Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

While i would like it be considered as qualifying for 'bonus' points, the rules show that it is not. As Dave pointed out earlier, anything you set out on the field is your robot. You cannot break the robot into various sections that receive different rulings. Redabot could have easily designed their robot to release only one ramp at a time, but they didn't. They could have foreseen this happening ,as I'm sure many teams may have, and designed around it.

If your opponent broke the 72" x 72" size constraint with their ramps you would quickly point out the rule that penalized this. Why? Because the ramps are part of their robot. How can you go about claiming that they aren't in one situation, but they are in another? The GDC is consistent throughout the rules as to what constitutes a robot, part of a robot, or what have you. You can't make an exception to the rules because you wish it was one way.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Consider this in addition to the YMTC issue as posed: During a match at the Pittsburgh Regional last week, we attempted to clear tubes from our home zone so we would avoid this same YMTC issue. We received a 10 point penalty for herding. We are a lifting only robot. We have no manipulator and were not grasping or otherwise possessing any rings. We simply pushed a group of rings with our chassis only. The result was uncontrolled movement of the rings in multiple directions. If you can't be on the rings and you can't move them out of the way what is one to do?

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Why must everything be fact? I thought this was a place where one could state their opinion. I admit i misinterpreted this...but I did add "I say..." when I presented my opinion. The facts are the lift doesnt count...my opinion is the lift should count, as I DO NOT FEEL this was the intent of this rule, but thats just my opinion.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Looks like I have to revise my post based on Dave's posting.
looks like the red alliance scored 44 points and the blue alliance scored 64. To add insult to injury the refs still give the red team a 10 point penalty for celebration.

Final score red 34 - blue 64. Blue wins the regional & the kids all collect their medals with pride because they know they just won.

edit** glad I waited to vote because I just broke the tie - blue team now wins the regional.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

The above logic isn't true either. For his statement to be true, either the ramp must not be part of the Robot, or the statement that support is a transitive property must be false. Brandon was implicity denying the assertion that support is transitive when he said what he did. He used the word as is most intuitive, especially considering what is actually the definition.


The statement that support is a transitive property is also not necessarily true, unless we take the GDC's words as automatic truth. It is true that if the entirety of the ramp robot was supported by a tube, then the raised robot would also be supported by that tube; however, it is not mentioned that the entire ramp robot is supported by the tube, nor can it be guaranteed if only part of the robot is supported. From a physical perspective, supported would seem to mean that the force on the tube remains the same or decreases in magnitude when the raised robot is placed on the ramp. In practice, if the raised robot's position remains the same when the tube is removed, it is apparently not significantly supported by the tube and probably not supported at all.

By this common-sense definition of support in the original rule, the bonus points would be awarded.
By the interpretation the GDC expressed, the bonus points are not awarded.

It seems to me the original interpretation is more in accordance with the spirit of the game. If I am wrong, the rule should stay as Q&A clarified. Otherwise, the GDC ought to thoroughly define support and not rely on the transitivity of it. For a term that has such an impact on the outcome of games, the common-sense definition clearly does not suffice. Between the poor understanding of the rule as written (as demonstrated by this split poll)

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

well i dont know about you but, to me the real meaning of that rule would be

if you use a game piece to get extra height ( i.e. stack two ringers and get on top of them to get points )

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

I saw the same thing happen at GLR, Red lost the match due to a ringer interfering with bot and ramp. The rules this year are way over the top. I long for the "use common sense" of games gone by. At least it's not the use "rules" to fight gravity, as was the case with the teteras.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Cody has the right idea here: "supported" isn't a defined term in the manual (when referring to robots on top of each other). He quoted a standard layman's definition, which is a good starting point. But from a physics point of view, we need to ask ourselves whether supporting something means to withstand a normal force due to that thing, or if resistance to other forces (e.g. frictional forces) comes into play.

For the simple case where a robot is on top of another robot's ramp, and that ramp is on top of a toroid, the result is unambiguous: the top robot is obviously being (indirectly) borne upon the toroid. No points are scored.

For the more complex case where the top robot is on one ramp, and another ramp, independently connected, is on top of a toroid, the definition of support becomes important, as a matter of principle. Of course, given that the Q&A says that "any Robot supported by a robot supported by a Game Piece" does not earn bonus points, it seems that as far as the rules are concerned, there's still no question. No points are scored.

The real issue here is why the Q&A assumes that having Red 1, partially supported by a toroid and fully supporting Red 2 means that Red 2 is supported by that same toroid. Hypothetically, assume that Red 1's first ramp (supporting Red 2) is attached to the rest of the robot by a cable (too short to be an entanglement risk), and otherwise only supported on a series of legs, and its second ramp is mounted in some other fashion (let's say a hinge attached to the robot frame) and resting on top of a toroid. The only way that Red 2 is supported by the toroid is if the definition of supported also takes into account the internal forces within the cable. And because the cable could be slack, these aren't just tension forces; these could be the internal shear forces that resist the disintegration of the cable. That makes for a peculiar definition of support. I suspect that they just forgot to consider this case, but wrote the Q&A response in a way that inadvertently covers it. Alternatively, it could be written this way deliberately, to avoid the referees having to make a determination as to whether support exists—they just treat everything as supported.

Another case is a statically indeterminate system: Red 1's ramp that supports Red 2 also lightly pinches a toroid between the alliance station wall and the ramp. A friction force between the toroid and the ramp resists the downward motion of the ramp, as does a normal force (through the floor). If you take the toroid away, and nothing else moves, can we truly say that the ramp was not being supported by its friction force? Or do we now have friction to worry about when determining support? In actual fact, the forces on the ramp changed appreciably, and the microscopic deflections due to that frictional shear force are replaced with deflections due to the compressive normal force. On a practical level, a method of checking for this is impossible to implement. But if we aren't careful with our definition of "support", we shouldn't be surprised when someone argues that the inability of the referees to measure the state of the ramp shouldn't be an impediment to the theoretical implications of that state being taken into account when the rules are applied.

I should also note that there isn't a rule conflict here; as it stands, the rules and the Q&A are mutually consistent on this point. It's just that some of the more obscure consequences don't exactly follow from the justification provided. That doesn't make it a good ruling, but it does look like an enforceable one. As for the call, blue wins.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

If we're splitting robots into pieces, just how much of the robot has to be supported before all of it is supported? Would anyone like that judgment call?

The rule as written is clear. If the bottom robot is being supported by a tube, the upper robot doesn't gain points. No matter if the lower robot gets an advantage from resting on the tube or not.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Current Definition of G56:



Ironically, the above sounds a lot like the lawyer speak the GDC attempts to discourage. If the party of the first part offends the second part because the first part didn't serve those tasty little wiener in a blanket hors d’œuvres the second part's third part expected to see at the party of the first part.....

Why must so many original game manual rules require more than a cursory two second analysis to determine without a doubt what the intent is? Why must there be so many Q&A clarifications for these rules in the first place? Why can't the original definition clearly communicate the intent?

I believe Cody is correct - I cannot find the definition of "supported" anywhere within the Game Rules. Lacking any knowledge of the GDC's opinion of what "supported" means (do you think we should automatically know?), most people would tend to arrive at the same conclusion - that a ringer stuck under a rampbot's ramp all the way on the other side of the rampbot does nothing to support the lifted robot on the other side. Indeed, most people I've heard have independently arrived at the same opinion - that the rule simply said a robot on a lifting mechanism supported DIRECTLY by a game piece is not to receive the bonus points. If the GDC intended for the YMTC situation to nullify bonus points all along, then they shouldn't be publishing a Q&A clarification on the matter on 2/26; they should have instead incorporated it into the original release in early January.

I think the 50/50 split in the voting is a result of a division between those who have read the Q&A "clarification" and those who haven't. I freely admit, I wasn't aware of the Q&A posting. I've read many - that one I missed among the myriad others that have been posted. Some believe reading the Q&A religiously should be a natural part of any team's daily routine. Others, like me, believe team members are already stretched to the limit in their efforts to keep a team functioning smoothly, and they would prefer if the rules were actually clear, concise, and easily interpreted as originally written.

My brain hurts.

"Interpret"....."Careful consideration".......these words imply the need to spend more than a few moments assembling the pieces of some nebulous puzzle. Rules shouldn't have to be interpreted - their intent should be obvious. The fact you believe we must "carefully consider" the meaning inherently suggests a problem with the rule in question. Why can't a rule be cut and dry? Just say what you mean from the beginning!

And you doubt the validity of the frustrations that are the backbone of these reactions? Take care to heed these warning signs - these people aren't getting upset for trivial reasons. In the case of referee criticisms (which are probably most trivial of all the concerns being voiced by teams), most of the ire has derived from referees or others trying to rewrite ESTABLISHED, WELL-DEFINED RULES to mold the game in their own image. This year's curious decision to prohibit defense against tubeless robots at GLR would be one prime example. The tendency to progressively deconstruct and rewrite the orginally-well established defensive contact rules in 2005 is another. When people believe rules are rock solid and then find out some people of influence presume they can rewrite them at will, changing the gameplay on a whim, it tends to upset them.


In my case, I only question rules that were never really well-defined in the first place. It's hard to redefine something that has no original definition. Heck, no matter how bizarre, goofy, or just plain dumb I think a game rule is, if it is clearly stated in the original manual, I'd have no beef with it. I'd just view it as another part of the challenge. I don't view Q&A responses released six days after the ship date in the same light. By the way, I believe these responses, according to the GDC, aren't to be treated as official rule revisions - I still don't see anything in the "official" manual description of G56 that makes this YMTC decision a no-brainer.


I believe this would be an appropriate reaction given the (still) nebulous nature of this rule as written in the manual. If the rule's intent were obvious as it was originally written, then heck, it'd just be another quirky part of the game, and I'd gladly accept the champion's trophy. But if I felt a poorly-defined and communicated (post ship date, no less!) rule snuck up and smacked a team upside the head at the most heart-wrenching moment, I'd seriously consider refusing to accept the victory as valid. Perhaps there's nothing FIRST would let me do to officially decline the trophy, but I'd at least make a symbolic gesture, if anything to bring the problematic rule to the spotlight of public opinion.

*This all presumes my team could actually win a regional in the first place. :o

I suppose it is good someone is going the "cute" route to illustrate the current GDC intent of G56 via this YMTC, but it is truly sad that the 50% of poll respondents who didn't "get it right" weren't given the opportunity to quickly learn of the rule's intent when they first printed out their manuals in January.......

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

I've been waiting on this one, hoping sanity might prevail. As I see that it hasn't, I thought I'd comment real quick. As I read the Q&A, the only way it can be interpreted is that Red 2 is supported by Red 1 is supported by a ringer, thus no bonus. However, instead of reaching the conclusion that this is the exact interpretation the GDC intended here and is thus holy law writ in stone, I'm hoping someone will come to their senses and re-clarify this issue in a new Q&A. A headache and hair tearing example follows:

Our robot holds its ramps together with a piece of spectra cable attached to one ramp. Upon deployment, the cable often swings out past the ramp to lay on the floor. Thus, when both ramps are lifted, the cable might hang down from the end of the ramp. So according to this ruling, if our cable happens to end up hanging down from the end of the ramp, laying on the top of a ringer, then 2 robots 13" off the ground magically become 0 points. Because of a piece of string that is, in fact, completely and utterly physically incapable of supporting any load whatsoever in compression. A piece of string, people. Or broken chain, or a busted arm, or, you know, anything at all, really.

Speaking of, here's a fun new strategy to employ based on this interpretation. If you have a poor ramp bot, grab a ringer and wait until your opponent lifts or has robots on top of him and is utterly incapable of defending himself. Shove the ringer under his ramp or, indeed, any available part of his robot. In fact, as long as it's in contact with any dorsal surface of his robot, you're good. Incur a 10 point penalty, maybe, but observe with malevolent glee that your opponent has now been robbed of a whopping 60 points. Repeat until you've waltzed your way through elims.

Note: The above strategy is meant to show that this is silly. Okaying a strategy that completely nullifies most all ramp bots and can be implemented while they're utterly defenseless seems pretty darn silly to me.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

In many past games, simply touching a scored game piece made that piece not scored. The robot did not need to be supporting or grasping that piece, just contacting it, regardless of how insignificant the contact was.

How is this ruling any different?

So if you have a ramp bot, tubes are now your natural enemy (more so than before), avoid them at all costs. As it is so often said "It is just another part of the game challenge".

On a side note, are we going to see opposing tube bots chasing ramp bots around with a tube? It wouldn't be the first time a game piece was used defensively on an opponent's robot. That certainly would add fuel to ramp bots vs. tube bots arguments. The great thing about this game strongly encourages the 2 strategies to work together (unlike shooters vs dumpers last year) so the arguments shouldn't get too heated.

EDIT: Kevin beat me to the "Tube Stalking" strategy :(

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

The aforementioned nebulous rule definition notwithstanding, there is one degree of separation between the touched game piece and the robot whose position you're evaluating for the validity of bonus points?

If I were a ref (I'm not) and I possessed a decent pair of eyes (I certainly do) and half a brain (perhaps not as obvious), I think I'd be able to tell when a game piece was contributing to a robot's elevation and when it wasn't. Why anyone believes we must make the most extreme of "support" cases a bonus points quashing rule to make a ref's job "easier" is beyond me.

So what's next level of rule escalation? The human player of the robot that's supporting the robot in position for bonus points is touching a ringer at the end of the match, so the bonus points don't count? The human player wants the robot to do well, and he's holding a ringer; thus he's "supporting the robot with a game piece", right? :rolleyes: According to the existing definition of G56, the GDC could issue this "clarification" in a Q&A and have the refs start enforcing it on the field. The open-ended nature of these rules is truly what drives a lot of people up the wall. Define the rule. Slam the door shut in its face. Keep it locked up. Throw away the key. Don't let it escape.

I jokingly and respectfully advocate the adoption of the Tristan Lall Rule - any time Tristan feels compelled to use his own special brand of thorough analysis on a particular subject, the subject matter is automatically deemed far more complicated than it needs to be! :p

Anyway, ringerbots can do what they want to try and limit a rampbot's effectiveness, but in the end, the good rampbots will still prevail at ramping. Can I get a "MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA" from the congregation? By all means, go right ahead and spend valuable time not scoring as you pester my rampbot brethren with ringers in our home zone. As long as the refs aren't hampering us with equally nebulous "herding" penalties when clearing out the refuse (most troublesome that someone reported this happening at a regional - gah), we'll be fine. Go forth and elevate. Amen.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

One final odd point I thought of last night. How does this affect a hybrid ramp/ringer bot? If they still have a ringer in their possession at the end of the game and it's touching the floor and their grabber, do their ramped bots count? What it it's one of the many top top grabbers I've seen and it's resting on top of a ringer? As T. Hoffman has said, this rule is so nebulous at this stage, that a ringer lifting device resting on top of a ringer can be constured as supporting a robot with said ringer.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Where ever possible, arguments should be supported by facts, under the basic provisions of the YMTC threads. As Lucien notes "please reference specific rules when applicable." This is important because the basic premise of YMTC is that you are the referee for the event. You are being asked to make an official ruling. Your job is to enforce the rules that exist. As such, all your rulings need to be supported by specific FRC rules and appropriate facts. As a referee, it is not your job to write new rules or inject your opinion on the propriety of the rules into the deliberation process for a specific call.

The elegance of the whole YMTC challenge is that it forces you to put yourself in the place of "the other guy" and try to understand how they view the world from their position. In this case, you have to try to understand the view of a game situation from the reference point of the referee. How you look at the game as a team member or a game player doesn't matter in this discussion. The only thing that does matter is how well you can understand the role of the referee, the job they have to do, and the type of decisions that they must make.

Why is this important? Because the ability to truly understand how "the other guy" thinks, and how they see the world from their point of view is a massively important skill. I have the utmost respect for the job the referees have to do, and the difficulty of their position. Exercises like this help us understand even better just how tough their job is. In the rare cases where we do have a serious objection to a decision that a referee may make, being able to understand their view of the situation can very frequently help to address the concern. At the very least, it makes us better prepared to consider the opposing side of an argument, understand the counter-points, and have appropriate considerations ready.

Learn to do that, and make it a regular skill that is consistently applied when trying to understand why a referee has made a particular call. And when you can do that, you will suddenly find that that skill is transferable to many, many other situations. That same skill is incredibly important when you are dealing with college professors, professional compatriots, business competitors, other organizations, other companies, and other countries. There is an unfortunately small percentage of people can really do this well. But those that can see the world from the other person's point of view are capable of making huge impacts on the world.

As has been said so many times before, FIRST is not just about the robots. In fact, the robot have almost nothing to do with it. The lessons, practices and skills to be learned in FIRST are so much larger than just learning how to put a few pieces of metal together and making them moved (although that is a wonderfully cool side benefit :) ). YMTC has very little to do with just seeing who knows the rulebook better than the other guy. Just like the rest of FIRST, it is so much deeper than that…

Sorry, Travis, you don't get off that easy. I never said the rule required a lot of thought to understand. Nor did I say you had to think a lot to understand the meaning of the rule. What I did say was that if you considered the situation carefully, you would understand why the rule has to be the way it is. The rule is easy to understand. What requires some thought is trying to understand why the rule is necessary in the form it has. Read the discussion above, and try the same exercise. You are a smart guy, and you don't need to have the answer spoon-fed to you. Put yourself in the place of the GDC, and think about the information that was available at the time the rules were written (and more importantly, what was not available). Think about the variability of all the factors that are affected by the rule. Think about the position of the referee when calling the rule. Like I said, you are smart and you will get it. And when you do, that enlightenment may lead to understanding of why other rules are the way they are.

-dave