Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I've asked this in a couple of different threads, and I don't yet fully understand. What rule has changed after 1/11/05?

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

none. pardon my misaprehension, i did think it was a recent rule change. But regardless, even though it was a rule change a while ago, when did any of us find out about it?

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

The decision was posted on 1/11/05. Important changes are in the team updates that are sent out twice a week. The updates also encourage teams to keep up on the Q&A, since it contains information that the manual missed. The ruling was widely distributed before anyone started building a robot.

<edit>
From the other thread about this topic:
</edit>

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

This may seem like a weird justification, but then how did WE not know about it? We have two or three members that are pretty active on chief delphi (or used to be before some bannage occured), we have a mentor who checks the site all the time, etc. Did we just not pick up on it?

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

With all this being true.. the rule was strengthened only recently to include more ambiguity and confusion amoung teams.. Most assumed as LAVERY has said don't acty like LAWYERS... realize what the rule wants and agree with it..
ok.. so there is a triangle.. you need to touch it? no make it obvious you are within it and grab a tetra.. that's what it means to say.. it is just as safe.. it's not cheating.. and not touching the zone doesn't affect my score/other teams score in any way
We know what the rule is intended to mean... why is it soooo imperative that we touch the zone.. it doesn't promote safety.. or break rules.. or give an unfair advantage.. if you fcan say anything... it would be UNGP to give a penatly for being over the zone and not touching it.. because we know the spirit of the rule...
so.. if somebody can explain why... do so
don't say "first says so that's why" there is a reason to every other rule in that manual.. think about this before you respond and say... just live with it it's what they say

boldest statement of the day.. I don't think Lavery intended for it to be like this -- because it doesn't follow logic -- maybe that will get him to give his 2cents :)

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I guess not. The link to the updates is e-mailed out on the frcpublic mailing list twice a week. Also, the topic was discussed here just after the question came out. It's unfortunate that you missed it. :(

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

hm. Okay. we just didn't see it.

Well, that takes a lot of the wind out of my sails, but i still stand firm in saying that its a poorly thought out rule.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

YES. There is no need to be a lawyer when a rule clearly states something. The rule says you must be touching the triangle. There is no gray area there whatsoever. Remember Dean Kamen's speech last year about what the definition of "straddling" is? If the rule explicitly says something, you can't try to read into it what you think they really mean.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Think about how industry works. If there was a demand that the machines your company was making had to be touching a triangle, for whatever reason, merely hovering over the triangle isn't going to cut it. FIRST emulates real life. If industry or consumers demand something, no matter how unreasonable, either you conform or you sit on the sidelines. Is the rule awkward? Sure... I don't deny that. Nonetheless, we have to deal with it. It's rough, but that's the whole idea.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Oh come now. There's a difference between a real life situation where there's an actual reason for a certain product to perform a certain task, and a competition where something is arbitrarily decided to clarify the rule. Knowing the way the first guys usually work, i think they would've emphasized that they'd made the rule to emulate real-life situations rather than saying it was to clarify a rule... I may be wrong. W/e, I have no doubt in my mind that that WASN'T their intention in making the rule.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I'm not trying to justify the rule. It's obvious that the rule is not nearly as clear as it ought to be. My point is that we've been given an arbitrary set of parameters, as is often the case in industry. We have to work with what we're given. No amount of discussion about how the rules don't please us ought to change the rules, if FIRST is to emulate real life.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Okay. Since apparently we've both spiralled into a "lets see who can have the last word" contest (seeing as apparently we're in agreement)... uh...


EVISCERATE THE PROLETARIAT!!!!


*edit* We're in agreement in all that i care about. I dont agree with you about how the rule shouldn't be changed or whatever, because not caring about that at all shouldn't be called agreement.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Heres my thinking:
First off, Rules are rules, they have been set, So we have to deal with them, no matter how much whining or debating we do!

The intent here is to protect everyone, hence the reason they allowed zipties and other silly stuff as of team update 12 or 13.

What they should have done is wrote a rule that says that the base or center of gravity must be over the loading zone.

What im curious to see is how the handle teams that use a moveable touch device to be in and out of the safe zone

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

This rule is like the straddle the line rule in 2004. It is clear and concise, In 2004 to straddle the line part of your robot had to be on both sides on the line, thats the definition of straddling. In 2005 to be in the auto loading zone your robot must be touching the triangle, to touch is to be in direct contact with, clear and concise, i do not see what the problem is that everyone is having.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I hate to keep on and keep on... but jeeeeeeesus
That was a starting parameter last year.. and it just makes sense..
touching a loading zone is ridiculous, serves no purpose, just whatever.. every rule that exists in FIRST till now has had a purpose-- whether it be for safety or whatnot.. this has none.. and if you give me one I'll concede

and if there is no action taken to clarify how it will be judged this next weekend is going to be mayham..

can you all not see what will happen? one of 3 things
case 1 -- the judges realize how petty it is and only get on teams who clearly violate the rule (their base is outside the triangle)
and people realize how much we blew this out of porportion

case 2 -- Some calls are made some aren't... so it becomes a "why didn't you call that ref" and teams become very upset

case 3 -- Teams are clearly over the triangle.. and the refs are soo into the rule.. some matches end in a 0-0 tie.. "so it would have been easier to have put an aluminum soda-can on the field and waited for the 10 points you got for staying behind the line - and gone HOORAY, we are soo good Pepsi sponsors us btw

maybe I'm being a bit dramatic.. but people will be up in arms like the teather rule...