Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   "Load Bearing Surface" (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34895)

Alex1072 26-02-2005 23:18

Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
 
I guess what it comes down to for me is that I don't understand what the point of this is. The intent of the rule was to make absolutly sure that noone got too clever and decided to make an arm that would reach in and still be "over" the loading zone. That's why it must be "touching" in my view. I don't think the touching clarifcation was intended to aid judged because, as the judges have stated above, it doesn't. The point was to make sure that your actual robot was in the zone, not an appendage, or some kind of weird borderline case that still creates a safety hazard. So, if they're allowing hanging zipties to count, I don't understand why they don't want to allow the 3 dimensional space interpretation. I don't see how it changes ANYTHING at all other then preventing teams from having to add string and zipties to the front of their drivetrain. Since the "base or drivetrain" part of the rule would be unchanged, it would still ensure that you are over the loading zone with your actual robot. I don't see anyone who such a ruling would harm either, since all it does is let people remove zip ties. How would the current rule be effected if "virtual zipties" were assumed? (other then a couple grams of weight saved)

To the people who say that the touching is required to remove gray areas, I would say that it actually just moves the gray areas to a different place. If hovering is allowed, the gray area is "was this robot far enough in?" If touching is required, the gray area is "was it actually in contact?". At the very least, having a hovering rule would have allowed teams to make it clear by driving farther in. With the "touching" rule, the teams themselves arn't sure if they are "in". I don't see a problem with a judge saying, "you wern't far enough over the loading zone for it to be clear". This is a subjective judgement, but it is a fairly easy one to make. I think touching/not touching would be much harder call to make,

I doubt FIRST will change this ruling at this point though, so I guess we'll just have to deal.

jgannon 26-02-2005 23:50

Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex1072
To the people who say that the touching is required to remove gray areas, I would say that it actually just moves the gray areas to a different place. If hovering is allowed, the gray area is "was this robot far enough in?" If touching is required, the gray area is "was it actually in contact?".

The difference for me is that touching is a binary situation. Either you're touching, or you aren't. As you note, hovering is much more subjective.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex1072
I think touching/not touching would be much harder call to make

Absolutely. My big hope at this point is that the vast majority of teams saw the rule between 1/11/05 and ship date, and are planning on actually touching the triangle with a wheel, which will be much easier to see than a zip-tie. This weekend's regionals ought to be very interesting.

AJunx 27-02-2005 01:57

Zones
 
These are just some thoughts I had about the loading zone, tomorrow I will post an idea for interpreting the original and enforcing the rule at competitions, called the Sunlight Rule.

Not to be lawyerly, but I think we can all agree that a "zone" can is accurately defined as "An area or a region distinguished from adjacent parts by a distinctive feature or characteristic." In this case, the distinctive feature is the HDPE triangle.

Also, I think we can agree that there are all sorts of zones. An end zone (as in football), an elevator, and a house all qualify as a zone, as they are each regions that are distinguished from adjacent areas by lines, walls, etc.

Now, in examining zones, we can see that being "in" a zone takes on different meanings depending upon the type of zone:
-To be "in" an end zone in football, you must be touching the ground within the end zone (there are one or two exceptions, but they don't seem particularly relevant).
-To be "in" an elevator, we can all agree that you need not be touching the elevator at all. So long as you are contained within the elevator, you are "in" the elevator.
-To be "in" a house is analogous to being in the elevator.

Which type of zone does the loading zone most closely resemble? --I realize there might be other types of zones, but it is 1:45 and I can't think of any more--

The loading zone is NOT an enclosed, 3-D space. Therefore, based on analogy alone :rolleyes:, in order to be "in" the loading zone, it makes sense that one must be touching the zone in the same way that one must touch the end zone in football.

I offer these statements just as thoughts.

-Andrew

jgannon 27-02-2005 02:06

Re: Zones
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AJunx
These are just some thoughts I had about the loading zone, tomorrow I will post an idea for interpreting the original and enforcing the rule at competitions, called the Sunlight Rule.

Not to be lawyerly, but I think we can all agree that a "zone" can is accurately defined as "An area or a region distinguished from adjacent parts by a distinctive feature or characteristic." In this case, the distinctive feature is the HDPE triangle.

Also, I think we can agree that there are all sorts of zones. An end zone (as in football), an elevator, and a house all qualify as a zone, as they are each regions that are distinguished from adjacent areas by lines, walls, etc.

Now, in examining zones, we can see that being "in" a zone takes on different meanings depending upon the type of zone:
-To be "in" an end zone in football, you must be touching the ground within the end zone (there are one or two exceptions, but they don't seem particularly relevant).
-To be "in" an elevator, we can all agree that you need not be touching the elevator at all. So long as you are contained within the elevator, you are "in" the elevator.
-To be "in" a house is analogous to being in the elevator.

Which type of zone does the loading zone most closely resemble? --I realize there might be other types of zones, but it is 1:45 and I can't think of any more--

The loading zone is NOT an enclosed, 3-D space. Therefore, based on analogy alone :rolleyes:, in order to be "in" the loading zone, it makes sense that one must be touching the zone in the same way that one must touch the end zone in football.

I offer these statements just as thoughts.

-Andrew

Actually, in football, you need only break the plane of the goal line with the ball to be considered "in" the end zone. Thus, all three definitions of "zone" seem to imply three-dimensional space, contrary to the loading zone definition. I now have a better understanding of why people are so darn confused. :)

<edit>
Someone just PMed me an explanation of how an endzone can also be 2D. When a receiver catches the ball in the corner of the end zone, his feet have to touch the ground in-bounds. No touch? Doesn't count. Makes sense to me. *shrug*
</edit>

rees2001 27-02-2005 09:40

Re: Zones
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jgannon
Actually, in football, you need only break the plane of the goal line with the ball to be considered "in" the end zone. Thus, all three definitions of "zone" seem to imply three-dimensional space, contrary to the loading zone definition. I now have a better understanding of why people are so darn confused. :)

<edit>
Someone just PMed me an explanation of how an endzone can also be 2D. When a receiver catches the ball in the corner of the end zone, his feet have to touch the ground in-bounds. No touch? Doesn't count. Makes sense to me. *shrug*
</edit>

To cut this short, that same football player is also in if he lands on his back, or his knees, or, his head. As long as he retains possession of the ball.

All I am saying is, to the common observer it will be blatantly obvious (rule 978) that our robot is in, on, completely covering, the loading zone. But for some reason I have lost sleep the past few nights wondering if the ref's will see it the same way. My kids robot will probably be one of the safer in terms of removing tetras from the auto loading station but for some odd reason it may not be legal.

I have been doing this for 6 years and FIRST has never really disappointed me. If this ruling stands as is ....

trev2023 27-02-2005 10:13

Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
 
I don't think that the idea of the rule being "clear and concise" since 1/11 is fair.

For instance, when I first read the rule, I thought "blatantly obvious, okay, we just must have to make sure that we're over the loading zone". I didn't take time to analyze the one question out of the X many of them that are in the system. Like many others, I figured that this was to keep teams from extending arms into the loading zone to grab tetras.

It wasn't until after the build season has been over (my fault) that I or any of my team has seen the modifications. We have been busy working on the robot, not analyzing the rules. Now that I have read the Q&A's and have read all about the controversy. I guess we will just be putting some zip ties on the front of our robot to abide by it.

Finally, I think that it is unfortunate that so much has been made about what seems to be a small part of the game. The rule (in my opinion) has been made primarily for the safety of the participants, and ggetting lawyerly about it clouds this.

My point is: The problem is not however many times "touching" is stated in the manual or the Q&A system. The problem is that there are many teams who still don't understand this rule, even after the build season has ended.

AJunx 27-02-2005 15:44

The Sunlight Rule
 
Preface: I do not like the idea of changing the rules (via reinterpretation or rewording) after teams have spent countless hours designing a robot that follows the spirit of the original rules.

In order to make the enforcement of the original rule as fair and simple as possible, I have devised (with the help of all those who have posted their valuable thoughts) a way to interpret and enforce the rules that does not seem contrary to the spirit of the original rule and will not require a full platoon of referees.

The Sunlight Rule:

In order to be IN the loading zone, your robot must be in a position so that it is blocking sunlight (any kind of light that would be coming from above the loading zone) on some part of the loading zone. In so doing, the base of your robot must be blocking enough sunlight to make it CLEAR and OBVIOUS to the referee that you are IN the loading zone.
In order to avoid changing the spirit of the rule, <G12> still applies (no tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, etc).

According to the original rules, in order to receive another tetra from the [human or automated] loading station, you must EXIT the loading zone. We can all agree that to exit means to leave the loading zone. The Sunlight Rule deals with this in a straightforward manner:

In order to be considered OUT of the loading zone, your robot must move to a position where the base is not blocking any of the sunlight falling on the loading zone. In so doing, it must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS to the referee that your robot's base is now OUT of the loading zone. <G12> still applies.

Now, if a team wants to get another tetra, they may re-enter the loading zone and make sure that the base of their robot is covering enough of the loading zone to make it clear to the referee that they are again IN.

In order to enforce the 'Sunlight Rule', there need not be 8+ referees per match (one per loading station + general referees). At the most, we would need one referee per pair of loading stations. All of this is null and void, however, if people feel as if the Sunlight Rule is not sound.

I should clarify that the term "base" when used in the Sunlight Rule is not referring to the 28" by 38" base, but rather to the common sense base (the base that the robot is driving around on, whether it be 20 X 20 or 38 X 60). Also, the base does not consist of arms, tethers, tape measures, long extenders, etc.

I have a habit of writing too much :) , so I'll stop. Hopefully we can come up with a reasonable solution.

-Andrew

rees2001 27-02-2005 15:53

Re: The Sunlight Rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AJunx
Preface: I do not like the idea of changing the rules (via reinterpretation or rewording) after teams have spent countless hours designing a robot that follows the spirit of the original rules.

The Sunlight Rule:
In order to be IN the loading zone, your robot must be in a position so that it is blocking sunlight (any kind of light that would be coming from above the loading zone) on some part of the loading zone. In so doing, the base of your robot must be blocking enough sunlight to make it CLEAR and OBVIOUS to the referee that you are IN the loading zone.
In order to avoid changing the spirit of the rule, <G12> still applies (no tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, etc).

I should clarify that the term "base" when used in the Sunlight Rule is not referring to the 28" by 38" base, but rather to the common sense base (the base that the robot is driving around on, whether it be 20 X 20 or 38 X 60). Also, the base does not consist of arms, tethers, tape measures, long extenders, etc.

-Andrew

I think you have hit the nail on the head here Andrew. I especially appreciate your definition of "base." A common sense base is what my kids thought they had made. It seems blatantly obvious as to which side is a teams base. Not every team is going to use the 28x38 footprint. We shouldn't be restricted to using it with 6 days of construction left.

Thanks

Jeff Rodriguez 27-02-2005 16:19

Re: The Sunlight Rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AJunx
The Sunlight Rule:

In order to be IN the loading zone, your robot must be in a position so that it is blocking sunlight (any kind of light that would be coming from above the loading zone) on some part of the loading zone. In so doing, the base of your robot must be blocking enough sunlight to make it CLEAR and OBVIOUS to the referee that you are IN the loading zone.
In order to avoid changing the spirit of the rule, <G12> still applies (no tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, etc).

According to the original rules, in order to receive another tetra from the [human or automated] loading station, you must EXIT the loading zone. We can all agree that to exit means to leave the loading zone. The Sunlight Rule deals with this in a straightforward manner:

In order to be considered OUT of the loading zone, your robot must move to a position where the base is not blocking any of the sunlight falling on the loading zone. In so doing, it must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS to the referee that your robot's base is now OUT of the loading zone. <G12> still applies.

Now, if a team wants to get another tetra, they may re-enter the loading zone and make sure that the base of their robot is covering enough of the loading zone to make it clear to the referee that they are again IN.

I should clarify that the term "base" when used in the Sunlight Rule is not referring to the 28" by 38" base, but rather to the common sense base (the base that the robot is driving around on, whether it be 20 X 20 or 38 X 60). Also, the base does not consist of arms, tethers, tape measures, long extenders, etc.

-Andrew

I agree that the base requirement needs to be flexible for teams that fall over or expand.

I do not agree with the 'sunlight rule'.

How much sunlight is enough? What about the lights from above the whole perimeter of the field?

We can argue for days telling everyone not to act like a lawyer, but this is what everyone is doing.

FIRST uses the baseball analogy to make the rules clear. If you are touching the loading zone you are in. If you are not touching the loading zone you are out.
There is no argument with a rule like this.

I can see the argument about a robots wheels being covered and not highly visible to the ref. Let me ask everyone this: How many robots have you seen that you couldn't tell where they contacted the floor?
Looking at the the pictures of robots this year, there are very few that do not have any wheels/treads showing.

I don't see this being as big a problem as everyone predicts it will be.

Again, the rule has been there since 1/11, giving teams plaenty of time to design properly.

jgannon 27-02-2005 16:28

Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trev2023
I don't think that the idea of the rule being "clear and concise" since 1/11 is fair.

For instance, when I first read the rule, I thought "blatantly obvious, okay, we just must have to make sure that we're over the loading zone". I didn't take time to analyze the one question out of the X many of them that are in the system. Like many others, I figured that this was to keep teams from extending arms into the loading zone to grab tetras.

It wasn't until after the build season has been over (my fault) that I or any of my team has seen the modifications. We have been busy working on the robot, not analyzing the rules. Now that I have read the Q&A's and have read all about the controversy. I guess we will just be putting some zip ties on the front of our robot to abide by it.

One more look at 978:
Quote:

ID: 978 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/11/2005
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.
The "blatantly obvious" clause is from 978, not the manual. Thus, if you are familiar with "blatantly obvious", then you should have seen "must be touching", too, since they're in the same paragraph.

AmyPrib 27-02-2005 17:12

Re: The Sunlight Rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogre
I can see the argument about a robots wheels being covered and not highly visible to the ref. Let me ask everyone this: How many robots have you seen that you couldn't tell where they contacted the floor?
Looking at the the pictures of robots this year, there are very few that do not have any wheels/treads showing.

I don't see this being as big a problem as everyone predicts it will be.

They may be visible so long as you're looking at that side of the robot. If the ref is not on that side of the robot, or cannot get to that side quickly enough, he may or may not call that "in". It was blatantly obvious to everyone standing on that side, but for the ref in the "wrong place at the wrong time", he couldn't see it because there was a whole robot body with side panels in his way. So does he flag it cuz he just missed it, or does he let it slide cuz it seemed like the robot was "in"? To be "in", is it mandatory for a ref to physically see it each time, or is there some allowance in there?
If there's enough refs (12 min) to cover the field and see things from all angles, this hopefully shouldn't be an issue.

I don't think it's fair for a team to have to slow down their retrieval process so that a ref can get there and see it - if he's not in the right line of sight to see you're "in" to begin with.
I guess I just can't agree with the baseball player running over a base analogy that Update14 states. My opinion is that it's not the same situation purely because of visibility issues. The touching part - yes, ok. Visibility of seeing the touching - no.
I don't watch baseball much, but there's usually a ref (at home and 2nd?) that can watch 2 runners at a time, and they can tell if they touched the base from 50ft away. If there's a ref assigned to each LZ, we have a better chance of consistency and good calls. But doubt all regionals will have 12 refs available.
Throwing in the confusion of what a "base" is near the end definitely throws a wrench in the works for some, after already saying the drivetrain can touch....As long as the drivetrain doesn't have to meet the 28x30, then you should be ok.

I like the touching, I just can't wait to see how the "obviousness" of the touching is called. If there's problems, HP zone might be easier to make it obvious since you probably have to be in a less accurate position to get a tetra. Any refs out there that have a take on it prior to first regional?

I just hope everyone can work it out and that this long thread proves to have been riled up for nothin'.... We'll wait and see... and will be interested to hear the comments after first few regionals are over with.

Raul 27-02-2005 21:46

Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
 
I have a suggestion for making it easier for the refs and participants to judge if they will be legal or not. This may take a little extra time during inspection, though:

Set up a small loading zone area next to the weigh in stations (1 HDPE triangle against a mock barrier and/or auto loader station) and "certify" each robot as they pass inspections to let them know what orientations of approaching the loading zone will be considered legal. Then create a card that the teams show to the refs who judge this area of the game so they will know they do not have to stoop over every single time that robot comes to the loading zone if it approaches the zone in it certified orientation and or direction.

OK, that may be too much to ask. But consider this - I think the refs will get to know the robots after a while and will not have to look so carefully to make the call every time. I am more concerned about the "which happened first" than the "are they touching at all".

For us, we know we are not capable of touching the tetra on the autoloader unless our drive wheel (which are very visible this year) are on top of the HDPE. By design, there is at least a 10" gap from the the time the wheel touches and the time we touch the tetra. And we like to do the pick up rather quickly. But unless the refs sees us go slowly a few times, it may seem like we are touching the tetra first.

Raul

meaubry 27-02-2005 21:57

Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
 
For everyone that refers to the rule not changing since 1/11 for "touching the hdpe with the robot base and/or" (answer to question #978) ... you must not have been wanting it to or something. There were many questions relative to the lack of understanding as to what or how a robot base could be touching? If the zone was 3 dimensional? Do extensions from the robot count as being in the zone? ect, ect, ect. Yes, many of the answers were "refer to question #978". My guess is that the responder must have thought that the response to #978 was clear - at least to some.
It wasn't until 2/16 that "load bearing within the max. 28"x38" base" was issued as a response to question #1617. I asked the question because I was still confused as to how a robot base could be touching the hdpe triangle in a way that would be blatantly obvious to the ref.
In retrospect, I am very glad that they have included "danglers extended from the 28"x38" base as a way to meet the requirement. As you all know that have been following the Q&A, that question was originally responded to with "No".
So, by allowing danglers now will give a larger group of teams(especially those with wide wheel bases) a chance to meet the requirement.
I wonder if an alternative solution would have been, turning the loading hdpe triangle around so that the flat side is facing out and the point is facing the loading station, as clearly the geometric problem for wide wheel based robots is that the point of the hdpe triangle is pointing out making them drive to the point that they are almost touching the rail. The tetra grabbers usually need some amount of room to do the magic - that distance and space is normally designed in, based upon the understanding of the starting position, which may not be the best solution or choice for picking up a tetra from a loading station.
Tom, due to feedback from the scrimmages the rule was altered. The discussion is good and maybe this and other discussions will also be something to remember at the summer meetings. Lessons learned so as to try to improve can be a good thing, improvements for next year.
So, whatever FIRST does we will all adapt to - because that is what we do.

Collmandoman 28-02-2005 15:21

Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
 
:::::sigh::::: There wouldn't be so much controversy over a rule if it just made sense, it's hard to not talk about because whenever you are reminded of it.. it makes you feel like you are in a dream world where logic is disallowed... so you must speak out, and not shove forks into your eyesockets

Ken Patton 28-02-2005 16:37

Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
 
I am late coming in to the discussion about what is “in.” I was hoping it would be resolved cleanly, but I don’t think that has happened.

What Q&A978 failed to do was to say specifically WHAT needs to touch the triangle. The “robot base and / or drive train” is what Q&A978 said. Some teams took that to mean robot-base-components including those outside the 28x38, things like wheelie bars and outriggers. Some teams might have tip-over designs that use some other dimensions on the floor.

We believed we satisfied 978 because when we pulled into the LZ it WAS blatantly obvious that we were over, and touching, the triangle. In plan view, it would be hard for a ref to *find* the triangle when we drive in straight and bump our wheelie bars against the field border. We’d be touching in at least three locations if you count the wheelie bars.

Then, on Feb16, Q&A1617 said that any load-bearing surface WITHIN 28x38 counted. Then, on Feb18, Q&A1698 said outriggers outside the 28x38 were NOT going to satisfy touching. SINCE WHEN IS THE ROBOT BASE REQUIRED TO BE 28x38? How is the ref going to say where 28” ends and 28+” begins? How does the ref know which side of the robot is the 28” side and which is the 38” side? What about tip-over robots? Why did FIRST decide this on Feb 16??

This ruling is way too late, and even worse, it is arbitrary in its use of the 28x38 box. It ought to be changed to something that does not penalize teams who are legitimately using their drive base as a drive base and NOT as a deployable “keep-me-in-the-LZ” device.

If the ruling stays as it is, it forces the refs to spend valuable effort to find a point of contact when the intent of the rule is simply to determine if the “body” of the robot is in the LZ. The ref should be looking for interferences and safety concerns at this point, not searching the ground for contact points…..

FIRST, this is an opportunity to simplify. It might not make you look really consistent, but it will save a lot of headaches and controversy and delays during the tournaments. Make a rule that’s easier to ref. Make a rule that satisfies your intent (safety, and eliminating deployable-keep-me-in-the-LZ devices). I hope you make a rule that doesn’t disadvantage teams who thought they were doing the right thing until Q&A 1617 came out.

Ken


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:13.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi