I was really dissapointed about the whole entanglement rule. There was so much fuss on the FIRST Q&A message board with regards to entanglement that our team decided it would be safer to design a telescoping pole than try and design something with a cable and wires. Had we known it was going to be like this we probably would have tried a couple of the mice type ideas instead.

-John D.

That is kinda what happened to Team 302 in one of their qualification matches. They have a 4" wide x unknown length of lexan that they can deploy behind their bot. One match they deployed the lexan only to have another team intercept it and bend it back into 302's opponent scoring zone, thus scoring 10 points for the opposition. They lost the match by 2 points :o

Wayne Doenges

stopping the mouse
 

I admit that stopping the mouse it pretty silly, especially because if a team can drag bundled wires they can certianly make a steerable mouse, which will inevitable be more maneuverabke than your bot. However if our team has a reach home device. . .(and we do) then we could stop a mouse no prob, or atleast make it steer around us.

I am rather suprised that FIRST is allowing many of the send home devices, I now see a bunch of teams in the pits adding upside down tape measures which is a real rip for all of the teams that spend so much time designing devices that were not only somewhat robust parts of the robots but also not entangling. As for the mice that is just the same, dragging a steerable coil of wire seems to be just what first didn't want to see on YAHOO but yet there are so many out there. We don't have any type device but if we had an elaborate one I can bet you we would be upset at all of the gray area ones out there. We didn't have the weight or time to do it so we didn't, but if I would have known a tape measure was good enough it would have been easy to ad. FIRST what is YOUR say on these devices for real???!!!

I'm just curious about what will happen if a robot drives over the tape measure or bundles of wires and gets entangled by them. From what I've seen from the telecasts (haven't gone to our regional yet), there have been few if any DQs.

Another interesting thought - we have a pretty powerful ball lift mechanism that could effectively "eat" a mouse (assuming we can catch it) - I'm going to be really upset if we get DQ'd for malicious behavior when we are just trying to play the game against an illegal mechanism.

Basically, I think the whole tethering issue has gone too far. FIRST made the rules, explained them on the website (causing us to bypass building a mouse) - and now are not enforcing their rules.

Cheese, anyone?
 

All of this complaining about the tether rulings is starting annoy me. The truth of the matter is, it is really difficult to become entangled in a tether that had the slightest amount of engineering design to it. That is, it's really easy to design a tether that won't entangle.

The three teams that I have details about tether/mouse system design are:

118: (my team) We use 2' links of semi-flexible plastic tubing which encase our wires.

114: They used rigid PVC pipe.

57: Uses ~1' lengths of small diameter steel tubing or bar that runs alongside the wire and is encased with heat shrink.

In the Lone Star Regoinal, 118 and 57 each used their mouse bots in nearly every round, with no trouble. The only entanglement I saw at LSR was between two alliance partners (16 and 609) in the last finals match. Neither had a tether. 609's goal grabber got hung up on a part of 16's ball grabber. Should we also outlaw rigid goal grabbers? The truth is, most goal grabbers have a higher probablilty of getting snagged because they are rigid and designed to snag. A flexible tether with any significant mass to it (i.e. not simply a piece of string.) will not entangle.

As for the tape measure ruling, I don't know what to tell you. I thought it was strange (and out of character) that FRC would outlaw the mechanism without first seeing it, but I think that the tape measure is probably the wrong answer to this problem anyway.

Teathered Robots
 

Today (Friday) at the Rutgers Mid Atlantic Regional we had a problem. While our allaince was holding a goal in our goal zone, a team we were competing with had two goals in their goal zone. Our team mate went to drive in front of a teathered device to prevent the opposing team to score 10 pts. Our alliance didn't get in the way of the device, the drove on top of it. Our team mate got stuck and their wheel was propped up off of the ground. They kept turning the wheels to get off of the teathered device becasuse the teathered device was knocked over. The judje disqualified us because it was called a malicious move for our team mate to grind their weels on teathered device. This is a story where it does seem difficult by looking at both sides of the story.

Sorry team 25 for breaking your teather. We never intended to purposeley damage your teather, we just wanted to block it from driving home.

Dont be mad because other teams built a mouse and you did not, such teams took measures to make sure these devices would not entangle other robots. These devices ARE LEGAL and do not cause entanglement and if they did durring a match then they should be DQ'ed for that device. People are following the rules, it is up to the judge to say if it seems like a device could entangle.
I dont feel it is right any team should wreck any part of another teams robot unless it is in their way. If you would not just block or hold such a device but feel that you should destroy it, then you should be DQ'ed for such action

Our team also has an arm to pick balls up of the field, and if I get a chance I plan to pick up a mouse also, I see no problem with it, and if it breaks then its poor design, mmmm 60psi smacking power, I can't wait to snach them all up.

FIRST's Stand ... Consistent???
 

I understand that many discussions are occuring about this subject, and most of them are emotional, but the tether debacle (that is what I'm calling it) is out of hand.

First, my position on the tether:

(1) Rolling/sliding out lexan or some other really flexible stuff out along the floor (like 302) is definitely not an entaglement risk.

(2) Tape measure type device (very similar to 1) is also relatively safe.

(3) Mousebot on a wire tether could also be made non entagling, but is more of a challenge.

We thought of all these ideas and were implementing (1) when all the rulings started flying. Whether htese devices entangle or not is irrelevant.

FIRST made specific rulings on tape measures, robots splitting apart with just wires, etc. and the rulings on the field are absolutely not consistent with the rulings during design time. For those teams that designed the mechanisms anyways using common sense and logic as your guide, bravo! We did not have the courage to take on such risk. The fact still remains that FIRST is completely inconsistant on this issue and it would have been better for the entire FIRST community if nothing would have been said at all. The rule should have been left at: DO NOT ENTANGLE OR YOU WILL BE DQ'd.

Anyway, I think many of us agree that most of the devices being used do not entagle, but violate FIRST's initially rulings.

-PAul

It is disappointing to see so much disparity between what FIRST said and what their referees seem to be allowing. I was refereeing a local scrimmage about a month ago, and I and my fellow ref were very strict about send-home devices, and we ended up DQ-ing two alliances (one of them being my own, even!). We were only trying to interpret FIRST's rules to the best of our ability. If i could have seen then what would be happening in the regionals, there is a chance i would have called the matches differently (still apologizing, Zan). Has anyone been called for risk of entanglement in any of the regionals??

Ok, but i hope our mouse wont break your claw being welded steel angle and lexan. Oh and I will hope to use our goal grabber to rip out wires from another robot , oh sorry I guess i'm lapsing into battle bots by breaking other robot's parts, but I guess that would be ok because that would be a poor robot design not protecting their wires and all right? :rolleyes: .

whats the diffrence??

All you anti-mouse people out there:

If a mouse dosent entangle it breaks NO rules EVER, you are more and more sounding like what FIRST should not be, Battle Bots. If you can grab a mouse then great stratigy but dont threaten that if it cant take 60psi (and is actually more due to the nature of a piston) then it is poor design. You can grab it but not crush it, such is the spirit of FIRST.
The only reason the entanglement rule was in place was to prevent robots deploying something that was made only for the purpose to hang up other robots. How far can you go with entanglement, would one robot hitting another be called entanglement, would a covered flat wire on the ground soo hang up a robot that it cant move? If a robot is so low a wire cant go under it then it will just push the tether but if it is so hight that it will go over it then fine, i dont think much of any tether device out there can be not run over or pushed. It is hard for a judge to define the diffrence between a arm and a tether, how can they define the diffrence? They can't they must go by common sence with something they think had not been designed to be driven over (this is why FIRST would not further define entanglement on the boards, they wanted to leave it up to the judges and your common sence).
I feel that entanglement is not the issue i think it is pure hatered for the mice. None of this is any teams falt, the rules should have read " If a robot gets entangled on a tether durring a match then it is dq'ed "
Again threatening dammage to any part of any robot is not in the FIRST spirit and nor should it intentionally be done.

After reviewing the YAHOO board once again you mousers out there need to look at the wording in the early responses from FIRST which is why so many people are angry at these devices.

Most if not all responses from FRCTECHS said if the device presents a RISK of being entangled it will either be disqualified or disallowed. Every mouse I have seen so far leaves a wire behind it and this wire has the RISK of becoming entangled. In fact responses like this one:

Suppose there is a robot that can split down the middle.
>
> Suppose that at the start of the match, the robot splits with only a
> 30 ft bundle of wires connecting them.
>
> Assume that it is a bundle of four 10 gauge wires and four 16 gauge
> wires. Also assume that they are strain relieved and bundled
> appropriately.
>
> Question A:
> Is it legal for such a robot to drive around the entire match in
this
> fashion?

A.No, because the wires would present a risk of entanglement

They specifically state that if you lay a string down on the ground even if someone doesn't get entangled in it, it is not allowed because it presents the risk, doesn't actually have to happen.
This answer specifically states that a bundle of wires is not allowed and presents a risk of entagnlement. So for everyone out there with a mouse, consider yourself lucky to be competing with an illegal device and don't be so upset if someone blocks it keep it from scoring.

I am not a driver or a coach but if I was either I would be telling my team to go get the thing. Tape measures are just as bad since they were stated as being entanglement, and ripping carpet? Add that to the list. At this rate we should all put glue, velcro and tacks on our wheels because even though its illegal no one is going to call it, heck we ought to try 2 or more batteries, how about Quad Chippy Drive since the rules about motors are only suggestions?!

FIRST what have you done to this season, its time to enforce the rules.

Our tether is made from poly tubing and not just wires, it is stiff enough and flat enough not to present a risk of entanglement and it was so judged that way. I also so a robot with 1/2in pvc over their wires, that is not like string, should they be dqed dust because it is a tether. In that FRC responce it was not specified how the wires are bundeled is it by tie wraps or a metal tube? Also it has the words "The entire match" whiche mice are not out for, also it says nothing about wires on the ground. Too much is left open, it seems like they took it as being "bundeled" like a bundle of sticks would be and not covered. Everyone just assumes if someone has a mouse that its tether it will automaticly present a risk. Again this is left up to the judge to decide what is entanglement.

Also tacks and glue are the type of things that dont need to be interperted so that refrence has nothing to do with this.

Mouses should not be disallowed, some tethers that are bare wires should be, but with proper covering it would not present a risk of entanglement. I do agree that there should be some standard such as if a wheelchair wheel can go over it or some such thing.

I am not upset of a mouse being blocked, I am concerned about people using parts of their robot to distroy it, it is still part of a robot. (even though we will not have this worry)

Matt Reiland,

[After reviewing the YAHOO board once again you mousers out there need to look at the wording in the early responses from FIRST which is why so many people are angry at these devices ]

I really respect your opinion and usually give a lot of weight to what you say in your posts/replies, USUALLY!

The definitive words from above were, "early responses". They realized that they needed to clarify that and have since come out with a clearer, albeit not sufficient, definition of a tether. If we stay with the early clarifications we would all still be using only the batteries that came with this year's kit along with the trickle charger (later clarifications on YAHOO corrected this). If you want to use an argument for not using a tether, please use the LAST clarification given by FIRST.

Also, no one, at least on my team, cares if you want to go after our mouse (for WHATEVER reason), you won't catch it, and even it you did you couldn't harm it. We are not crying about the "BB" mentality, we are just tired of hearing about all the waa waa teams who said that they "coulda', shoulda' and woulda' " built a mouse if they weren't so afraid of creating an entangling tether. WELL WE DID. And it works very well, and it won't entangle. In fact we won the Xerox Award for innovation and design--specifically for the mouse. Woodie Flowers personally said that he loved the mouse and watched it run 7 times and didn't seem to have a problem with it or its design. And as for the entangling issue, we counted 8 separate instances in the qualification rounds where teams were entangled together by BALL GRABBERS and none of those teams were DQ"D. ---and rightfully so!!! The intent to entangle wasn't there when the devices were designed and manufactured.

I think I know why people are saying so much about mice and entanglement. There is probably a 10-1 ratio between entanglements by ball grabbers and other assorted robot parts vs. mice tethers. I think that most of the people are really angry that the mice (and All Send Home Devices) give a decided advantage to the teams who have them. Proof of this is that many of the replies state that they now feel that they should have built one or that they are going to try to "come up with something by time of the Nats". The sooner the mouse haters accept the true basis of their animosity, the sooner this issue will be put to rest.

We had to forgo a ball gathering device because we put so much energy into mollifying the concerns of others regarding the tether. I don't begrudge those who have ball gathering devices when they entangle another robot. "IT'S THE SAME PRINCIPLE!!!

Please don't take this as a personal attack, I honestly just want people to not PREJUDGE any robot! If it entangles, that team will lose and the opponents will win, and from THAT point forward, they won't be able to use the tether--the way the rules state.

WHEW!!!! :(