The way that I feel is that they are saying basically you are illegal as we are seeing your design and what we think you are going after with a design like this. I agree that FIRST needed to do this, consistency is needed in order to make this a success. The way I had viewed the new ruling is that FIRST didn't want to totally back themselves in a corner by using the word straddle. What I mean is if a robot walks over the bar it could be considered straddling and they don't want to through all possibilities out. Since I haven't seen any one else even talking about a design like this, it is hard to not take this rule change to heart as being directed towards Team 68.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Example 5 Math Error
 

No, I meant 'acceptable.' I was, after all, quoting the same rule you quoted. The rule, as written at kickoff, had no loopholes. It was well written and explicit about what constituted reacting against the playing field, as well as the illegality of reacting with multiple surfaces with the intent of making your robot immovable.

With that said, I wasn't even referring to 68, specifically, when I wrote my post. I think that the rules, as they affect 68's design are clear and have not changed. I'll address that.

Agreed. You would not be in violation of any rule prohibiting reacting with the midfield barrier.

Here is where I can see that 68 will run into a problem. In two instances, they are contacting two surfaces. As deployed, and as you mention, the robot contacts both the HDPE on the ramp's top and the carpet. This may constitute two surfaces by FIRST's definition. ...unless, of course, your drivetrain lifts itself off the HDPE by use of those long arms.

Of more concern, however, is how 68's robot design relates to its interaction with the midfield barrier. Though you may not touch them at first, it's entirely evident that you don't support the weight of your robot on the top of that barrier, I would be suspicious of the intent of this design.

To me, it's clear that the robot is designed to use, if necessary, the midfield barrier as a load bearing surface. This is clearly illegal, though not because of the first parts of GM31. Instead, I see that this design runs a risk of using multiple surfaces to make itself immovable, and is illegal as per the latter half of GM31. FIRST's note in Update #20 is a shot across the bow, warning that such a strategy is not acceptable.

If there is any doubt, there have been several posts on the official message boards that clarify the intended purpose of the midfield barrier, as well as acceptable interactions. Admittedly, they're not clear in all cases, but I do believe they are very clear where 68's design is concerned.

http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...272696572#2890

-"ny intentional hard contact with the midfield barrier is prohibited. The midfield bar was not intended to support or furnish a reaction surface for the robots."

http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...272696572#2540

-"You may not react off the bar. This means that you may not purposely push off it to gain an advantage."

While you don't lock on, the preceding paragraph in Update #20 clearly says that mechanisms that straddle the midfield barrier will likely be disqualified.

This season, the original wording of the rules is often irrelevant as they have been revised, time and time again, via the message boards and Updates. This ruling, in my mind, has been clear since well before shipping.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Example 5 Math Error
 

I agree with almost your entire post. I am glad you added the two links in there. I hadn't been able to find them earilier today.

The first one however I think can be thrown out, since we never intend for the barrier to support our weight. It isn't what the barrier was designed for and we understand the rules about it.

The second one however is pretty much an open and shut case too, with the exception that we don't plan to react off the barrier. It would still be the result of another robot. No matter what time, will tell on this issue.

I agree with you on the straddling statement and that all previous statements from FIRST mean nothing as the rules change time and time again. Again I think the reason they said often times is that there are robots that claim over the barrier, which kind of straddles it in the process. My only concern when they stated straddle is, think of how easy it is to make something that doesn't straddle, but the net results are the same. They no longer can DQ you for straddling, and they can't DQ you for locking, then it comes back to a ruling on whether it is your fault or their fault of your devices is pushing into the barrier.

I don't think they have fully answered all concerns about what can and can't be done. I think it will take time and actual competitions to determine that.

Thanks again for your feedback and the exact statings of the FIRST forum. Sorry about misunderstanding and the assuming in your last post. Mark

Let's say team 68 is allowed to play the way their robot is. They also function exactly as they are telling us.

THEY ARE UNSTOPABLE! Truck Town would be able to stop all travel on the field. Stackers who could previously go under the bar now can't. Ramp dominators can't budge them. The match is at a stand still 20 seconds into the game. This would make for a pretty boring game. (I know they can't stop catapulters, but I think we will only see a handful)

The fact that this type of lock-down robot can make the game so boring is just cause for making it illegal. FIRST wants this years game to be the most exciting yet. The purpose of this robot is to essentially stop the clock.

This ruling singles out Team 68 only because they have been the only ones to publicly display this type of lock-down robot. Other teams might have the same design in hiding. Or maybe ramp dominators have been designing the bar attachments since ship. FIRST wants the lock-down robot phenom to stop before it starts.

Mike, although I would like to think you are right :-) I must disagree. There is a way or two to bet Truck without even having to worry about their placement and wings. There is then almost an unlimited number of ways to bet us if you are able to move us, break traction, or to get around our arms. I agree completely with the reason why FIRST is wanting to make rules like this. Its to make the game faster and to attrack more people.

I just had to say thanks for the great review, however I think that you will find, that there are many ways to bet it, even by allowing it to compete.