Hear hear, Kevin Ray.

If a tether is a "risk of entanglement" and shouldn't be allowed past inspection (which is the most consistently misread rule in these arguments - once matches start, only actual entanglement is an issue) then where are all the entanglement complaints from these risky robots mistakenly let on the field? In over 100 matches (my estimate: 10% * ~1000 matches) nationwide that had tether bots competing, where is the entanglement that these mini bots are a risk of?

To hear some people talk, you'd think that every match that featured a mini bot would end in giant square knot at the middle of the field, but the truth is, there haven't been many entanglement calls because - surprise surprise - the tethers were designed not to entangle.

Now, on the other point - blocking tethers from scoring, picking them up and the like. Go for it! It's a game. But don't try to smash it on purpose. That's just mean.

Verdeyw
Thanks for the support, I was beginning to think that we were the only people who thought that way.

Sorry Kevin and RebAI I shouldn't have vented on you guys
 

Kevin and RebAI I appologize if I came off too harsh in my post, I don't know what either of your mouses look like, from your comments it seems like you have taken the time to think of the best ways to protect them from being entangled which is great and everyone should have done the same thing. (I saw 3 different teams add home depot tape measures at GLR) For anyone who doesn't know, my team doesn't have any sort of tether not only for the reason that we have only .3lbs left on the weight requirement but we gave up early on trying to figure out how strict the rules were going to be followed early on because around weeks 1-3 it seemed like there was very little that would NOT be an entanglement RISK. And Kevin noticed one of the things that has made me an angry engineer this year (I couldn't really care either way on mice, honest) its that FIRST has been more wishy washy on thier statements then Ex President Clinton. From telling people they could use 7 cylinders to then 5, telling people how strict the rules were about hurting the carpet then watching chunks taken out at GLR with no consequences, and this whole entanglement issue, the batteries and chargers you name it its frustrating to me. I joke about the tacks, and velcro because honestly I am willing to bet we could have almost anything under the shell of our bot and get away with it if we were not under the gracious professionalism mentality. (Seriously the materials were not questioned, the # of motors not questioned, check in was taking our word for everything)

The only reason I am angry in these send home threads is the fact that 2 times at GLR we were warned (told next time would be a DQ) about blocking send-home devices. Neither time did we destroy, or intend to destroy any one elses robots or tethers this is where I get the BB reference from. I think the send home device (whatever it may be) should be fair game to be blocked or moved out of scoring in the same manner a robot can be blocked or moved our of scoring. If we can all agree on that I am happy. I can not seem to get a read on what the refs are doing out there so we can stay on the up and up. If the refs say what you guys have is legal than, hey, what is said here doen't matter too much they are the only ones we have to convince.

EDIT: I just got a call from Deb at FIRST and it seems like they may release another update or email blast relating to this and some other problems that have arised from the different reigonals to put these threads finally to rest. She sayed that indeed the rules for send-home devices and what is considered an entanglement hazard were lightened including allowing of tape measures(since the ruling at Ohio allowed them), so I somehow missed a bunch of changes.

And for all of the FIRST volunteers out there I thank you for your time you are doing a great job.

I basically wanted to summarize my stance on these tethers:

-- Entanglement should be ruled as originally stated in FRC -- if it can wrap around an axle with reasonable force, it can entangle. This would disallow tape measures and wires, but wires sheathed in pipe, telescoping booms, "scissor lift" devices, lexan tiles (such as ours and 302's), "tent pole" devices, etc. would be allowed. Especially, devices that FIRST specifically prohibited, such as the tape measures and wires listed above, shouldn't be allowed now at the regionals.

-- Tethers shouldn't get special treatment -- they should be built to withstand being run over or spun on. If robots themselves have to be built to withstand impact, so should these devices. Therefore, there should be no rules about blocking such devices -- except in cases of obvious intentional entanglement, and I think the judges should be very careful before DQing a team for damaging a tether.

P.S.: Amy, we have no hard feelings towards you. We understand that at the scrimmage, the judge's job is to prepare us for the worst case scenario at the regional.

Matt Reiland --apology accepted!!!
I understand fully about the frustration regarding the interpretation of rules that teams are experiencing. I too, wondered about the spray of thread flying off the floor during some matches, and why there were no DQ's. In fact I think it was either the Philly, or the NYC regional that you could see that duct tape was used to repair the field after a particularly strong rototiller went at the carpet.

And YES!!! tethers are fair game, as are mice and all other send home devices. In fact, our mouse is designed to interact with OTHER send home devices which are limited in their ability to steer or back up. We know that others will/may go after the device and have taken measures to ensure its survival--and it is encumbant upon US to make sure that it withstands rough play.

I honestly feel bad that there were teams who were warned about interacting with send home devices. That gives a doube-unfair advantage to the teams who have them. Any robot on the field should be allowed to interact with another robot strategically as long as their is no malicious intent--I think that that is relatively easy to discern.

Again, Matt thanks for writing back. Look forward to meeting you and seeing your robot at the Nats.

One last comment for me too...
I am in total agreement with Matt's frustration - and my previous comments were coming from that frustration. However, I am afraid I gave the wrong impression in my last post. It is not, and never will be, our strategy to damage anyone's robot. And actually, I applaud all those teams who built the send home devices - because as has been stated, I wish we had too. But we didn't, end of story.

I am concerned (and frustrated) by the stories of DQ's due to "malicious intent" when teams have attempted to block the devices. It's nothing against the teams with the devices - they are just playing the game with the rules as they now stand. But if a robot can block another robot, why can't the take home devices be blocked, moved or whatever? I just don't think they should be given preferential treatment.

Sorry, more frustration.

Hey, Good luck to everyone and remember to just have fun!

Carpet Damage...
 

One thing to keep in mind...a DQ can only be applied if "intentional" carpet damage occurred. As we've seen through various discussions here, intent is very hard to determine. So, by the rules, the only other ruling regarding carpet damage is that the team causing the damage may be disabled, as well as forced to take corrective action before being able to compete again. And this is only, of course, if a referee is able to see which robot is causing the damage, and if they determine that it would happen again in normal machine operation...

What Kevin said about teams going waa waa about the tether angered me out of all of this, specifically because I stated earlier i was dissappointed about the rules issue.


To clear up my origional statement.
The statesments made on the FIRST tech board during the opening weeks were clear about the tethers. If it poses a risk, than it's illegal. Someone previously posted an example from the board. I have email digests from the board with many more.



I can't help the fact at this point, after our robot has been built and completed, that we chose not to build a mouse. I can and will still say I wish we had the time to explore some avenues in that area. As for our team going with a telescoping pole? We based our decision on the numerous posts regarding tethers and the negative responses from FIRST about them at the time. We spent the first week planning out or robot and then commenced to building it from the second week on. The posts on the board regarding tethers at the time was still discouraging. Besides, we needed all the time we had up until we shipped for our other main components. We never figured, lets allot time down the road to build a mouse because FIRST is going to lighten up on the tether issue. We went with a telescoping pole because we had done a number of expirements last year. Last year we had a two stage arm that was used to pick up the "big ball". It was something we already knew how to do and it was just all about adapting that knowledge from last years robot to this current years'.

So..
Good for you (and that's not sarcastic either) if your team had the time, money, and willingness to try something that could have just aswell ended up being a futile endevour. That's great. Not every does those sort of things.


As for the mice?
Now it just adds a little to the complexity of the game. When we went up against teams with mice, we had to figure that into our game plan. How could we stop it? How can we still manage to be on top even if they deploy and score their send home device? SO now if it comes down to just whether you get entangled on the field, fine. I applaud the teams that came up with slick designs that you can't easily get entangled on.



Just to fully state my stance on this:
I feel that the whole Goal Grabber or Ball Grabber entanglement is a different issue. There's a difference to me when two robots within a couple inches get accidentaly hooked up on one another as opposed to a robot who gets stuck on a non structural piece of a robot 10 feet or so away from the actual main body of the other robot. Obviously they are both cases of entanglement. Don't get me wrong, there is no doubt about that. It's just that I feel they are two different scenarios that must be treated differently. There are ways to unhook one's robot from another should they become hooked. I know our robot has five wheels and four feet and a couple of arms. The feet actually manage to raise the entire a robot off the ground a couple inches and flapping goal grabbing arms can possibly free our robot. When a robot's mouse becomes entangled inside another robot, there isn't much one can do. You wrap what ever wires and cables around your axel and it will most likely stay there until the end of the match when you have to pry it's dead cold clutches from your drivetrain.



And of course, one last thing:
I recall when the tech board said you can have only 7 cylinders on your robot. Well, I believe it's a correct statement. The FRCTech didnot need to appologize or anything. People just misunderstood it.

Here's how i remember understanding it at the time:
2 cylindrical acumulators + 5 cylindrical pistons = 7 MAX cylinders
(Note the bold faced type)



So there, that's my rant and rave's worth of two cents on everything.

Now I know someone is bound to disagree with one part or another, but you know what? I say 'Whatever!' because there isn't anything any of us can really do about all this in the end. Let's just hope we have all learned from the expirience and will be more prepared for the next time around. As i stated in me previous post i am only disappointed that's all. I'm not saying ban all mice or blah blah blah FIRST should do this or do that. So things changed -- oh well. It's all in the game, and the game of course, isn't the point of FIRST anyways.

Kidnapped Mouse
 

R. Bohannon is spot on. The rules explicitly allow a red robot to grab a blue robot and drag it into the red home zone, and hold it there till the buzzer. There is no reason why a red robot can't block, capture, and carry a blue robot's mouse (or its other tethered send home device) and drag it to the red home zone and hold it there.

In either case, I assume red will try to grab or capture so as to minimize the probability of damage to blue or its mouse, but if blue's tether can't take being "redirected" by virtue of its end unit being hijacked, then it wasn't engineered to survive the game the rules allow. Whatever the zigs and zags in FRC's sorting out rule interpretations on tethers and entanglement, I believe the legality of robot kidnapping was made crystal clear at the beginning, and there is no reason why send home units should expect more favored treatment.

There's more to this game than just blocking the mouse. BTW, if red catches a blue robot AND blue's deployed mouse in the red home zone, is that worth 20 points?

Dodd

Dodd, BTW, if red catches a blue robot AND blue's deployed mouse in the red home zone, is that worth 20 points?

Sorry, but no. It's still one robot, hence, 10 points. However, if that blue team is in their home zone and the mouse is in the red home zone, BOTH teams get 10 points. We did that twice in the LI regionals (to boost the loser's score).

contraversy and FIRST - that's new!
 

Okay - FRC has posted a message regarding tethers and the "New" interpretation. I am glad to see that they did this - "better late than never".
This should end the debate over legally having one and what kind.
NOW, FIRST please re-issue a "New" interpretation regarding interaction with them. What will not get us disqualified? Both those using them and those defending against them. There have been many good and rational questions on this subject. The fact is as long as the entanglement issue was as "gray" as it was, it masked the need to deal with those issues.
I'll assume since the "send home" devices are part of the robot - they also should be constructed as robust as the rest of the machine. Expect full contact and collisions.
Many messages have attempted to tie "gracious professionalism" in with intent - Will the "intent to damage" be expanded to include "send home devices"? This also another rule that is written in the manual, I belive it's a judgement call the referees will be required to make - is that correct?
I just hope that a bigger can of worms hasn't been opened!
I'll assume that it will be okay to add - on a new send home device during the competitions that are left and at the nationals.

While we don't have a send-home device, we did use our time after GLR to make a slight modification to our ball grabber boom/basket. It may be now more appropiately named the send-home/ball grabber. So far it looks like almost every send home device can be defeated fairly easily by driving a device at carpet level like a scoop (which is how our basket drives when down), scooping up wires/plastic pipe/mouse lift it a little and deposit it where you need to. We have to wait until Western MI to try it out and we need First to give more info on how they will be calling interaction with send-home devices.

Doppelganger
 

Sorry, but no. It's still one robot, hence, 10 points. However, if that blue team is in their home zone and the mouse is in the red home zone, BOTH teams get 10 points. We did that twice in the LI regionals (to boost the loser's score). [/b][/quote]

Kevin,

Please help me understand the basis for your confidence in this interpretation. I know that Dean opened his mouth at kickoff in response to a question and said that if a robot could "touch down" in both home zones at the buzzer during qualifications that both teams would get 10 points. And what Dean says, goes. Based on that, we all agree that the blue robot and their deployed mouse are worth a total of 20 points (10 each alliance) when parked in opposite home zones at the buzzer.

Where has it been clarified though that a robot/mouse combination can count for 20 points under some circumstances and only 10 under others? Forgive my combative tone, please, but I'm trying to establish whether you are expressing your opinion, or whether you are privvy to some official information that has escaped me. Also, note that my question specified that the mouse was DEPLOYED from the bot.

I basically think that FIRST has let loose an entire aspect of rules and scoring questions that they had not thought out in advance, all because Dean tossed off a quick answer at kickoff.

Dodd

Dodd
Forgive me if I sounded omniscient, but I thought that, by definition, all parts of a robot combine to make the whole. Therefore, any part of the robot which extends out is still part of that robot. The definitive proof of the scoring in question is that we deployed our mouse into our own zone while our robot was there and we were only given TEN points, which means that the refs made a command decision at that point to interpret the scoring rules to mean that any and all parts of the robot are still part of the ONE robot, hense, ONE TEN POINT SCORE.

The reason why they allowed the score to count in two zones (in my opinion) was specifically that, that there were two robots (actually the same one) in two separate zones and you had to score them both.


Now, mind you, all of this is mere speculation on my part, and I offer my apologies for anyone who suffers as a result of relying on it. I was only offering insight as a result of experience.

Kevin's right.

A robot with a toe in the endzone is scored as a robot in the endzone.

A robot with two toes in the endzone is still scored as a robot in the endzone.

A robot with toes in two endzones is scored as a robot in each endzone.