Re: Is this legal
 

It's not a bumper That is their frame. Bumper rules have absolutely no effect on the frame of the robot.

There is only one possible way it could be deemed illegal-If they start using it to tip robots, or if it is larger than the maximum dimensions.

What that means is that we can stop saying "iit's illegal!" "No, it's legal!" back and forth and leave it for the refs to figure out on the field.

Re: Is this legal
 

ok i'll give you that. if its used to ram its illegal. if its a bumper, its illegal. all other cases its legal.

Re: Is this illegal
 

Read the posts above. These are not bumpers. A bumper is a device that extends beyond the normal "box" and is designed to lessen the force of impact through cushioning. True bumpers have basically not been seen since 2000 when they were introduced. There may be some robots I've missed that used them but probably not many.

It seems to me that there are two reasons for non-use of this rule provision. First, they are part of your total weight. This is the first year since then that we have had enough weight budget remaining that we could consider them. Second, they must be removable yet may not contain any "hard" material. So there is nothing inside to grab onto and make sure they stay attached. We prefer not to waste good weight carrying around something that will fall off at the first good hit.

If it is part of your frame or even just fits within the "box", it does not have to meet the "hardness" test. These are within the box.

Re: Is this legal
 

Having seen all the controversy that wedge shape robots have caused in the past, I would certainly stay away from that design. Even if their purpose is strictly defensive, it is possible for them to accidental flip over a robot, and be DQ'ed. If a Ref see forward motion that he feels caused a robot to flip, he will call for a DQ. Remember all the flips that were part of "Stack Attack".

It is not worth the risk!

Re: Is this legal
 

The robot in question is all legal suppossing the demensions are acceptable for judging. Also note that where the design might not be illegal, it certainly has the ability to aim for a great illegal strategy during the game. I say this will be an interesting robot to look for at a competiton and how well it does. The legality of this design relies soley on the operators now as those who the members who actually implement the strategy. About the stack attack, that could be easily avoidable, in our case we ran a bi-directional design and our whole game was offensive as it didn't matter if we flipped, we ran either way. But thinking of a good way to avoid a malicious wedge this year will be pretty tough, and since ship date was passed, well the wedge may be used illegally at some competitons but is a favored design as it offers alot of protection from robots trying to stop an addition of points. Although, in my hopes I don't think that blocking will be much on the ground this season, alot of good arms with great reach and I think will play a good role when it comes to blocking scoring, they are really affective at block.!!

Re: Is this legal
 

Bob92 (& other critics),

While I am sure you meant no harm and simply wished to gain clarification of the rules, in the future please try to do so without pointing fingers at any specific team (either directly or indirectly).

This type of thread is exactly the reason why many veteran teams no longer post pictures of their robots on this site. Over the last few years numerous teams have been attacked, and basically put on trial, after simply attempting to share the results of their hard work. Please keep in mind that every team puts an enormous amount of time and effort into their design, and when they post it here it is because they are proud of their results and wish to share them with you. This sharing is one of the great things about FIRST, and one you would be hard pressed to find in any other competitive environment.

I, for one, look forward to seeing the innovative approaches and unique designs that teams share here each year. Let’s not stifle that by creating an environment where people are hesitant to post their most creative ideas because they are afraid of the fallout.

By the way 11 – Nice chassis, if you have a good arm to go with that you’ll be a tough team to stop!

Re: Is this legal
 

thats a great design, and it should be recognized as a job well done. Its strategic to have wedge shaped edges. driving forward, isn't in the G25 ruling, lifting up is. so, its not illegal to flip robots unless they LIFT UP and flip it. so, nice move 11. I like it

Re: Is this legal
 

Sorry, but that's just not accurate. Here's what <G25> says:

<G25> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, Triple Play is a highly interactive contact game. Some tipping, entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, entanglement, or damage occurs where it is not a part of normal game play, at the referee’s discretion, the offending team/ROBOT may be disqualified from that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team/ROBOT being disqualified from the remainder of the Regional or Championship competition.

Examples of normal game play interaction include:

• Pushing low on another ROBOT.

• Blocking or pushing on a TETRA that is in possession of an opposing ROBOT.

• Establishing ROBOT position to block access to a GOAL by an opposing ROBOT.

• Using an arm or gripper to prevent an opposing ROBOT from placing a TETRA on a GOAL.

Examples of inappropriate robot interaction include:

• Pushing high on a robot and tipping it over.

• Using an arm or gripper to repeatedly strike an opposing ROBOT that is not in the process of placing a TETRA on a GOAL.

• Placing any part of your ROBOT under an opposing ROBOT, and then lifting to flip it over.

• Using an arm and gripper to pull a ROBOT by grabbing electrical cables, hoses, etc. or disabling a ROBOT by tearing out wires or hoses.

• Grasping or attaching to a TETRA that is in the possession of an opposing ROBOT, and using it to pull over the opposing ROBOT.

• Ramming another ROBOT at high speed.

It is therefore illegal to employ a strategy aimed solely at "destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement" of robots; if that strategy takes the form of pushing with a wedge-shaped structure, in any direction, disqualification may result. Even though a "push-and-flip" manoeuvre is not listed in the examples, it can still be considered an illegal strategy, if the referee makes a determination that the aim of the strategy was consistent with one of the banned motives.

Using the wedge as a deterrent would probably be allowed--if no actual flipping (etc.) occurs, it's difficult for the referee to firmly determine the aim of the strategy. If 11 uses their wedge in this manner, I doubt they'll have any issues.

Chasing robots around with a wedge, claiming, "I was only pushing horizontally" will not fly. In all probability, you would be disqualified, mercilessly, because the referee will decide that the strategy employed was illegal, per <G25> (aimed solely at "tipping over", for instance).

A more interesting scenario would take place if a team tried to deliberately upend its own robot, using 11's wedge, for the purpose of getting 11 disqualified. This is itself a disqualifying offence, for the same reasons as above. (Yes, it's not a nice thing to do. That doesn't mean that stupid ideas like this don't get tried, occasionally.) The referee would have to be watching very carefully to figure out what was indeed going on--who pushed who, who's acting passively, who's the aggressor, etc.. Now, I think that as a practical matter, the onus would be placed on 11 to justify the existence of the wedge; it is awfully hard to be certain if a team was trying to flip itself, and absent that proof, the referee might want to take the obvious route, and disqualify 11, whether or not they actually broke a rule. To avoid this situation, the referee must be responsible for being very, very sure of their call--it is better to let it pass, and make no disqualification, than to disqualify the wrong team, because of unclear and fast-paced gameplay.

Re: Is this legal
 

I am going to put my foot down and say that it is definitely illegal. Above it was mentioned that it is ok if used as a deterrent. So, logically, I will attach a 50 inch saw blade to my bot, claim it was a deterrent and not be disqualified? "Oh, that blade...well...its just a DECORATION!?". If I get in a match with a bot that looks like that, I will petition the referee to dq them. Even though it probably was not intentional to make it a wedge that can flip , it can be employed to entangle a robot and will make it impossible to block them without having their robot wedged under your bot. It doesn't get any clearer than that. If a bot tries to block that bot, and its motor wheels get elevated off the ground because it ran up the wedge, then it is a clear violation of <G25>Section 4-The Game(Namely, entanglement). Entanglement is defined as preventing movement. If my robot can't move, it is entangled. Even though the non-wedge bot ran into the other bot, it was because of the wedge that the robot got entangled. BUT in a later satement that appends to the above stated rule, it states that entanglement is also part of normal gameplay. A ref would have to prove that the wedge was intentionally used to entangle another bot. I believe that any ref will say that it was intentionally used to entangle bots. Pushing low on a robot is ok, but pushing under(as this robot will most likely do) is not. It is an excellent defensive idea, but it is not in the spirit of FIRST and shouldn't be allowed to play. My philosophy is if it is questionable then don't do it.

Re: Is this legal
 

Do you know what entanglement means? I'm not sure that you do.

If I block your robot into the corner of the playing field with mine, you can't move. You are not, however, "entangled" with my robot. Entangled would be if you had a net on your bot and my arm gets stuck in it.

To be entangled, your robot has to not be able to break contact with the other robot. if you run into a wedgebot and get stuck on it, it can back up and you'd no longer be physically stuck to it. if you were entangled with it, the wedge bot would back up and you would still be stuck to it, and dragged with it.

Your example of a saw blade is completely irrelevant. Nobody will question that a saw blade is against the spirit of the game, not to mention a violation of every safety rule that exists. A wedge used in a defensive capability is a fantastic strategy. if Wildstang hadn't had their wedge in 2003 would they have been National Champions? Heck no!

As I said before, if a wedge bot is sitting still and another robot drives into it and flips itself or gets stuck, TOO BAD. YOU chose to drive into it.

Absolutely no ref will DQ this bot in a situation that I just described. In fact, you'll find it's a LOT harder than you think to get a DQ for tipping. Robots tip over all the time in very questionable situations--many where it seems obvious they were intentionally tipped, and nothing is called.

Petition all you want, it won't get you anywhere.

And finally, if another "it's illegal" "no it's legal" comment is posted in here, this thread will be closed. This horse has been beaten to death, and then trampled on and beaten again. There are multiple threads about tipping robots and other violations including wedges. If you want to continue discussion there, feel free. Otherwise you guys can stop cutting down Team 11's work.

$0.02

Cory

Re: Is this legal
 

EDITI was going to post what Cory said, but he beat me to it.

BTW, Don't you think that calling out another team and saying "their robot is illegal!", especially this close to the ship date, goes a little against gracious professionalism? Now that many teams are posting robot pictures, I've seen this happen in several threads, and in most cases, the robot in question was violating no actual rules. At least if you are going to call out another team, find a specific rule to cite.

Re: Is this legal
 

I just want to clarify some things. The robot is legal in the sense that it is not using the wedge to flip any bot. The wedge is not a bumper, it is part of the body. Cory up there is just searching for technicalities in the rules. What is the difference between using a net to entangle the arm(citing your example) and using a wedgebot to lift a robot off its motor wheels? In both cases, you are taking away some form of control over your bot; whether it be arm control or control of movement. Pinning a robot in a corner is legal because it is BLOCKING. Apparently the line between blocking and entrapping is blurred to you. And threatening to close the forum. Now that is just childish and cowardly. Just because the forum isn't going your way, you are going to close the forum. Professionalism isn't finding grey areas in the rules and exploiting them.

Re: Is this legal
 

I am going to take my own signature and stop arguing over the internet. I will leave it alone at this. A wedge shaped bot is a gray area. Blocking(As defined in the rule book) is defined as inhibiting movement while in the interaction of one or more field elements. Even at that, you can pin for 10 seconds and have to move 3 feet away. A wedge shaped robot is not blocking when it slides under and elevate the only pair of motor wheels. The robot is inhibiting movement, but the bot might not be in interaction with field elements. Take it for its face value and don't interpret it as a robot could be a field element. The wedge bot has the potential to inhibit movement without the interaction of a field element. Thus this is called entrapment. According to the rule book, if you inhibit movement without the inhibited bot touching a field element, you are given a 10-point penalty. If the rule continues to be violated, multiple 10 point penalties will be thrown and not a DQ. The wedgebot has the same ammount of potential to be legal as it does to conduct illegal activity. The refs should watch the movements of a wedgebot or any other bot carefully to ensure fair play.

See Section 4- The game Page 9/10 <G21> for further information.

Re: Is this legal
 

You know, that saw blade brings up a good point; even though something is mean-looking, it isn't necessarily illegal. (A standard saw blade, of course, would fail inspection, and even if by some circumstance it appeared on the field, the referee would immediately declare it unsafe and prohibit it.) If it (legally) strikes fear into the hearts of the opposition, so much the better: that is a good deterrent.

There is, however, no rule against wedges--<G25> stipulates that the strategy, and not the mechanism, is potentially illegal.

Regarding <G21>, and amateurrobotguy's comments:

<G21> A ROBOT cannot pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with one or more field elements) for more than 10 seconds. If a ROBOT has been pinned for 10 seconds, the team with the pinning ROBOT will be told by the referee to release the pinned ROBOT and back away approximately 3 feet. Once the pinning ROBOT has backed off by 3 feet, it may again attempt to pin its opponent and, if successful, the 10 second count starts over. If a referee determines this rule to be violated, a 10-point penalty flag will be thrown for each violation.

I believe that "entrapment" and "blocking" are neologisms in the FIRST vocabulary--there are no such definitions in the rules. <G21> specifically requires contact with a field element for pinning; there exists no alternate case in which such contact does not exist, and therefore, there are no such penalties. However, the suggestion that "[t]he refs should watch the movements of a wedgebot or any other bot carefully to ensure fair play" is entirely reasonable--this is their responsibility.

Re: Is this legal
 

Wedge strategies are effective if used as defense. In 2003, we used a wedge on each end of our robot for defense only. How many teams drove up on the wedge and tipped, even on the ramp? Not many. This year, we have wedges on our robot for stabilization purposes first and defense second. If someone drives up on us and tips, that's not our problem.

That said, I think that team 11's frame is perfectly legal if used for defense. And, it sure looks cool!