2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Didn't see a thread on it yet, so i figured I'd post it.

The 2005 FRC Team Update 14 is now available on the Team Updates page or directly at Team Update 14

Enjoy ...

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Looks like Andy got the baseball analogy spot on.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Guess this means the currnet YMTC Is actually valid.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Wasn't that Jason?

14 Updates in a whole build season. That's impressive. You can't deny FIRST isn't doing something right... there have been fewer total updates, with more put up on time, and with less significant changes than ever before.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I guess Andy was referring to Jason when he mentioned the baseball analogy, so yes. I did not catch that. Strangely, I didn't connect "wise guy" and Jason, although that seems perfectly clear now. :D

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I think a team meber said it best when I explained the rule to him..
him --- "you are kidding right? what? you aren't?

A suggested way to solve the problem -- Have zip ties hanging down, or string to contact the loading zone"

.. what does this do...??? it's obvious to me that cuting 20 pieces of 1 inch string protect all field attendents and all the viewers of Nasa Tv who see robtos will frilly things hanging off the front of robots..

If first is going to do this.. I suggest they put a pressure pad conencted to a light that turns on if you are on teh loading zone...
Otherwise imagine this....
Team blue1 is clearly not on the loading bay.. but they aren't going to get a penalty.. they proceed to pick up a tetra from the auto loading bay... team red1 notices and slams them at 12fps..... Team red gets a 30 point penalty...
But why? Because the ref had enough common sense to make more sense of a rule that has little.. but because of that.. he must give the penalty to red.
Imagine another ref that doesn't penalize red... must he then penalize blue?
Who knows what happens... FIRST really needs to rethink this --

And the baseball analogy... when a baseball player is on a base he just sits there.. he goes to the base to avoid being tagged out..
When a robot goes to a loading zone... he doesn't just sit there (auto loading zone) he attempts to perform a task.. the baseball analogy is just irrelevant

So here is my analogy.. My fiance calls me... I'm in another girls house!!!
She asks if I'm at her sisters house.. I say no.. only because I jump up in the air (I'm not touching her hosue.. ergo I'm not in/on it

</rant> I guess I just have a problem with things not making sense
Post your thoughts pls :p

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

ya know what here is my response, and everyone can take it for what its worth, its a game, it has rules play by the rules, or don't, BUT if you don't want to play by the rules prepare to deal with the results, i think i say this 200,000 times a season but may as well make this my second for 2005 season, THE REFS ARE ONLY HUMAN THEY CANNOT SEE EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING ON. so yes there will be mistakes, and yes there will be "Bad calls" but ya know what deal with it, THIS IS LIFE if you are that worried about the medal guess what you get one every year anway (participation medals), i don't want to make it seem like i am just going off on you this is just somthing i have been wanting to say for a while


Thats my rant, take it for what its worth

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

With all my respect

I hate these methods of logic..
1st.. yes it is a game.. FIRST is a blast it's the 'hardest fun you can have'
I think we can all agree that the atmosphere at a first competition is something out of this world. But think of it honestly and not try to appeal to the popular mass on this forum.. and how almost everyone feels... If you play any sport.. are involved in any game.. or hobby.. that has a deadline.. and you teach/learn/improve/work your hardest -- that is if you made goals -- and you meet your deadline.. it becomes a little more than a game.. everyone on this forum is lying if they respond with " no we just want to have fun " it's not actually about how well we do... I think you can see where this is going..

2nd... "live by the rules"... extreme correlation.. Blacks and both women should have just accepted their fate.. why speak out for reason, why try to educate the masses... same with the jews... they should have submitted to their german 'elite'.... Live by the rules or just leave... Just because I express extreme distaste for something doesn't mean I hate the system... you speak out to improve... this is becoming another rant..

3rd...People make mistakes... I think this is the basis of my argument. IF first is to maintain the rule.. there will be much confusion and many more bad calls during the season.. I agree completly with you that people make mistakes.. but they can make significantly fewer mistakes with more defined rules. In my previous post I gave a very possible event that can happen that will make no sense when ruled. How would you rule it?

I agree with Lavery when he says we shouldn't act like lawyers. But the way the rule is written it is black and white -- you must be touching. BUt the way the rule is inforced they have said is grey " don't attract attention to yourself". So what is one to do. The rules clearly says you shouldn't, the rulemakers almost say it's ok. Not all refs will act the same. If anything they need to relook at the rule and define it more clearly one way or another. Because I know the whole forum will be up in arms if one regional busts everyone for it.. and another doesn't.. or if both happen at the same regional.. It just needs to be more definate, that's all

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I think you miss the point of the analogy. It doesn't matter if you have your entire body covering the base; you aren't safe unless you're actually touching it. The loading zone is designed as a safety zone so that robots don't injure nearby field attendants and human players. The standardized way to ensure that a robot is actually in the zone is to make sure that something is touching the zone. The reason it must be part of the base or drive train is to fulfill the requirement of <G12> that the loading zone not be used as a perpetual safety zone, much as a baseball player cannot attach a string to second base, and then waltz over to third. If your body is touching the base, you're safe. If not, you're free game. The baseball analogy is quite pertinent.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I think my friend says it better than I do

StealingShrimp (10:05:24 PM): "Imagine in baseball if the runner just had to be over the base to be safe?"
StealingShrimp (10:05:31 PM): that is First's new statement
XXXXXXXX (10:05:46 PM): thats completely different
XXXXXXXX (10:05:49 PM): Humans are all the same
XXXXXXXX (10:06:01 PM): so its a level playing field


therefor I ask you.. how does being on the zone protect the field attendednts anymore than being over the zone.. how does tying zipties to your robot protect the field attendednts.. I don't believe I'm missing the point, but maybe there is something I and some other individuals aren't seeing

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

*blink* I don't even know how to respond to that.
It doesn't. However, they need a concrete rule so that reffing isn't as subjective. We have a tetra stand that extends maybe 18" from the front of our robot. Could we hang that over the loading zone, and have that count? What if we had a 10' structure cantilevered out there? Maybe we could put our arm in the 3D space above the triangle. Would that count? Since 1/11/05, FIRST has removed all question of what is counted as "in the loading zone": you must be touching, the part that touches has to be either part of your 28x38 base, or part of the drive train, and the refs have to be able to see what is touching. At competition, there should be NO question as to whether or not a team is in the loading zone.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

The problem i have with the rule is the absolute heavy-handed arbitration with which the rule was administered. It was as if they recognized a gray area in the rules, and instead of it being decided on a case-by-case basis by the refs, which would have its own set of inconsistencies, they quickly released a rule, AFTER ship, that has very different implications for different sized robots.

Edit: I didn't realize it had to be part of the drivetrain/chassis. This makes my point even stronger.

Personally, I think it would've been much more appropriate to simply leave the situation to the refs to decide. This rule is... poorly planned.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

the "xxxx" that collmando removed from the conversation is me.

Let me explain. I knew that he understood so i didn't articulate it very well in the conversation.

The baseball analogy doesn't fit, because in sports the only "device" you have on the playing field is a human. Now of course there is a measure of natural variation in the human species, but it is MUCH less than the variation in the size and shapes of robots. Since the variation in humans is so low, pretty much any rule you make is going to affect everyone the same way, and therefore be a fair rule, more or less.

When your players are robots which run the gamut in terms of length, width, height, drivetrain, grasping mechanisms, etc, a rule such as the one that they've passed will affect the different robots in wildly different ways.

That was my point, anyway.

as it is, i think this rule would've been fine if it had been released a reasonable amount of time BEFORE ship... But this late in the game is definitely NOT the time to be changing the rules so significantly.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I never suggested that having an arm over the surface would put you in..
when the comeptition came out.. I assumed this along with many others.. you should be at the zone.. covering the zone ... not teathered to the zone.. i




--quote jgannon --The loading zone is designed as a safety zone so that robots don't injure nearby field attendants and human players.

Originally Posted by Collmandoman
therefor I ask you.. how does being on the zone protect the field attendednts anymore than being over the zone.. how does tying zipties to your robot protect the field attendednts.. I don't believe I'm missing the point, but maybe there is something I and some other individuals aren't seeing

Originally posted by Jgannon
It doesn't.

?????????????????



I completly agree with you about attachign the string analogy to the loading zone. ones drivebase makes more sense for their method of play -- and safety

but with all that you said... none of it followed my argument.. why must we touch it? Sure FIRST says we have to.. but why? (if it's not for safety, and it's not being used for a perpetual safety zone[which it isn't]-- if the drivetrain is overlapping)

if you were to use the long configuration of the kit bot drivetrain.. there is a possibility that you can touch the wall and not the zone.. now can you tell me that is fair.. .
I mean honestly.. is this not registering with other people? YOU CAN BE TOTALLY UP TO THE WALL ABOUT TO GRAB A TETRA AND NOT BE IN THE LOADING ZONE.

Simple solution.. refs must look always to see if you are touching.. or install a pressure pad.. or change the rule to you projection onto the surface makes you in the loading zone DEFINE THE RULE MORE CLEARLY, explain how it will ALWAYS be ruled --

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

the pressure pad wouldn't help if you were a wide bot, as you said. If there's no contact, there's no pressure.

the only way i see that it makes sense is to have it be somewhat subjective, at this point. If the rule was instated at or soon after kickoff, then teams could've accounted for it. But now, if there's a problem with it, too bad, we're at a disadvantage at no fault of our own... which i think is the very definition of "unfair."

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...

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I don't see the point of these arguments. Regionals have not begun and neither you, me, jgannon, or even Mr Lavery know how teams are going to play the game. Sure, there might be some speculation from scrimmages and such, but don't argue for something that has not happened yet. You have a point that refs may overlook the rule or people may interpret it wrong, but nothing has happened yet... there is no problem. If you go to a regional event and run into a problem with this rule, by all means come back here and complain. But for now, take confidence in FIRST and the refs. They may not be prefect (you have shown your thoughts on the matter quite clearly), but everyone involved is trying their hardest to make this game run smoothly and most of all, fun.

So until its a pressing problem, let it go.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

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 dimensionsal? 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 quess 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 blatently 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.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

On 1/11/05 FIRST clarified the definition of "being in the loading zone." They did not make it a requirement to be in the loading zone to pick up a tetra from the autoload station until team update #8 which was well into February and much to late to change robot designs. We designed our robot to be able to pickup tetras from the loading zone extremely quickly. It was the main focus of our strategy. This late rule change completely took away our ability to use the autoloader, and negated our key strategy. My issue is that by February it is much to late to make rules that affect the design of the robots. It is too late to redesign at that point.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Not to stump anyone's good discussions here, but there's another (much longer) thread on this very same topic in the "rules/strategy" category, it's called "load bearing surface".
A lot of the points in this thread have already been made and discussed there as well. Might continue, or add to that one instead.
Just trying to keep duplicate discussions to a min...
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=34895

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

And this is exactly the point me and collmando have been trying to make. The rule was poorly planned and implemented. I guess we're just supposed to deal with it, <shakefist> but its unfair. </shakefist>

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I think that discussion upon the legitimacy of a rule is appropriate here. Personally, it looks like this has changed from a dscussion about a rule to a discussion about whether we should question the FIRST guys...

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

If you read my response for content, you would know that this has nothing to do with "questioning the FIRST guys" There have been many obnoxious remarks in this thread about what seems to be a pretty simple rule...

You are either touching the loading zone, or not.

I don't see what this has do referees, gracious professionalism, or the holocaust. In my post I was simply trying to ask people to wait until regionals begin before making outrageous predictions or talking down about the refs.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Tom relax man... we aren't attacking the refs.. we think this rule is going to hurt them and all the teams.. they dont' needs to spend time looking for this...
which they prob won't.. but we need to know exactly how this is going to be judged.. if you are covering the entire zone and they can't see.. will you get a penalty? we need to know now so we can atleast act accordingly to this rule


you can't deny there is a huge grey area right now.. this really needs to be solved before friday

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Well in that case your best bet would be to talk to the head ref at your first event. If he/she says you are fine, dont worry about it. If he/she says your robot is illegal, hang a string or something to touch the loader. Then, alert the refs you have done so to avoid any penalties.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I would make a strong wager that this topic will be brought up on the "drivers meeting" at each and every regional, and the head ref will define what is "in" and "out" of the loading zone. Each year, the head referees communicate better, and this is the hot topic this year.

Everyone just needs to sit back and see what happens at the first regional.

Andy B.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Read 1764. Further clarification is there.

If you assume "never rely on stage state 2" is a type meant to read "state 3"--and I think we can safely assume that is the case--then we have a pseudo-answer here.

--Petey

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Part of the problem is that many robots can not clearly move from state 1 to state 2. This discussion is only focusing on the robots that are going to be in state 3, which there will be robots that end up there. If all robots could clearly move from state 1 to state 2 at all times, they would of course, do it. These people aren't arguing on how they can get around the rules or how to take advantage of them. They are arguing what can be done to support/ how it can be supported so that the game will be fair and just. The refs are humans and we won't be able to argue their decisions once given, but the problem is that the rule the judges are given to support is very difficult to clarify and has a high probability of error. FIRST, although doing their best, should not be leaving such a high probability of human error due to reasons such as the unrest that it is causing right now. Hopefully, the problem will be given the attention it deserves so that the designers won't have to have zip- ties hanging down as a solution and the strategists won't have to waste time worrying about the exact angle the robot is going in at. Until that is done, there is a problem with the rule and it only makes sense that people are going to be arguing over it. If any decent solutions can be thought of to adapt to the unfortunate status quo, they would be very helpful until (hopefully!) FIRST recognizes the problems with the rule and finds a better way to enforce it.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

The answer to Question 1764 has been corrected. It appears that there was a typo, and it is now consistent with Petey's interpretation.

This falls perfectly in line with "Dave's Theory Of Quantum Robotics." A robot can only exist in one of two states. It is either all the way "IN" the loading zone (FIRST has defined this back on 1/11/05 as being clearly and obviously in contact with the loading zone triangle with either the robot drive system and/or an element of the robot base; and if it is in contact with such a robot component then by definition some part of the robot is also within the volume of space vertically above the triangle), or it is all the way "OUT" of the loading zone (where all parts of the robot are completely and obviously outside of the volume established by a vertical projection of the triangular loading zone). If you are not all the way "IN" (FIRST's "State 2"), or all the way "OUT" (FIRST's "State 1"), then your state must be indeterminate (FIRST's "State 3").

When in this indeterminate condition, it is impossible to declare with certainty if the robot is "IN" or "OUT." The degree of certainty will be modified by the observational angles, distances, field of view, and other factors. All that can be categorically determined is that there is a probability that the robot may be "IN" or "OUT." A robot that is over, but not touching, the loading zone falls into this situation - there is a probability that it may be "IN" but there is not enough knowledge about the state of the robot to make a declarative determination. The quantum state of the robot is unknown. This is a transitional state through which the robot must pass while moving from the "IN" quantum to the "OUT" quantum (and back again), but while in this state the robot may only be referred to with probabilities of its condition.

It is not the job of the referees to base their decisions (and potential penalties) on probabilities of an event occuring. They must base their decisions on specific, black-and-white determinations of the state of the game. When it is necessary to determine if the robot is "IN" the loading zone, the referees should use only those crtieria that can conclusively show that the robot is indeed in the required state (i.e. if it is touching, then we know that it is in the zone). When it is necessary to determine if the robot is "OUT" of the loading zone, the referees should use only those criteria that can conclusively show that the robot has indeed left the entire loading zone (i.e. no part of the robot is in the vertical projected area of the triangle, therefore we know that it cannot be touching the zone). Asking the referees to detemine the probable state of the robot based on questionable observational information is just asking for arguments, challenges, and chaos on the field.

-dave

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Checking to confirm which events 968 is registered for right now

;)